From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  1 02:28:56 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:28:56 -0000
Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fiq2ea+7hed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiqgt8+9f5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179500


> a_svirn:
> Except that Snape fed the information to Voldemort not to protect 
Harry (it had, in fact, increased the danger considerably), but to 
improve his own standing. 
> 
Carol:

That statement is directly contradicted by canon. Dumbledore tells
Snape that he will have to give LV the correct date to avoid raising
suspicion, but he adds, "However, you must plant the idea of decoys.
That, I think, ought to insure Harry's safety." Snape then tells
Mundungus, "You will suggest to the Order of the Phoenix that they use
decoys. Polyjuice Potion. Identical Potters. It is the only thing that
might work" (DH Am. ed. 688).

Had they not used the decoys and had only one Harry leaving at a time
that Snape revealed to DD on DD's orders, Harry's chances of survival
even with an Order escort would have been slim to none. But with seven
Potters 9and the element of surprise), Harry's chances increased
considerably. Not only did he survive, but only one Potter lookalike
was injured (accidentally) and only one escort was killed.

Carol, who thinks that if both Snape and DD say that their plan was
intended to protect harry, it must be intended to protect Harry  






From ida3 at planet.nl  Sat Dec  1 10:48:09 2007
From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:48:09 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders
In-Reply-To: <fipr5k+gdd6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fire59+9spm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179501

bboyminn: 
> I don't think we are so much disagreeing on this issue as
> we are merely looking a different aspects of it. You made
> some very good points within the bounds of your perspective,
> but I think there are aspects that you and your perspective 
> are ignoring. (Most likely there are aspect my perspective
> is ignoring too.)
<snip>

Dana:
Sure, your probably right but I do not ignore the possibility of 
danger and that you can't prepare for everything all the time. Things 
can go differently then you initially planned them to go but to me 
you ignoring the fact that setting up a group with information on how 
to do something and then tell the enemy what you told your group to 
do would be considered treason and any general doing such a thing 
would be courtmarshaled and not praised for betraying his own forces.

That is my point which is in my opinion different from sending your 
troops into enemy territory and estimating that there his a high 
probability that people will die when facing an enemy in a combat 
situation.

bboyminn:
> Again, while you have made some good general points, on this
> particular point I have to disagree. Corruption in the Ministry
> had made sure Harry would be captured if you used Floo or 
> Apparation to escape. That left walking, riding (in a car), or
> flying. Walking and riding in a car are too slow and too easily
> overcome. I'm not saying plans couldn't have been made that
> involved them, only that those plans are as risky or more risky
> than any other. Regardless of our opinion, Dumbledore and the 
> Order weighed the options and selected flying. Was it right or
> was it wrong, we and they can only know for sure after the
> fact.
<snip>

Dana:
To me, you seemed to be missing the point that if LV wouldn't have 
known the precise date and time of Harry's departure, the probability 
of encountering large numbers of DE would have been minimum too. 
There would just be one or two on the lookout which would be easier 
to overcome then a large group and LV himself. The Order was also 
very aware of this risk and didn't need DD's intervention to come up 
with a strategy that would minimize the risk for Harry. Knowing the 
risk is still an advantage point and taking a couple of DEs by 
surprise because they didn't expect the operation to be pushed 
forward is still an advantage point too. 

The Order wasn't aware that LV was in the know about the plans (most 
especially the date and time) and thus it put the advantage in LV's 
lap and not the Order. The Order went ahead with this operation with 
the idea that they were taking the lead but they were betrayed and 
someone died as a direct result of this betrayal. 
In my opinion and I am very aware that this is from my perspective, 
you are missing the point that there is a difference between the 
acceptance of the dangers a specific operation could pose and plan 
accordingly or being set up and led into an ambush because your 
dearest leader thought it necessary to betray your plans to the 
enemy. 

In RL War, yes operations are lost because the enemy received 
intelligence about your plans. There is always a risk for information 
leaks (which is why false leaks are pretty much necessary to confuse 
the enemy to which information is genuine and which is false) but 
when the leak is discovered that person will not endure the 
gratification of being such a wonderful, intelligent and above all a 
good person. He will probably be hanged or shot as a traitor. Of 
course it is very convenient that DD is already death anyway. 

My problem is not with the plan and the probability of risks but with 
the idea that DD's betrayal is put forward by some (readers) that 
this would be an okay war strategy or that it would be okay to betray 
your own if it has a bigger purpose, especially in the so-called name 
of good, no it is not. It was unnecessary because Snape already was 
in LV's good grace for killing DD and so he could have requested the 
position as headmaster and gotten it anyway. 

But in other words when Marietta betrayed Harry, it wasn't okay and 
she needed to be punished like a traitor but when DD actually sells 
out the Order and hand feeds them to LV it is somehow okay because 
his intentions were good. Sorry betrayal is betrayal. Otherwise we 
could say it was a good thing Peter betrayed his friends because in 
the end it is all justified when Harry vanquishes LV.  Where do we 
draw the line when it comes to betrayal? Is intention all it takes to 
consider a betrayal a good thing? Well sorry this isn't working for 
me, DD's so-called good intentions got a lot of people killed. JKR 
seems to have the idea that as long as you have remorse that whatever 
you do is okay and to me it is not.  Making an mistake and deeply 
regretting your mistake is one thing, continually making mistakes 
that cost people their life's is unforgivable, no matter how 
remorseful you say your are. 

bboyminn:
> Now let's address Dumbledore's alleged betrayal. According to
> Moody there were very likely DE's paroling the area, and when
> Harry's protective enchantment broke, they, the DE's, were
> very likely to come swooping in. So, the attack was inevitable.
> 
> What Dumbledore did was take an inevitable attack and turn it
> to his advantage. Knowing an attack was coming, he did his
> best to confuse the enemy. Snape telling Voldemort of the 
> attack didn't change whether it was going to happen, it only
> changed the timing a little. And, the Seven Potter's more
> than offset whatever timing advantage the DE's might have had.

Dana:
That is not what he says he did it for. What he says in the Prince 
Tale chapter is that there is no other way if they want to prevent 
the Carrow's to rule Hogwarts. There is no bit where the focus is 
predominantly on getting Harry to a safe place and minimizing the 
risk. DD's plan for the 7 Potters (or actually Snape's) was to 
minimize the risk of the plan to get Snape into the headmaster's 
position. Nothing more nothing less. 

***

"You will have to give Voldemort the correct date of Harry's 
departure from his aunt and uncle's," said Dumbledore. "Not to do so 
will raise suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed. 
However, you must plant the idea of decoys; that, I think, ought to 
ensure Harry's safety. Try Confunding Mundungus Fletcher. And 
Severus, if you are forced to take part in the chase,
be sure to act your part convincingly. . . I am counting upon you to 
remain in Lord Voldemort's good books as long as possible, or 
Hogwarts will be left to the mercy of the Carrows. . . "

***

bboyminn:
> Also, note that the Order knew that Snape was spying on 
> Voldemort. The Order would have had to be addle minding not
> to understand that information and misinformation flowed both
> ways. They may or may not have specifically known about L-V
> being informed of the date of the attack. It seems not, but
> again, General's never confide everything to their troops. 
> Each is inclined to know as much as the General feels he needs
> to know to do his job. 

Dana:
So to whom of the Order would Snape be talking too, all assumed he 
killed DD and so he actually wouldn't have been able to retrieve this 
information for the simple fact that he actually would be AKed on 
sight if they ever encountered him. Besides I think you are reversing 
the chronological sequence of what happened. It was not the plan 
leaking out and so LV getting wind of it but the plan being seeded 
into the Order to ensure LV's trust in Snape.  

DD misused the Order's plan to move Harry, to execute a plan of his 
own of which he did not inform the Order and so instead of trying to 
decrease the risk levels to ensure Harry's safety, he willingly 
increased it to ensure Snape's position. If it hadn't been for 
Harry's wand miraculously taking charge on its own accord then Harry 
would have been killed (although of course he could not because he 
could not die as long as LV was alive thus only putting Order Members 
at risk of dying anyway which DD also knew all along) 

You still keep holding on to the idea that a general has every right 
to betray his own troops by leading them into an ambush but I'll 
assure you that if a general, who would leak information to the enemy 
like DD did, that he would be shot or hanged for treason. 

It isn't about keeping secret the various operations you have going 
on, on different positions along the frontline, from spreading out 
like next days gossip and so increase the risk of your enemy finding 
out what you are up to. It is deliberately informing you enemy of 
your plans and thus leading your troops willingly into an ambush. 
Even if a specific battalion has the objective to distract the enemy 
so you can perform a different  operation in absolute secrecy then 
those troops you send out to distract the enemy know their objective 
and what is asked of them to do, even if they have no further 
intelligence about the operations planned for other battalions or 
assault troops. You are confusing the idea about keeping intelligence 
under raps as much as possible to keep the enemy guessing to actually 
sending a fax to the enemy where you are going to try to penetrate 
their defenses so they can enforce their strong hold.  

Sorry to snip the rest I think I have made my point and if you 
disagree then I guess we just do better to agree to disagree on what 
are considered real war tactics and what is considered putting your 
own forces at unnecessary risk by betraying the time/date they are 
going to move. I do not care if DD suggested the Order should use a 
decoy to give Harry some insurance in this plan. The main objective 
was still Snape's position and not Harry's safety because if LV would 
not have know the time and date of when Harry was going to be moved 
the danger would still have been less due the minimum of DEs that 
would actually notice Harry's departure. There are many ways that 
would have ensured Harry's departure to have gone unnoticed. For 
instance polyjuicing Harry and another Order Member into one of the 
Dursleys. 

In my opinion Snape already had enough credit with LV by killing DD 
and so it was absolutely unnecessary to ensure his position once 
more. Especially because in logical terms the murderer of the leader 
of the opposition would not have been able to move around his old 
acquaintances unnoticed and actually get such information to begin 
with. The ministry wasn't overtaken by then and so Snape was still as 
much wanted as LV himself. Snape would actually have been useless as 
a spy because everybody would believe that he was a loyal DE. 

JMHO

Dana





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  1 15:56:31 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:56:31 -0000
Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fiqgt8+9f5b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fis07f+101am@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179502

> > a_svirn:
> > Except that Snape fed the information to Voldemort not to protect 
> Harry (it had, in fact, increased the danger considerably), but to 
> improve his own standing. 
> > 
> Carol:
> 
> That statement is directly contradicted by canon. Dumbledore tells
> Snape that he will have to give LV the correct date to avoid raising
> suspicion, but he adds, "However, you must plant the idea of decoys.
> That, I think, ought to insure Harry's safety."

a_svirn:
Wherein do you see the contradiction? Avoiding the suspicion part is 
about Snape's safety, not Harry's. 

As for Harry, "ought to" is the operative modality. He can't be sure, 
can he? And in the event *it didn't* ensure Harry's safety. He 
survived by accident, and not thanks to Snape or Dumbledore. 

> Carol, who thinks that if both Snape and DD say that their plan was
> intended to protect harry, it must be intended to protect Harry

a_svirn:
And if Dumbledore states that Snape has to betray the date of the 
operation to avoid suspicion, it must be to ensure his high standing 
among the death eaters. Characteristically, they succeeded in the 
avoiding suspicion part, and *did not* succeed in the ensuring safety 
part. Harry only survived because of that wand thing (which was *not* 
part of Dumbledore's careful planning), and even so it a was pretty 
near miss. 

a_svirn:
> By the time he appears, seven Harrys would have gone to seven 
> different directions. Where would he have apparated? To Privet 
Drive? 
> They would have gone out of sight by then. The two death eaters on 
> the look-out would have gone after Moody and Kingsley. They would 
> have pressed their marks constantly moving. 

Pippin:
Your plan seems to rely an awful lot on Voldemort being stupid. 
If I was Voldemort, I'd leave two watchers for the Order to catch and 
have twenty more better hidden.

a_svirn:
Well, maybe you'd have made a better Dark Lord then. Moody certainly 
relied on Voldemort being this stupid, didn't he. He said that if 
*he* were Voldemort he'd leave only a couple of death eaters on the 
look-out. 

Pippin:
He has hundreds of dementors, he can put animals under the 
Imperius curse, and DE's are just as capable of using invisibility 
cloaks and disillusionment charms as the Order is.

a_svirn:
So where were those dementors and animals during the chase? I seem to 
remember death eaters only.

(By the way it beats me why Moody and Co didn't use the 
Disillusionment charm this time around.)

Pippin:
You are also completely ignoring the Ministry's prohibitions. If the
Order flouted those, they'd either be arrested or they'd have to
go into hiding, leaving the Ministry unprotected.

a_svirn:
To which prohibitions do you allude? 
In any case, you seem also completely ignoring the undeniable fact 
the order did flout the prohibitions. Harry used magic despite being 
underage and he and Hagrid flouted the Statute of Secrecy in a rather 
spectacular (in every sense of the word) manner. Yet Scrimgeour 
forbore to press charges. Harry even taunted him about this in 
the "Dumbledore's Will" chapter. 

Pippin:
Voldemort's
coup would have happened before Scrimgeour delivered Dumbledore's
legacy.

a_svirn: 
No, it wouldn't have. Yaxley hadn't managed to infiltrate the 
Ministry to that extent. Voldemort didn't want to risk the coup, 
without Yaxley preparing the ground properly.

Pippin:
And you think Voldemort wouldn't have been able to find out when
Harry was planning to leave unless Snape told him?

a_svirn:
Yes, I do. That's canon, after all. 

Pippin:
Um, aren't there
other DE's just as capable of using a confundus spell on a susceptible
order member as Snape is?

a_svirn:
Well, where were they? There was a stiff competition for Voldemort's 
favours, so why didn't they use the chance? 

Pippin:
While Harry's life is not worth more than any other man's,
Harry's death would mean the deaths of countless others.

a_svirn:
How do you arrive at this estimate? Harry's death would mean one 
Horcrux down at least. And with other order members hunting down 
other horcruxes they could do the whole thing faster and cleaner. The 
Hogwarts Battle could have been avoided and it did cost at least 
fifty lives. Not counting death eaters. 

Oh, do you mean the prophesy? I thought it was the bad guy Voldemort 
who stopped at nothing in order to fulfill the prophesy. The good 
guys are supposed to be better than that. Not to mention wiser. 

Gosh, Dumbledore himself told Harry not to put too much store by the 
prophesy. Obviously he lied then ? as was his custom. 

Pippin:
He may have been wrong not to give Mundungus the same
choice, but if so, he paid a price for it.

a_svirn:
He died because he did NOT give Mundungus the choice. Mundungus's 
choice was to stay safely at his lair.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  1 18:51:23 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:51:23 -0000
Subject: Portraits' magic WAS: Re: Moody's death /  Dumbledore's portrait
In-Reply-To: <fiq7h9+n1cb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fisafb+ebh0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179503

> zanooda:
<SNIP>
 The only idea that I 
> had was that, maybe a portrait's "liveliness" depends on how 
magically 
> powerful the wizard depicted in it used to be. 
> 
> For example, all Hogwarts' headmasters were supposed to be very able 
> wizards (I hope :-), and their portraits seem "smarter", in your 
words, 
> than others. At least Phinneas Nigellus definitely knows more 
> than "stuff before he died" :-). He seems perfectly aware of the 
> present situation, IMO.
><SNIP>


Alla:

Right, I really like your interpretation. But here is the quote I had 
in mind ( I could not find it right away) from Edinburg festival.

I mean I would not go as far as to call it direct contradiction to 
Dumbledore's portrait actions, since she does say that they can give 
some counsel, but she also says that they almost repeat catchphrases.

If that is correct as well, then DD portrait seemed to know an awful 
lot of those :)

"
Q:
All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They 
seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there 
was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be able to obtain advice 
from them?

A:
That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are 
not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The 
place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's office, 
primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and 
headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave 
their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to 
the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat 
catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius' mother is not a very 3D 
personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases 
that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his 
parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as 
ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick 
explained at the end of Phoenix?I am straying into dangerous 
territory, but I think you probably know what he explained?there are 
some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are 
unafraid, or less afraid, of death."


Alla





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Dec  1 19:41:57 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:41:57 -0000
Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fis07f+101am@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fisde5+55ph@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179504

> a_svirn:
> Well, maybe you'd have made a better Dark Lord then. Moody certainly 
> relied on Voldemort being this stupid, didn't he. He said that if 
> *he* were Voldemort he'd leave only a couple of death eaters on the 
> look-out. 
> 
Pippin:
So it's a good thing Moody wasn't doing the planning, then. <g>

> a_svirn:
> So where were those dementors and animals during the chase? I seem to 
> remember death eaters only.

Pippin:
Why would you want them in on the chase? Dementors and
wizards don't mix, most animals can't keep up with brooms.

a_svirn:

> (By the way it beats me why Moody and Co didn't use the 
> Disillusionment charm this time around.)

Pippin:
Invisible decoys? ROTFL!


I suppose you could have used decoys and then disillusioned the
real Harry -- the difficulty would have been that as soon as the
fight started, Harry would've refused to stay hidden, 
and they would've known at once that it was really him. 

The question really  is, did Dumbledore's ruse give Harry more  time 
than he would have had if he he'd been easier to spot but there
had been only scouts waiting for him?

Since Harry gets all nearly all the way to Tonks's parents before
he's spotted, and Voldemort still manages to arrive before he
gets there, I think the answer is clear. Voldemort would have
had more opportunity to kill Harry without the ruse.

It was chance that defended Harry, but also chance that he
revealed himself, so chance was neutral in this instance. 

> a_svirn:
> To which prohibitions do you allude? 
> In any case, you seem also completely ignoring the undeniable fact 
> the order did flout the prohibitions. Harry used magic despite being 
> underage and he and Hagrid flouted the Statute of Secrecy in a rather 
> spectacular (in every sense of the word) manner. Yet Scrimgeour 
> forbore to press charges. Harry even taunted him about this in 
> the "Dumbledore's Will" chapter. 

Pippin:
The Ministry had made it an imprisonable offense to transport Harry
from Privet Drive by apparation, portkey or Floo powder. I speculate
Scrimgeour's motive for wanting Harry trapped was to force him to
endorse his regime. If he could arrest a few Order members
or force them into hiding, that would certainly help  to show Harry 
how hopeless his situation was without Ministry support. But
once Harry  escaped Privet Drive and came of age, Scrimmy's position
was weaker. Not much point in locking the barn door after the
thestrals have flown.

It'd be interesting to know if Kingsley tried to warn Scrimgeour about
Thicknesse, and whether Scrimgeour refused to believe it. 

 
> Pippin:
> Voldemort's coup would have happened before Scrimgeour delivered 
Dumbledore's legacy.
> 
> a_svirn: 
> No, it wouldn't have. Yaxley hadn't managed to infiltrate the 
> Ministry to that extent. Voldemort didn't want to risk the coup, 
> without Yaxley preparing the ground properly.
> 

Pippin:
Presumably the Order had something to do with the delay
in Voldemort's plans. They'd have had difficulty doing it if they
were in Azkaban or on the run.


> Pippin:
> While Harry's life is not worth more than any other man's,
> Harry's death would mean the deaths of countless others.
> 
> a_svirn:
> How do you arrive at this estimate? Harry's death would mean one 
> Horcrux down at least. And with other order members hunting down 
> other horcruxes they could do the whole thing faster and cleaner. The 
> Hogwarts Battle could have been avoided and it did cost at least 
> fifty lives. Not counting death eaters. 

Pippin:
Right, they hunt down the horcruxes and then they get possessed.

Oops.  

Dumbledore did at least know that Harry could resist possession,
whatever his fear that the V-chip might take over eventually anyway.
He couldn't be that sure of anyone else. 

Pippin




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Dec  1 19:50:05 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:50:05 -0000
Subject: Portraits' magic WAS: Re: Moody's death /  Dumbledore's portrait
In-Reply-To: <fisafb+ebh0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fisdtd+9rie@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179505


> Alla:
> 
> Right, I really like your interpretation. But here is the quote I had 
> in mind ( I could not find it right away) from Edinburg festival.
> 
> I mean I would not go as far as to call it direct contradiction to 
> Dumbledore's portrait actions, since she does say that they can give 
> some counsel, but she also says that they almost repeat catchphrases.
> 
> If that is correct as well, then DD portrait seemed to know an awful 
> lot of those :)

Pippin:
Note the "almost" --that's what Terry Pratchett calls a "wallpaper 
word" -- it covers up a big crack in the argument. <g> I would say
that Rowling's interviews resemble Dumbledore's in their tendency
to let truth stand in for honesty: there's little that's demonstrably 
false,but  much that is calculated, and even more that's omitted.

She did say that she would not be giving full and frank answers until
Book Seven was released. Those of us who obsessively scavenged the
interviews for clues but refused to take account of that  got what
we deserved, I'm thinking. 

Pippin




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  1 21:17:51 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:17:51 -0000
Subject: Portraits' magic  - WAS: Re: Moody's death /  Dumbledore's portrait
In-Reply-To: <fisafb+ebh0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fisj1v+ctk3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179506

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > zanooda:
> <SNIP>
> > The only idea that I had was that, maybe a portrait's
> > "liveliness" depends on how magically  powerful the wizard
> > depicted in it used to be. 
> > 
> > ...
> ><SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Right, I really like your interpretation. But here is the 
> quote I had in mind ...
> 
> "
> Q:
> All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people.
> They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this 
> so? If there was a painting of Harry's parents, would he be 
> able to obtain advice from them?
> 
> A:
> That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; 
> they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably
> noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in 
> Dumbledore's office, primarily; the idea is that the previous
> headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of 
> themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and 
> they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is 
> not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The 
> portrait of Sirius' mother is not a very 3D personality; she 
> is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she
> had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents
> it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as 
> ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but 
> as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix?I am straying into 
> dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he 
> explained?there are some people who would not come back as 
> ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death."
> 
> 
> Alla
>

bboyminn:

Once again, JKR seems to be rambling and making a convoluted
statement. Of course, I do understand why; she hasn't had time
to craft a formal answer to the question, so she is just 
wandering in and out of various aspects of it as the thoughts
come to her.

But here is what I hear her saying...

I think she is trying to imply that Headmaster Portraits are
MORE realized than common portraits. We see the Fat Lady able
to engage in reasonable conversation, however short those 
conversations might be. But Headmaster Portraits seem to
be able to engage in some degree of rational analysis. 

"The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore's
office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters 
and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves.
They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give
some counsel to the present occupant,..."

Still, presumably a ghost is fully realized. It is essentially
the original person in every way, with the original persons
full mental faculties. 

That said, I can see Dumbledore's portrait capable of some
degree of thoughtful analysis and counsel, but the line would
have to be draw at some point. That is, at some point, he 
would  have to fall short of the original Dumbledore.

Maybe the degree of realization in the portrait is 
proportional to the original wizard. Based on either magical
power and/or intelligence. Though for our discussion, I think
intelligence is the most important. So, by that I mean that 
each portrait is 60% of the original person. Dumbledore was a
genius, so 60% of a genius is still a pretty smart person.

Phineas the other hand, while not unintelligent, seems to be
stuck in a role of who he once was. That is, he is not so 
much who he once was as a portrayal of who he once was. I 
don't see his abilities as deep as Dumbledore. So rather than
60% of a genius, Phineas is 60% of an average smart person. 

Mrs. Black on the other hand, was not a Headmaster and does
not reside in the Head's office or at Hogwarts, and probably 
wasn't that bright to begin with. Taking into consideration
the advantage of being Hogwarts Headmaster, being at Hogwarts,
and being an exceptionally intelligent person to start with,
I would say that makes Mrs. Black about 30% or 40% of her
former self. 

Hey, it was just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  1 21:34:35 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:34:35 -0000
Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fis07f+101am@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fisk1b+kvs8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179507

a_svirn wrote:
<snip> Harry only survived because of that wand thing (which was *not*
part of Dumbledore's careful planning), and even so it a was pretty 
near miss. 

Carol responds:

On the contrary, Harry is protected by the mere fact that only LV will
try to kill him. the DEs are under orders not to do so. Consequently,
Harry would not have been in extreme peril had he not revealed his
identity by using Expelliarmus. He was not being pursued by Voldemort
himself but only by two Death Eaters, one of whom was the Imperiused
Stan Shunpike, Harry having Stunned or otherwise defeated all the
others. Evidently, Voldemort did not suspect that Harry would be with
Hagrid in the sidecar of the motorcycle. (he must have expected Harry
to be with an Auror and/or on a broom, making Hagrid the most unlikely
protector in LV's eyes.) Only when Harry gave away his identity by
using Expelliarmus and the second DE summoned Voldemort was he
actually in danger of being killed. 

Granted, "that wand thing" saved his life, but, unfortunately, it also
destroyed Lucius Malfoy's wand, initiating LV's search for a stronger
wand and leading him to find out about the Elder Wand. *Not* a good
thing. (He was saved from a second AK, with LV about to use Selwyn's
wand, by the magical protective barrier, which also, evidently, broke
Hagrid's fall. Whether "that wand thing" would have come into play
again is immaterial, as it was the protection set up by the Order that
saved his life.)

At any rate, Harry would have survived without giving himself away and
without Voldemort in pursuit had he not used Expelliarmus. As Moody
says (paraphrased), not even Voldemort can be in seven places at once,
and only Voldemort was trying to kill the Harrys. It was the
protectors who were in the greatest danger, and all but one of them
survived.

Carol, who thinks that Harry would have been a dead duck had it not
been for the six decoys, who drew most of the DEs away and kept LV
away from him for most of the flight




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  1 23:23:11 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:23:11 -0000
Subject: Timing: Trelawney and Dumbledore's version of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <fipuuo+v8ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fisqcv+i8eo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179508

> bboyminn:
>
> I'm always amazed that so many fans see Trelawney and 
> Dumbledore's version of events that lead to the original
> hearing of the Prophecy as being so diametrically opposed.

Mike:
I think diametrically opposed is overstating the quandry. Speaking 
as one that found DD's account suspect, it wasn't the disagreement 
with Trelawney's re-telling that was the problem. It was DD's 
failure to include T's events that bothered me. Not just because it 
allowed DD to exclude Snape. It was the whole "detected ... thrown 
from the building" as if nothing intervened that bothered me.

It turns out that there was nothing to read into that. JKR just 
wanted Trelawney to reveal that Snape was the eavesdropper, and 
by all appearances, the scene played out pretty much as you 
speculated. 

-<snip>-


> bboyminn:
> Then I constructed the scenario below and timed it as I played
> it out in real time. 
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> -<snipping a very entertaining scenario. Which part did you play
> in this re-enactment Steve, Snape or Abe? :snicker: >
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Twenty (20) seconds to play out in real time. Twenty seconds 
> distraction from a 30 second Prophecy. Note as soon as
> Aberforth speaks, Snape is pulled away from the Prophecy in
> progress. 

Mike:
I don't doubt your timing was accurate. Of course, we had no way 
of knowing that Abe was walking up the stairs just as Trelawney 
started her prophesy. Until DH, I couldn't be sure there was no 
collusion between DD and Snape. After the scene on the windswept 
hill, I'm convinced there wasn't any, I was wrong in my suspicions.



> bboyminn:
> Each account emphasizing what it feels is relevant to the 
> listener and the speaker in the moment, and equally hiding 
> what the speaker feels is not relevant to the speaker and 
> the listener.

Mike:
Add in there - hiding what the speaker (DD) felt obliged to hide
(Snape's involvement) - and your account is complete. But you do
see how DD's failure to come clean on this account made us want to
inspect the rest of the scene more closely, right?



> bboyminn:
> 
> -<snipping why DD would let Snape go, perfectly plausible>-
> 
> In the moment, I suspect Dumbledore let Snape go because
> he wasnt' sure it mattered. Plus, exactly what is the 
> legal penalty for eavesdropping? To what extent did Dumbledore
> or Aberforth have the authority to hold Snape? What were 
> they going to do, lock him in the bell-tower for 
> eavesdropping? Hardly a crime against humanity. 

Mike:
Well wizards do have other ways of obviating any damage stemming
from Snape's eavesdropping. Obliviate, comes to mind. A Confundus
from a wizard of DD's caliber and delivered with the Elder wand 
might also do the trick, don't ya think? Even if DD isn't convinced
of prophetic usefulness (and I think he wasn't), why take a chance?

As we've seen in the WW, governmental or official authority to act
rarely is taken into consideration. And since it appears that DD 
knew Snape was a DE at the time of the eavesdropping, I don't think 
there would be any official inquiry from the Ministry (if they ever 
found out) as to why DD obliviated an apprehended eavesdropper in 
a time of war.

Mike, wondering if Steve started at the bottom of the stairs or part 
way up them for his re-enactment? ;)




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 00:06:17 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:06:17 -0000
Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fisk1b+kvs8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fisstp+e4mt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179510

a_svirn wrote:
<snip> Harry only survived because of that wand thing (which was *not*
part of Dumbledore's careful planning), and even so it a was pretty
near miss.

Carol responds:

On the contrary, Harry is protected by the mere fact that only LV will
try to kill him. the DEs are under orders not to do so. Consequently,
Harry would not have been in extreme peril had he not revealed his
identity by using Expelliarmus.

a_svirn:
There is something wrong with this reckoning. Harry is protected by 
being Harry, and yet by revealing himself as Harry he got himself in 
trouble? Besides, so what if they didn't kill him outright? They 
could have captured him and deliver to Voldemort, couldn't they? 

And of course, it was inconsiderate of him to use Expelliarmus, thus 
endangering Dumbledore's brilliant plan. Then again, blessed as 
Dumbledore was with his extraordinary brainpower, shouldn't he have 
allowed for the possibility of Harry's betraying himself one way or 
another? Personally, I would have thought Hedwig was a dead giveaway 
(why didn't they send her to the Burrow beforehand?)

Carol:
He was not being pursued by Voldemort
himself but only by two Death Eaters, one of whom was the Imperiused
Stan Shunpike, Harry having Stunned or otherwise defeated all the
others. Evidently, Voldemort did not suspect that Harry would be with
Hagrid in the sidecar of the motorcycle.

a_svirn:
But then, you know, it's not thanks to Dumbledore's planning Harry 
had given such a good account for himself. That was pure dumb luck 
(or Rowling's skullduggery). He and Hagrid were outnumbered two to 
one, and Hagrid wasn't much of a protector to begin with (though 
that, admittedly, was more Moody's mistake than Dumbledore's). In 
effect, Harry was fighting four death eaters single-handedly and had 
to take care of Hagrid besides. These are *not* good odds, even 
without Voldemort. He could have been captured and even accidentally 
hit by the killing curse, come to think of it. 

Pippin:
The Ministry had made it an imprisonable offense to transport Harry
from Privet Drive by apparation, portkey or Floo powder. I speculate
Scrimgeour's motive for wanting Harry trapped was to force him to
endorse his regime. If he could arrest a few Order members
or force them into hiding, that would certainly help to show Harry
how hopeless his situation was without Ministry support. But
once Harry escaped Privet Drive and came of age, Scrimmy's position
was weaker. Not much point in locking the barn door after the
thestrals have flown.

<snip>
Presumably the Order had something to do with the delay
in Voldemort's plans. They'd have had difficulty doing it if they
were in Azkaban or on the run.

a_svirn:
This is the whole conspiracy theory you spin. Don't you think you are 
casting slurs on the memory of a brave man, who wanted the same thing 
as Harry had, and died heroically without betraying Harry's 
whereabouts even under torture? 

Pippin:
Right, they hunt down the horcruxes and then they get possessed.

Oops.

Dumbledore did at least know that Harry could resist possession,
whatever his fear that the V-chip might take over eventually anyway.
He couldn't be that sure of anyone else.

a_svirn:
Well, he was wrong then, wasn't he? Yet again. Hermione and Neville 
got rid off horcruxes without a hitch. It was only Ron, who 
hesitated, but then the Weasley siblings are notoriously susceptible 
to the  horcruxes. (And since it was Dumbledore who named Ron as one 
of Harry's faithful squires, it must mean that he slightly 
miscalculated on that score as well.)





From angellima at xtra.co.nz  Sun Dec  2 00:30:00 2007
From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima)
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:30:00 +1300
Subject: Dumbledore and other leaders
Message-ID: <005101c8347a$79a7be70$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 179511

bboymin:

You mentioned alternative scenarios under which Harry could
have been raised, but you are only looking at the 'rosy'
part of those scenarios. Dumbledore certainly weighed and
even spoke about Harry being raised under alternate 
circumstances. But while they would be better social
environments for Harry, they would not have been as well
defended and would have left Harry exposed and vulnerable.
Dumbledore weighed his priorities, and a LIVE Harry was
preferable to a happy but quickly dead Harry. 

Angel:

Apols this is in reply to your own reply to Dana.  My problem with Dumbledore's protection of Harry nagged at me the whole way through since I first saw the first movie!!!  (The books came after).  According to Dumbledore the protection lasted as long as Harry called the place where his mother's blood resides, home (am paraphrasing obviously as I can't be stuffed picking these books up anymore <bg>)

1.  Since Harry set foot in Hogwarts he had come to consider Hogwarts home - where he had friends and where Hagrid resided.  He vocalises it REPEATEDLY!

2. Lily's blood was always in Harry

Was it REALLY necessary for Harry to slum it with the Dursleys?  I had thought so, had hoped there was reason for the cruelty and the distance from Petals and Dimmers Snr.  It was a hope in vain.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From angellima at xtra.co.nz  Sun Dec  2 00:42:36 2007
From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima)
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 13:42:36 +1300
Subject: a people saving thing was Dumbledore and other leaders
Message-ID: <005d01c8347c$3be98d50$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 179512

It never occurred to me Harry had a saving people thing until he was dubbed that

Rather than me listing the trivial heroics of Harry eg him saving Neville from Hermione's body bind curse (Petrificus Totalus) in PS - oh wait he didn't!  Could someone please refresh my memory to whom Harry had a thing for saving before being bestowed the title?

Could it have been Ginny who Ron risked life and limb to try and save despite abysmal abilities and wand? There is a clear distinction between wanting to save someone and the need to thwart Voldemort, IMO.

Angel

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gatesreaver at comcast.net  Sun Dec  2 03:06:21 2007
From: gatesreaver at comcast.net (thetrojanvabbit)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:06:21 -0000
Subject: J.K. Rowling!Existentialist
In-Reply-To: <fip9d3+86cr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fit7fd+n1dk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179513

Geoff Bannister:
>I wondered why you wrote your last sentence "I wonder if that's why
>some Christians hate Harry Potter so much!";it seems to be something
>of a red herring. <snip>

TheTrojanVabbit replies:

It's not a red herring. My point us that people expecting an
overriding Christian theme in the books would have been expecting book
7 to define Dark Magic in moral absolutist terms, simple and
clear-cut. Instead, the lines between Light and Dark became more
blurred. To moral absolutists (and the Christianity is a dogmatic
religion), used to doing as told or else, moral relativism is a scary
and unsettling thing.


Geoff:

>JKR says that she was raised in the Church of England and held
>Christian belief until she questioned it at University but has now
>returned to believing
<snip>


Vabbit:

Have you ever heard of Christian Existentialism? Kierkegaard, Karl
Jaspers, Gabriel Marcel, and many others. Perhaps she
used writings such as these to help her through her crisis of faith.

-gatesreaver, who has just had his theories bolstered by the "Major
Premises" section of the Wikipedia article on Christian Existentialsm





From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Dec  2 03:55:20 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 22:55:20 -0500
Subject: J.K. Rowling!Existentialist
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAARz99VA1JfEyJvMUWFPA/4QEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179514

Even if JKR is an Existentialist, that doesn't mean that she isn't a Christian.
The two are not mutually exclusive.  Witness Kirkegaard among others.  

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man.  Other forms of
transport grow daily more nightmarish.  Only the bicycle remains pure in
heart."--Iris Murdoch



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec  2 07:28:45 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:28:45 -0000
Subject: Wizarding farm / Kendra / Xenophilius's ugly necklace
Message-ID: <fitmrd+t1af@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179515

Steve bboy_minn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179346>:

<< And as long as we are on the subject of cooking, which ties to the
subject of food, where do wizards get their food? >>

Agatha Timms had an eel farm, because she bet half of it on the
Quidditch World Cup with Bagman. People do eat eels (I had some fried
eel at a sushi restaurant, I think they call it unagi, that was quite
tasty). 

When the Trio visited St Mungo's, the portrait that claimed that Ron's
freckles were splattergroit told him to stand neck deep in a barrel of
eels' eyes under the Full Moon. It occurred to me that it would take a
lot of eels to fill that barrel, and perhaps Madam Timms raised them
only for the eyes as a magical ingredient rather than raising them as
a food.

Steve bboy_minn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179375>:

<< we also see a lot of unusual names (Luna, Mundungus, Albus,
Aberforth, Rubeus). >>

None of those characters were Muggle-born. I wouldn't have had a
problem with an early to middle 19th century Kendra if she had been
Wizard-born.

Speaking of Luna, one of my small disappointments is that Ollivander
wasn't her grandfather. Her late mother could have been his daughter.
And I would have preferred Luna's adult career to have been as a wand
maker rather than as a naturalist.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179417>:

<< As we find out later, Xenophilius, like DD and GG before him, is in
quest of the Hallows >>

And Xenophilius says something about all seekers of the Hallows wear
the symbol to identify themselves to each other, so that they can
update each other on their discoveries. As soon as he said that, it
struck me as idiotic. Do competitors in a scavenger hunt tell each
other the clues they've found so far? It would be very unpleasant for
Xenophilius if he gave a 'fellow Seeker' the idea that he had found
one Hallow already, and the other Seeker cut his throat in his sleep
in case that one Hallow was the Wand.





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Dec  2 12:38:48 2007
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:38:48 -0000
Subject: J.K. Rowling!Existentialist
In-Reply-To: <fit7fd+n1dk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiu90o+rmnq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179516

Geoff Bannister:
> >I wondered why you wrote your last sentence "I wonder if that's why
> >some Christians hate Harry Potter so much!";it seems to be something
> >of a red herring. <snip>

TheTrojanVabbit replies:
> It's not a red herring. My point us that people expecting an
> overriding Christian theme in the books would have been expecting book
> 7 to define Dark Magic in moral absolutist terms, simple and
> clear-cut. Instead, the lines between Light and Dark became more
> blurred. To moral absolutists (and the Christianity is a dogmatic
> religion), used to doing as told or else, moral relativism is a scary
> and unsettling thing.

Ceridwen:
This sounds like you're extrapolating.  Since many Christians do like 
the Potter series, it ends up as nothing more than conjecture based on 
only certain denominations, and in some cases, certain subsects of 
certain denominations.

Moral relativism should be a scary and unsettling thing.  People band 
together in a society for protection against the unlawful and for 
convenience of living.  For instance, it would take too much out of a 
person to raise all of his or her food for each year, raise the cattle 
or sheep or whatever for both meat and leather, hew trees, build the 
house, weave the cloth, sew the clothes, etc.  Societies have rules in 
place to protect its members, and the members are the ones who create 
and/or agree to the rules.  When someone breaks those rules, it 
threatens society.  When will someone think it's all right to assault 
or kill, that the morality prohibiting those things is only relative to 
what a person thinks of another?

Your point about the line between Dark and Light magic becoming more 
blurred is interesting.  That line was smeared out of existence.  
Thinking about it this way, I can see where maybe Rowling's WW, the 
Ministry, the Statutes of Secrecy, can equal an absolutist mindset.  If 
the Ministry of Magic was created during her doubt-filled days, then 
that would make a lot of sense.  While Christianity is less absolutist 
than portrayed from the outside, it can seem absolutist to someone in 
doubt.

Ceridwen.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Dec  2 14:19:23 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:19:23 -0000
Subject: J.K. Rowling!Existentialist
In-Reply-To: <fit7fd+n1dk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiuetb+pp2n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179517

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thetrojanvabbit" <gatesreaver at ...> wrote:
>
> Geoff Bannister:
> >I wondered why you wrote your last sentence "I wonder if that's why
> >some Christians hate Harry Potter so much!";it seems to be something
> >of a red herring. <snip>
> 
> TheTrojanVabbit replies:
> 
> It's not a red herring. My point us that people expecting an
> overriding Christian theme in the books would have been expecting book
> 7 to define Dark Magic in moral absolutist terms, simple and
> clear-cut. Instead, the lines between Light and Dark became more
> blurred. To moral absolutists (and the Christianity is a dogmatic
> religion), used to doing as told or else, moral relativism is a scary
> and unsettling thing.

Geoff:
Yes but you didn't make this clear in that sentence which gave the
impression that it was a line thown in just to round of the post....

As I said, I am a Christian. I believe that there are certain moral 
absolutes which you find in most cultures which I believe came from 
God and, without which, life would become an "I'm all right Jack" 
scramble to be on top of the heap.

There are things which may depend on specfic culture and history 
which are moral relatives and which maybe do not carry the same 
impact.
 
> Geoff (earlier):
> 
> >JKR says that she was raised in the Church of England and held
> >Christian belief until she questioned it at University but has now
> >returned to believing
> <snip>
> 
> 
> Vabbit:
> 
> Have you ever heard of Christian Existentialism? Kierkegaard, Karl
> Jaspers, Gabriel Marcel, and many others. Perhaps she
> used writings such as these to help her through her crisis of faith.

Geoff:
My second point, which I raised, was the fact that you were presenting 
DH as an existentialist text and were doing so as definitive. Now, JKR 
has intimated - in her MTV interview in October - that she had a 
Christian foundation for the books although this was not indicated 
very openly. As you say, there are those who promote Christian 
existentialism, but I have yet to see anything from Jo Rowling to 
confirm that was in her mind also.

I have indeed heard of S?ren Kirkegaard. I read some of his work 
many years ago but I must say that it didn't grab me.




From jelly92784 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 15:46:25 2007
From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:46:25 -0000
Subject: Help! Quotes
Message-ID: <fiuk0h+qlve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179518

Hey everyone, I haven't checked in here in a long time, it's great to
see that the discussions are still going strong!  

I'm planning on making some pages in my scrapbook with my pictures
from midnight book parties and the like and wanted to put some quotes
from the books on the pages.  I want quotes that are really
representative of the books overall. 

Also, I met the actors who play Fred and George at a theater for the
opening of the OOP movie and so I wanted a quote that epitomized Fred
and George too!

Any ideas?!




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 15:54:34 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:54:34 -0000
Subject: A Dark Glamour - Voldemort's Appeal - DDs Complicity
In-Reply-To: <fijptn+m9s1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiukfq+roec@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179519

> > Mike:
> > We've now leaped into the formative stage of what to do once the 
> > prophesy has gotten to LV. Before that, when DD had the chance to 
> > Obliviate or Legilimens Snape, is where my big questions come in. 
> > This is when DD shows his contempt for prophesies, imo. He really 
> > doesn't care if Snape heard it, nor if Snape is going to take it 
> to 
> > LV. He doesn't believe in the damn things. 

a_svirn:
Oh, I don't believe for a moment that he had contempt for prophesies. 
I think he either deliberately fed Voldemort the abridged version, or 
realised very quickly how that eventuality might be turned to good 
account. But what about himself? Did he swallow the whole thing hook, 
line and sinker, as Voldemort did with the edited version? I believe 
he did.

Dumbledore's crazy schemes would not make any more sense even then, 
but it would at least explain why he took it upon himself to play 
God. Rowling herself brought up Macbeth allusion in order to explain 
Voldemort's part of the intrigue. Voldemort, like Macbeth "yielded" 
to the Prophesy's "suggestion" and thereby sealed his fate. But it 
seems to me that Dumbledore fell into the same trap. He too tried 
to "trade and traffic in riddles and affairs of death". Granted, he 
was ? unlike his adversary ? concerned with "the Greater Good", 
rather than with anyone's individual fate (including his own and 
Harry's). But his own very individual version of the Greater Good was 
the fulfilment of the Prophesy as he saw it. It was his symbol of 
faith ? everything had to be subjugated to the single goal. That's 
why the Resistance, the lives of members of the Order, muggles and 
mugglebornes, the Ministry etc. didn't really matter. What mattered 
was for Harry to fulfil his destiny. But since he was 
constitutionally incapable of trusting, he couldn't trust Harry or, 
indeed, Destiny. He had to arrange everything himself, even from 
beyond the grave. But this is just as presumptions as Voldemort's 
daring. And as dangerous and immoral, in fact. 





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 16:09:33 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:09:33 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fipvt7+ph97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiulbu+86ef@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179520

> >>Lizzyben:
> > So I'm not sure if the echoes between Shacklebot & Snape are 
> > intentional, but they're there. And the contrast between DD's own 
> > Utilitarian philosophy is stark. This novel is a moral mess, but 
> > every so often a good message sneaks through inadvertantly. 

> >>Pippin:
> I don't think Dumbledore is a Utilitarian. The statement "Dumbledore
> would have been happier than anybody to think there was a little 
> more love in the world" (HBP ch 29) gives the game away. Apparently,
> that's Situational Ethics in a nutshell.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
> 
> Situational ethics differs from Utilitarianism in that it          
> recognizes Agape, absolute unconditional unchanging love for all    
> peoples, as the only law. I think we are to see Dumbledore as      
> trying to live by this principle, though failing whenever  he's    
> subverted  by his instincts for domination and secrecy, and Harry   
> as doing the same thing more successfully, though failing when he   
> gives into his anger and arrogance.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
On this point, I honestly don't know what JKR *wanted* us to see.  
But I can say that trying to tie Dumbledore to agape is an impossible 
task, IMO.  The assigning of points at the end of PS/SS is an example 
of Dumbledore's delight in "us vs. them" ethics.  As is his treatment 
of just about everyone around him.  Including his brother.  I'm not 
sure Dumbledore knows what love really is.  And he *certainly* has 
little tests and tasks that people have to fulfill before he figures 
them "worthy" of his time and effort (and therefore, love).

Harry is the same way, I think.  One has to show loyalty to Harry 
*first* and then he'll express an interest in you.  And that makes 
sense given Harry's background, but it also means that he can't 
really be held up as an example of agape.  I think if such an idea 
were put in front of Harry he'd ask, "But what about the bad people?"

So yeah, I don't think "Situational Ethics" as defined at the Wiki 
site really covers Dumbledore.  (I would say you could replace the 
word "love" with "fun" or "frivolity" and still capture Dumbledore's 
character in that HBP quote.)  I think both Dumbledore and Harry go 
with a "might makes right" sort of philosophy.  I think that's why 
it's so important to both of them that Harry win at everything all 
the time.  Whether it's a quidditch game, the house trophy or the 
TWT.  That's the only way for Harry to figure out his own worth.  As 
he said in DH "winners, keepers".

I'm not up on philosophy so I don't know its vocabulary.  But I'd say 
the sort of philosophy that embraces "might makes right" 
and "winners, keepers" is the philosophy of Dumbledore and Harry. 

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> I think we are supposed to recognize that this system has flaws,   
> but we are to see it as more successful than legalistic ethics,     
> whose pitfalls are illustrated by Percy and the young              
> Hermione...<snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, but the deck was definitely stacked there, wasn't it?  Percy 
never got to speak for himself, and Hermione wasn't really a 
supporter of legalistic ethics in the first place.  She only wore the 
cap a time or two to provide something to aim at.  Amusingly, the 
person most likely to shoot the legalistic ethic down was Hermione 
herself.  If she thought the goal just, than to hell with the rules, 
and isn't she just the sexiest thing ever when she gets like that 
says the author with a little nudge and a wink.

> >>Pippin:
> I'm not an expert on this stuff: does anyone else see this?
> If so, do you think Rowling gives a fair presentation of the        
> weaknesses of situational ethics? Does love in the books  have the 
> power of a of a god, or of a deus ex machina, actually influencing 
> events in its favor?

Betsy Hp:
Well, I'd say the biggest weakness of "Situational Ethics" is self-
love.  Or to maybe better define it: self-interest.  Agape is a 
pretty hard thing to achieve and when faced with a difficult dilemma 
it can be very hard to try and echo the divine.  How can one person 
decide what decision will best serve "love"?  And in that case, yes I 
think JKR beautifully shows the mess that sort of weakness can make.  
Harry was concerned about what best suited his personal views of 
life, as were his friends and as was Dumbledore.  In trying to better 
serve "love" they created or maintained a brutally dark world where 
the strong decide everything and the weak are uncared for, unthought 
of.  IOWs a world with a lot less love.

I don't, however, think JKR illustrated this *on purpose*.  I'm not 
even sure she really thought about what sort of "philosophy" she was 
putting forward.  I would say though, that IMO the thing that least 
influenced the plot, that was least felt by our "good guys" was love. 

Betsy Hp (glad to have the internet back!)




From lszydlowski at hotmail.com  Sun Dec  2 16:26:39 2007
From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mmizstorge)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:26:39 -0000
Subject: DD and Harry Potter as "Classic" was "Why down on all the characters?"
In-Reply-To: <BAY105-W336C8BD8E76C221C908F0EC8750@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <fiumbv+7t4m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179521

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Tiffany Lothamer <lothtm01 at ...> 
wrote:
> Did anyone else ever figure out what that weird baby was in King's 
Cross?
> 
> ~~Tiffany Marie *Twice I have lived forever in a smile*
>

According to Rowling in one of the post-DH interviews, it was the 
maimed portion of Voldemort's soul that had been inside Harry. 
Apparently, Harry survived the AK Voldemort used in the forest because 
it only succeeded in destroying the fragment of Voldemort's soul.





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 16:58:44 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:58:44 -0000
Subject: DD and Harry Potter as "Classic" was "Why down on all the characters?"
In-Reply-To: <fiumbv+7t4m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiuo84+p6ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179522

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mmizstorge" <lszydlowski at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> According to Rowling in one of the post-DH interviews, it was the 
> maimed portion of Voldemort's soul that had been inside Harry. 
> Apparently, Harry survived the AK Voldemort used in the forest 
because 
> it only succeeded in destroying the fragment of Voldemort's soul.

lizzyben:

No, actually in interviews JKR stated that that is Voldemort himself, 
and that is condition is how he will remain in the afterlife.







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Dec  2 18:28:15 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:28:15 -0000
Subject: Help! Quotes
In-Reply-To: <fiuk0h+qlve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiutfv+60ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179523

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jelly92784" <jelly92784 at ...> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone, I haven't checked in here in a long time, it's great to
> see that the discussions are still going strong!  
> 
> I'm planning on making some pages in my scrapbook with my pictures
> from midnight book parties and the like and wanted to put some quotes
> from the books on the pages.  I want quotes that are really
> representative of the books overall. 
> 
> Also, I met the actors who play Fred and George at a theater for the
> opening of the OOP movie and so I wanted a quote that epitomized Fred
> and George too!
> 
> Any ideas?!
>

Geoff:
Well, one I like is:

'Moody, quite unconcerned, was now loosening the ties of the large sacks 
he had brought with him: when he straightened up again, there were six 
Harry Potters gasping and panting in front of him.

Fred and George turned to each other and said together, "Wow - we're 
identical!"

"I dunno, though, I think I'm still better-looking," said Fred, examining 
his reflection in the kettle.'
(DH "The Seven Potters" p.48-49 UK edition)




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Dec  2 18:32:43 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:32:43 -0000
Subject: DD and Harry Potter as "Classic" was "Why down on all the characters?"
In-Reply-To: <fiuo84+p6ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiutob+tt8d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179524

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mmizstorge" <lszydlowski@> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > According to Rowling in one of the post-DH interviews, it was the 
> > maimed portion of Voldemort's soul that had been inside Harry. 
> > Apparently, Harry survived the AK Voldemort used in the forest 
> because 
> > it only succeeded in destroying the fragment of Voldemort's soul.
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> No, actually in interviews JKR stated that that is Voldemort himself, 
> and that is condition is how he will remain in the afterlife.

Geoff:
Interesting. That was my own personal interpretation of the scene when 
I first read it back in the dim and distant halcyon days of July..... <sigh>





From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 18:54:35 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:54:35 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <E1Ix4xx-0006Xk-NI@elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <fiuv1b+1dpj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179525

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lenore <lmkos at ...> wrote:

> Lenore:
What really gave me a chill about the books was knowing that
they were being read by massive numbers of children-- children
who do not have the capability to read the books critically, and
therefore do not make a choice about what kind of message
gets under their unconscious radar.  The books make a strong
impact on adults, too, as have most of us experienced, so we
can just imagine how strongly a child's mind is influenced.

Stephanie:
The HP series is one that both kids and adults can enjoy.  A parent
can certainly (and probably should) read them and discuss the themes
of the story with them.  Several good friends of mine have youngish
children who have read the books, and my friends have read them as
well.  They've discussed the books with their kids.  Sounds like a
great way to bond with your kids, doesn't it?

Lenore: 
Because of this, children need books of a higher tenor, imo;
books that might inspire them to see what is possible for humanity,
books that give them some kind of model (at least some of the time)
for integrity and character development.  In that sense, for me, the
books are impoverished.

Stephanie:
I respectfully disagree.  The fact that her good characters are flawed
and make mistakes is one of the strongest parts of the series for me.
 I think it's a great point of discussion for parents whose children
have read the books to analyze - what do you think of the choices the
characters have made?  What do you think of their behavior?  They are
the good characters, but does that mean that they are always good? As
I stated earlier, I think she's trying to make the point that even
good people do things that aren't so great.  Having characters that
are too perfect doesn't really teach anyone anything, and kids can't
identify with perfect people, anyway.

Lenore: 
Kids don't need to know everything about "what's it's really like"
in our dysfunctional world or in a fictional world that is similar in
many ways, a world where nothing seems to work and where the
"good" guys seem to have little awareness about how they treat
one another.  The books can be great for somewhat older kids
who *also* have an understanding parent to accompany them
through the books and encourage them to ask questions.
I can't see any benefit for younger children age 6-9.

Steph:
Again, I disagree.  Why do you want to shield your children, even
younger ones, from what's happening?  Isn't it better to help them to
get an understanding of the world, that not everything is wonderful in
 the world?  I'm not saying that you let them see everything, but you
can't shelter them too much.  

I also don't agree that the main characters "have little awareness of
how they treat one another."  Harry breaks up with Ginny because he
doesn't want Voldie to go after her.  Ron finally gets over his
immaturity and his insecurities, and becomes more valuable to the
Horcrux hunt.  He comes up with the ghoul idea so his family won't get
targeted by the DEs.  Hermione has nothing but Harry's  (and Ron's)
welfare in mind the entire time in DH, and makes it so her parents
won't be harmed.  The Weasleys are always a positive part of Harry's
life.  DD and Snape have questionable ethics, but I don't think you
can accuse them of not having awareness of how they are treating
people.  And, btw, the children of my friends all began reading the
books when they were younger than nine and the series definitely has
value for them.  They'll no doubt re-read the entire series when they
are older so they get more out of it, but it's still an exciting story
for the younger ones.

Lenore: 
There's a part of me that holds out a slender hope that there is
something more in the books that I may have missed, something
that might be useful and enduring.  What blights that hope are all
those comments made by the author about using the books to
get petty revenge on whoever, and the stark separating of people
into groups of "us" and "them", and "in-group" vs "outies".  

Steph:
I don't understand what you mean about JKR using the books to get
petty revenge on various groups.  Shall I assume you mean that she
doesn't like Team Voldie, and the Slytherins who go along with them? 
She was trying to draw parallels between Team Voldie and their
pureblod mania, and the Nazis, with the Muggles, Muggleborn, and their
sympathizers as the victimized groups (Jews and everyone else who the
Nazis thought should be exterminated). Tolerance of different people
(and creatures) was a major theme from CoS, where Muggleborns were
being attacked.  Draco calls Hermione a "dirty little Mudblood" and
then later hopes that more Mudbloods are killed, especially Hermione.
 He constantly mocks Ron because his family are blood traitors. Sirius
is zapped off the Black family tree because he doesn't go along with
his family's obsession with pure blood.  Umbridge bans anyone who
isn't totally human from getting jobs.  Etc.

I don't know how anyone could take the side of Team Voldie, believing
that somehow they were the ones being victimized.  How so?  Were the
Nazis being victimized?  Was Hitler just misunderstood?  I don't think
so.  As far as the Slytherins are concerned, clearly not all of them
were evil: Snape, for example; Slughorn fights for the good side, and
many just don't participate at all, which is better than fighting for
Voldie. She even had Narcissa covering for Harry at the end, even if
it was for selfish motives, which shows she wasn't totally evil. 
Draco has a hard time doing what Voldie tells him to do.  JKR wrote
him pretty sympathetically in DH, I thought.  In any case, it's a
story about good and evil, so someone's got to be on the evil side,
otherwise no story.  Maybe the comparison wasn't as elegant as it
could have been but I understood her point.  

Lenore:
Yes, they accept the hidden messages much less critically
than adults.  They accept the inconsistency in values which
has been pointed out by many of our posters here.  Just
like the ugliness in TV and movies, their minds take it all in,
indiscriminately, hook, line and sinker, and many aspects
of their lives are ultimately shaped by what they think and
perceive and ACCEPT, as children.

Steph:
I think you're selling kids too short. They get more than people think
they do.  I'm a teacher, and I see that they have much better insight
into things than people think.  They just look at things differently
than adults.  And, again, here's where parents come in.  They need to
pay attention to what their kids are reading and watching.  It's part
of the job.

Lenore:
I suppose standards are low for children for the same reason that
standards are low for adults (in TV, movies, books). I've run across a
few books "written for kids" that truly make my mind reel with horror.
 I have worked closely with children with emotional disturbances and/or
learning disabilities and other kinds of fear reactions, so I've
had some experience. 

Steph:
I agree with you that there are too many books, TV shows, and movies
that have low standards, for both adults and kids. Would I be right in
stating that you think that the standard of the HP series is low?  If
so, I also would disagree.  Regardless of your like or dislike of the
series, you have to agree that JKR doesn't patronize her readers and
trusts that they can handle the concepts she lays out in them, or else
we wouldn't be discussing them here.  And btw, I teach freshman
history in an urban school where most of my students are below grade
level; I also have about fifty special ed students whose issues range
from minor learning disabilities to emotional/behavioral issues and
traumatic brain injuries, so I understand where you are coming from.

Lenore:
I also have a kind of empathic sensitivity and attunement to what
children are feeling and experiencing, and there's too much in the
books that I don't want them to feel and experience at such young ages.

Steph:
There's nothing wrong with that. You can certainly recommend to those
parents that their children wait until they are older to read the
books, and to read them along with their children so they can discuss
them.  No one's forcing anyone to read HP. And as I've said elsewhere,
I don't think the books are perfect, but I don't think they are as bad
or evil as some think they are.  




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 19:19:58 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:19:58 -0000
Subject: Moody's death (was: Dumbledore's authority WAS: Re: Fees for Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fisstp+e4mt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiv0gu+3lg1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179526

Pippin:
> Right, they hunt down the horcruxes and then they get possessed.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Dumbledore did at least know that Harry could resist possession,
> whatever his fear that the V-chip might take over eventually anyway.
> He couldn't be that sure of anyone else.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Well, he was wrong then, wasn't he? Yet again. Hermione and Neville 
> got rid off horcruxes without a hitch. It was only Ron, who 
> hesitated, but then the Weasley siblings are notoriously susceptible 
> to the  horcruxes. (And since it was Dumbledore who named Ron as one 
> of Harry's faithful squires, it must mean that he slightly 
> miscalculated on that score as well.)
>
Carol responds:

I'm confused. What Weasley siblings other than the eleven-year-old
Ginny are notoriously susceptible to Horcruxes? (She was susceptible
only as a lonely little girl who wanted a friend. What girl of that
age *wouldn't* write in a diary given the chance--unless she had
access to the Internet? <eg>)

Later, Ron helps Hermione to get rid of a Horcrux without a hitch. And
Ron's destruction of the locket Horcrux is among the more moving and
symbolic incidents in the whole book--he destroys his own demons (envy
or jealousy and lack of self-confidence) in so doing. Harry is right
that Ron is *meant* to destroy the Horcrux, or that it's his job, not
Harry's. Ron has already proven his worth by saving Harry's life and
retrieving the Sword of Gryffindor; destroying the Horcrux proves that
worthiness to himself.

It's hard to say what Dumbledore anticipated here. He gave Ron the
Deluminator, providing him with a way back if he lost heart and left
the quest. Snape comes up with the doe Patronus idea on his own, as
well as placing the sword in a location that would require courage to
retrieve. The Patronus leads Ron back to Harry, and the Horcrux
strangling Harry, making it necessary for Ron to rescue him, adds the
element of chivalry. Neither DD nor Snape could have anticipated just
how perfectly Snape's plan would work, but both seemed to know somehow
that Ron's presence was necessary to the success of Harry's quest,
which Snape only imperfectly understood, thanks to DD's secrecy. No
doubt Harry's "sheer dumb luck" played its usual role, as well.

At any rate, you seem determined to bash Dumbledore, Snape, Ron, and
every other character, but I see them all rather differently. I even
liked Harry better than usual in this book. (DH!Dumbledore, I confess,
was rather hard for me to come to grips with, partly because of JKR's
contrived plot, but I don't see him as cold-hearted, only as
manipulative, secretive, and trusting too much to his own intellect
and to little to the intelligence and talents, not to mention loyalty
and moral fiber, of others, including both Harry and Snape.)

Carol, agreeing to disagree on the other points raised so far on this
thread as we're clearly not going to convince each other




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 19:48:10 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:48:10 -0000
Subject: Timing: Trelawney and Dumbledore's version of the Prophecy
In-Reply-To: <fisqcv+i8eo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiv25q+pkpn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179527

--- "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> >
> > I'm always amazed that so many fans see Trelawney and 
> > Dumbledore's version of events that lead to the original
> > hearing of the Prophecy as being so diametrically opposed.
> 
> Mike:
> I think diametrically opposed is overstating the quandry. ...

bboyminn:

Yeah but 'diametrically opposed' sounds so much cooler than
'inconsistent accounts'. 


> Mike:
>
> JKR just wanted Trelawney to reveal that Snape was the 
> eavesdropper, and by all appearances, the scene played out 
> pretty much as you speculated. 
> 
> -<snip>-

bboyminn:

Of course, two aspects are playing out here. JKR is withholding
Snape as the eavesdropper because it is not the right time in
the story to reveal this. As to Dumbledore not mentioning that
little fact, I think knowing Snape and Harry's relationship,
Dumbledore thought that neither Harry nor Snape would like
this bit if info revealed. Dumbledore wouldn't like Harry to
know because it would, as it did, increase his hostility
toward Snape. And Snape would not want this information 
generally know because it would be embarassing and humiliating
for him.

Probably not the smoothest explanation above, but to some
extent, I think Dumbledore believed nothing could be gain
from Harry knowing at that time, and a great deal of hostility
could be created by Harry knowing. So, yes indeed, he 
specifically and willfully chose not to tell Harry.

> 
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > Then I constructed the scenario below and timed it as I played
> > it out in real time. 
> > 
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > 
> > -<snipping a very entertaining scenario. Which part did you play
> > in this re-enactment Steve, Snape or Abe? :snicker: >
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > 
> > Twenty (20) seconds to play out in real time. Twenty 
> > seconds distraction from a 30 second Prophecy. Note as soon
> > as Aberforth speaks, Snape is pulled away from the Prophecy
> > in progress. 
> 
> Mike:
> I don't doubt your timing was accurate. Of course, we had no
> way of knowing that Abe was walking up the stairs just as 
> Trelawney started her prophesy. Until DH, I couldn't be sure 
> there was no collusion between DD and Snape. After the scene 
> on the windswept hill, I'm convinced there wasn't any, I was 
> wrong in my suspicions.
> 

bboyminn:

Well of course, my little scenario what just an illustration. 
It doesn't matter whether Aberforth was climbing the stairs,
skipping down the hallway, or if he came out of another room.
What matters is that Aberforth /came upon the scene/. Snape 
would keep listening until he became aware that he had been
discovered, and the most likely means by which he discovered
this is that Aberforth said something too him. It is from the
point that Aberforth speaks that Snape is distracted from his
listening.

And, I think 20 seconds is a pretty fair estimate. I recited
the dialog out loud with pauses both for natural speech under
the circumstances, and for movement of characters. I did it
three times and 20 seconds was pretty close.

> 
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > Each account emphasizing what it feels is relevant to the 
> > listener and the speaker in the moment, and equally hiding 
> > what the speaker feels is not relevant to the speaker and 
> > the listener.
> 
> Mike:
> Add in there - hiding what the speaker (DD) felt obliged to 
> hide (Snape's involvement) - and your account is complete. 
> But you do see how DD's failure to come clean on this account
> made us want to inspect the rest of the scene more closely, 
> right?
> 

bboyminn:

I honestly don't think Albus is obligated to 'come clean on 
this account'. I stated this position several times before,
as an accepted lead, Dumbledore is only obliged to tell what
he thinks is relevant in the moment and to the listener. 

Certainly Harry would want to know it was Snape, but from
Dumbledore's strategic perspective as a leader, what purpose
would it serve at that moment. I'm sure Dumbledore felt that
at some point in time Harry would need to know this, but this
simply was not that time.

> 
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > -<snipping why DD would let Snape go, perfectly plausible>-
> > 
> > In the moment, I suspect Dumbledore let Snape go because
> > he wasnt' sure it mattered. Plus, exactly what is the 
> > legal penalty for eavesdropping? ...
> 
> Mike:
> Well wizards do have other ways of obviating any damage 
> stemming from Snape's eavesdropping. Obliviate, comes to 
> mind. ..., why take a chance?
> 
> As we've seen in the WW, governmental or official authority 
> to act rarely is taken into consideration. ... why DD 
> obliviated an apprehended eavesdropper in a time of war.
> 
> Mike, wondering if Steve started at the bottom of the stairs 
> or part way up them for his re-enactment? ;)
>

bboyminn:

Well to some extent we are caught in an Author's Catch 22, it
is so because it needs to be so. Within the story, I think it
all happened so quickly that Dumbledore hadn't fully realized
that anything important had been heard. He wasn't even sure
that Trelawney wasn't faking it. Certainly a prediction, fake
or otherwise, about Voldemort would have gotten her some
attention. I think Dumbledore acted casually without really
analyzing the situation, and thought there wouldn't be a
problem with letting Snape go.

There is also the fact that Dumbledore doesn't set much store
in Prophecies and Divination. He perhaps thought that it 
would be a good distraction for Voldemort. Something to keep
his mind off general killing and terrorism. 

In either case, we all make momentary decisions we later 
regret. I think this was one of Dumbledore's.  

Whatever....

Steve/bboyminn





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 20:39:22 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:39:22 -0000
Subject: DD and Harry Potter as "Classic" was "Why down on all the characters?"
In-Reply-To: <fiumbv+7t4m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiv55q+7bcr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179528

Tiffany Lothamer wrote:
> > Did anyone else ever figure out what that weird baby was in King's 
> Cross?

mmizstorge (I believe--the post is unsigned) replied: 
> According to Rowling in one of the post-DH interviews, it was the
maimed portion of Voldemort's soul that had been inside Harry. 
> Apparently, Harry survived the AK Voldemort used in the forest
because it only succeeded in destroying the fragment of Voldemort's soul.
>
Carol responds:

I don't have the link to the interview you referenced, but I recall it
differently. I'm pretty sure she says that it's the part of
Voldemort's soul that is normally inside him. In any case, Dumbledore
says quite clearly that the soul bit inside Harry was *destroyed* and
that it is *not* what's lying abandoned under the bench. Just as the
Harry in that scene appears to be Harry's soul having an
out-of-body/near-death experience, Voldie's mangled soul seems to be
momentarily in limbo, in the state it would be eternally if he were to
die. Harry later tells Voldemort that he's seen what Voldemort will
become if he doesn't show remorse, and what he has seen is that
horrible, incurably miserable and apparently irredeemably evil child
(which calls to mind the fetal form that Voldemort's body took before
the resurrection spell). The destroyed soul fragment (accidental
Horcrux) that was in Harry is not part of this picture, any more than
the destroyed fragments from the ring, diary, locket, cup, and tiara
Horcruxes are part of it. What we're seeing, I'm virtually certain, is
the 1/8 of Voldemort's soul that inhabits his body. Whether his
mangled soul is actually at the place Harry envisions as King's Cross
or is only part of a vision Harry is experiencing is a matter of
interpretation.

Carol, who has presented numerous canon-supported arguments on this
topic which can be found using this site's Advanced Search function




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 21:07:11 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:07:11 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fiuv1b+1dpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiv6pv+5avr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179529

Lenore:
Yes, they accept the hidden messages much less critically
than adults. They accept the inconsistency in values which
has been pointed out by many of our posters here. Just
like the ugliness in TV and movies, their minds take it all in,
indiscriminately, hook, line and sinker, and many aspects
of their lives are ultimately shaped by what they think and
perceive and ACCEPT, as children.

Steph:
I think you're selling kids too short. They get more than people 
think
they do. I'm a teacher, and I see that they have much better insight
into things than people think. They just look at things differently
than adults. And, again, here's where parents come in. They need to
pay attention to what their kids are reading and watching. It's part
of the job.
<SNIP>


Alla:

Personally I think kids ( the kids who love to read and who are used 
to reading of course) react to Harry Potter books  in  amazingly 
understanding way.

I remember Mike raising on OTC for example that Sorting Hat is the 
one who sorts children, NOT school, that it is a magic and magical 
hat is never wrong. I am in agreement with that, but I was shocked 
when thirteen year old girl recently told me the same thing, when 
for the fun of it, I was asking her if she has any problems with 
Slytherin kids sorting in bad house and her answer in essence was ? 
It is MAGICAL HAT who sorts them, DUH. It is not like this for real.

Kids ( again those who do read books, love them, etc) read fairy 
tales, are they not? I know I grew up with fairy tales since I was 
four ( when I started to read myself) and I do not remember that the 
message that I got out of them is that the fact that evil exists and 
for the most part very severely punished in fairy tales, means that 
there are irrevocably evil people in RL. (I mean now as an adult I 
do think there are some very evil people in RL, but that was only 
recent revelation of mine).

What I got from fairy tales was that evil is punished in them ? NOT 
becoming best friends with the good guys, not being drastically 
misunderstood, sigh, but punished severely, sometimes with the heads 
being cut off, destroyed and good wins.

I do think if kids see that fairy tale end in HP, I think they are 
capable of figuring out that it is magic and not real and all that. 
Again, I am obviously talking about kids who read and whose parents 
taught them to do that.

Lenore:
I also have a kind of empathic sensitivity and attunement to what
children are feeling and experiencing, and there's too much in the
books that I don't want them to feel and experience at such young 
ages.

Steph:
There's nothing wrong with that. You can certainly recommend to those
parents that their children wait until they are older to read the
books, and to read them along with their children so they can discuss
them. No one's forcing anyone to read HP. And as I've said elsewhere,
I don't think the books are perfect, but I don't think they are as 
bad
or evil as some think they are.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Somebody said elsewhere that JKR may not be the perfect writer, but 
phenomenal storyteller and I agree with that.

Myself I would be **proud** if my child will learn what I consider 
to be the most important values in the book ? that you should not 
make friends because of the important connections they have, but 
because of their personality, that courage is important, that 
standing up against evil is important, that forgiveness is 
important. I would be very proud.

Steph:
<SNIP>
In any case, it's a
story about good and evil, so someone's got to be on the evil side,
otherwise no story. Maybe the comparison wasn't as elegant as it
could have been but I understood her point.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Well said.

JMO,

Alla





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 21:16:47 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:16:47 -0000
Subject: Moody's death/In Defense of Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fisstp+e4mt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiv7bv+rkks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179530

> Pippin:
> The Ministry had made it an imprisonable offense to transport Harry
> from Privet Drive by apparation, portkey or Floo powder. I 
speculate
> Scrimgeour's motive for wanting Harry trapped was to force him to
> endorse his regime. <snip>
> a_svirn:
> This is the whole conspiracy theory you spin. Don't you think you 
are 
> casting slurs on the memory of a brave man, who wanted the same 
thing 
> as Harry had, and died heroically without betraying Harry's 
> whereabouts even under torture? 

lizzyben:

And honestly, I'm trying to remember what was so awful about 
Scrimgeour. Didn't he want Harry to be involved in the Ministry's 
fight against Voldemort? IIRC, in HBP, he said that Harry the hero's 
involvement would lift people's spirits & give them hope. And of 
course, Harry self-righteouly rejects this offer cause Scrimgeour 
won't release Stan Shunpike. After DD's funeral, Scrimgeour again 
attempts to plea for Harry's support, & Harry cuts him off 
repeatedly, rejects the offer & again asks him to release Stan 
Shunpike. At the time, I was self-righteously nodding along w/Harry -
 you tell that Scrimgeour! Stand up to authority! 

Except Harry was really just submitting to another authority all 
along - Dumbledore's authority. Looking back at HBP, Harry is just 
mouthing DD's own opinions - "DD doesn't think Stunpike should be in 
prison! I'm DD's man, not the Ministry's!" Scrimgeour mentions that 
he's wanted to meet Harry since becoming MOM, but Dumbledore has 
prevented this. He also says that DD's been "very protective" & 
hasn't allowed Harry to meet w/anyone after the OOTP fiasco. 
Srimgeour implies that DD has kept Harry from any other officials 
who might want his support or might want to gather more information 
about LV.

And the end of the chapter is now chilling to me  - "Well, it is 
clear to me that he has done a very good job on you," said 
Scrimgeour, his eyes cold and hard behind his wire-rimmed 
glasses. "Dumbledore's man through & through, aren't you, Potter?" 
"Yeah I am," said Harry, "Glad we straightened that out." 
And turning his back on the Minister of Magic, he strode back toward 
the house.' I think old Scrimmy had Dumbledore's number all along. 

After the funeral, he again asks Harry to help to raise people's 
morale, & offers Aurors as protection for Harry. And Harry rudely 
cuts him off & repeats that he's "DD's man." Oh, oh, he also repeats 
DD's sickening slogan from COS about showing personal loyalty to 
Him. Scrimgeour glares at Harry & turns on his heel to limp away. I 
now totally identify w/Scrimgeour in these scenes. They're fighting 
a dangerous wizard, and people need hope & promise that the MOM can 
succeed. And here's Harry Potter, so brainwashed by DD that he'll 
repeat everything DD says, allow DD to isolate him from the MOM, & 
even refuse to assist in the fight against LV in favor of following 
DD's orders only. DD did indeed do a good number on Harry Potter, & 
Scrimmy knows it.

Then, in DH, what's the first thing we see? Bam - there's Stan 
Shunpike, that poor martyr, participating in a Death Eater attack. 
There's the MOM falling easily to the Death Eaters because people 
don't have the courage, hope or morale to fight. There's Harry w/o 
any protection or contacts at all. There's Scimgeour, tortured to 
death for refusing to reveal Harry's whereabouts. I think Scrimgeour 
was a good guy who was looking for Harry's assistance in the battle 
against LV. And DD's attempts to isolate & control Harry prevented 
the MOM from getting that assistance - thereby allowing the MOM to 
quickly fall, & leaving Harry w/o any protection or assistance in 
his own fight. 


lizzyben 




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Dec  2 21:21:55 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:21:55 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fiv6pv+5avr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiv7lj+lcli@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179531

> Alla:
> 
> Somebody said elsewhere that JKR may not be the perfect writer, but 
> phenomenal storyteller and I agree with that.
> 
> Myself I would be **proud** if my child will learn what I consider 
> to be the most important values in the book ? that you should not 
> make friends because of the important connections they have, but 
> because of their personality, that courage is important, that 
> standing up against evil is important, that forgiveness is 
> important. I would be very proud.

Magpie:
Really? That's the most important value in the book? That just seems 
kind of...so what? I mean, how many children are struggle with that? 
In fifth grade you're not generally looking to be friends with 
somebody with important connections--or if you are, you'd be friends 
with Harry anyway, because he's the hero. We see this in the books as 
well, where people want to be friends with Harry because of who he 
is. Harry's got far more social clout that any other person he meets 
in his life so he's got nowhere to climb to. (And before somebody 
points out that sometimes Harry is a pariah--yeah, that's part of 
being an Important Person. Everybody has an opinion about Harry. 
Nobody's friendship will change his social standing.)

Not being friends with someone because of their connections isn't an 
issue in the books at all. Harry is never tempted by it. The closest 
the books get to raising the issue is maybe Draco's lines on the 
train, but there's no temptation there. Harry already hates Draco 
personally and Draco has nothing to offer him that we can see. If any 
sixth grader came on to another with a line like that they'd be 
laughed at and probably be a complete social misfit. Draco's an 
annoyance to Harry, somebody jealous of him. 

If anything, Harry deals with negotiating everybody wanting to be 
friends with *him* and having to only choose the people who are going 
to be totally loyal to him all the time as opposed to those who just 
want something for themselves, which is who he winds up with. 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 21:36:44 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:36:44 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fiv7lj+lcli@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiv8hc+hkmr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179532

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Somebody said elsewhere that JKR may not be the perfect writer, 
but 
> > phenomenal storyteller and I agree with that.
> > 
> > Myself I would be **proud** if my child will learn what I 
consider 
> > to be the most important values in the book ? that you should 
not 
> > make friends because of the important connections they have, but 
> > because of their personality, that courage is important, that 
> > standing up against evil is important, that forgiveness is 
> > important. I would be very proud.
> 
> Magpie:
> Really? That's the most important value in the book? That just 
seems 
> kind of...so what? 

Alla:

Are you talking about making friends for their personality as being 
so what value for you, just to be clear? Or are you talking about 
courage is important, standing against evil is important being so 
what values for you as well? Because if all of what I listed are 
matters not for you, there is really nothing to discuss I guess.

If we are only talking about making friends with connections, then 
read on.

Magpie:
I mean, how many children are struggle with that? 

Alla:

I do not know how many. I think Harry did.

Magpie:
 Harry's got far more social clout that any other person he meets 
> in his life so he's got nowhere to climb to. (And before somebody 
> points out that sometimes Harry is a pariah--yeah, that's part of 
> being an Important Person. Everybody has an opinion about Harry. 
> Nobody's friendship will change his social standing.)

Alla:

Nope, not in my opinion. The fact that Harry is a pariah sometimes 
is one of many things that does not make me to think of him as 
important person, never will, never would.

And everybody has an opinion about Harry is I think again an opinion.


Magpie:
> Not being friends with someone because of their connections isn't 
an 
> issue in the books at all. Harry is never tempted by it. The 
closest 
> the books get to raising the issue is maybe Draco's lines on the 
> train, but there's no temptation there. Harry already hates Draco 
> personally and Draco has nothing to offer him that we can see. If 
any 
> sixth grader came on to another with a line like that they'd be 
> laughed at and probably be a complete social misfit. Draco's an 
> annoyance to Harry, somebody jealous of him. <SNIP>

Alla:

That's your intepretation. Mine is that this moment ( and this is of 
course the moment I was thinking of) is one of the defining moments 
in the book, when Harry instead of choosing pureblood ideology, 
instead of choosing everything Malfoys stand for, chooses Ron and 
what Weasleys stand for as I perceive it - love, loyalty, 
friendship, putting blood purity as something very unimportant on 
their list of values. I view it as very symbolic. IMO of course.

 Alla




From s.hayes at qut.edu.au  Sun Dec  2 21:49:31 2007
From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes)
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 07:49:31 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fiulbu+86ef@eGroups.com>
References: <fipvt7+ph97@eGroups.com>,<fiulbu+86ef@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED222@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 179533


________________________________________
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of horridporrid03 [horridporrid03 at yahoo.com]
Sent: 03 December 2007 02:09
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)

> >>Lizzyben:
> > So I'm not sure if the echoes between Shacklebot & Snape are
> > intentional, but they're there. And the contrast between DD's own
> > Utilitarian philosophy is stark. This novel is a moral mess, but
> > every so often a good message sneaks through inadvertantly.

> >>Pippin:
> I don't think Dumbledore is a Utilitarian. The statement "Dumbledore
> would have been happier than anybody to think there was a little
> more love in the world" (HBP ch 29) gives the game away. Apparently,
> that's Situational Ethics in a nutshell.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics
>
> Situational ethics differs from Utilitarianism in that it
> recognizes Agape, absolute unconditional unchanging love for all
> peoples, as the only law. I think we are to see Dumbledore as
> trying to live by this principle, though failing whenever he's
> subverted by his instincts for domination and secrecy, and Harry
> as doing the same thing more successfully, though failing when he
> gives into his anger and arrogance.
> <snip>

Sharon:
The Wiki definition of Situational Ethics is a bit confused. Situational ethics is about making decisions about morally problemmatic situations on aone-off basis. That is looking at each situation and deciding on the merits of that situation.  There are no overriding principles or values, except perhaps the value of coming to a good and ethical decision. So Agape might enter the picture in some situations but not others.

The HP books are a funny mix of ethical positions, but mostly deontological and utilitarian.  Gryffindors are supposed to be deontological--that is, bound by their duty to others, hence the displays of courage etc in the face of difficult situations. A deontological ethic is all about duties, rights and obligations, and universal moral principles. So a Gryffindor, such as Harry, should understand that there are guiding principles for his conduct, which tell him what he should do in any particular ethical dilemma.  For example, Immanuel Kant, famous german philosopher, claimed that universal moral principles were '"categorical imperatives" -- meaning they apply to everyone all the time--and the fist categorical imperative is that we should only act as if it would be Ok for everyone to act as we are. In other words, if you can't honestly say that it would be OK for everyone to do what you are about to do, then you shouldn't do it ebcuase it would be unethical/immoral. Now Harry doesn't always abide by this Gryffindor-ish morality. in fact, he often takes it upon himself to break the rules for a higher cause, which is utilitarian thinking.

Dumbledore is also confused.  He says who we are is all about our choices, meaning we should always choose to do the right thing, regardless of the consequences (deontological thinking), but THEN, he praises Harry for breaking  rules for a higher good (utilitarian thinking).

Slytherins are a paradigm of utilitarian thinking - -they do what they have to do to achieve their ends. But Gryffindors aren't supposed to be like that. Harry does follow the Gryffindor morality most of the time. Indeed, he saved his enemy twice becuase it was the right thing to do. Such supererogatoryu acts are very Gryffindor-ish and deontological.  He also takes his duty to vanquish Volidemort very seriously.  But he doesn't think twice about using whatever means he needs to achieve his ends, although the means he chooses are never THAT bad--usually just breaking rules such as curfews and going to forbidden places, etc.

<SNIP>

Betsy Hp:
Well, I'd say the biggest weakness of "Situational Ethics" is self-
love. Or to maybe better define it: self-interest. Agape is a
pretty hard thing to achieve and when faced with a difficult dilemma
it can be very hard to try and echo the divine. How can one person
decide what decision will best serve "love"? And in that case, yes I
think JKR beautifully shows the mess that sort of weakness can make.
Harry was concerned about what best suited his personal views of
life, as were his friends and as was Dumbledore. In trying to better
serve "love" they created or maintained a brutally dark world where
the strong decide everything and the weak are uncared for, unthought
of. IOWs a world with a lot less love.

I don't, however, think JKR illustrated this *on purpose*. I'm not
even sure she really thought about what sort of "philosophy" she was
putting forward. I would say though, that IMO the thing that least
influenced the plot, that was least felt by our "good guys" was love.

Sharon:
I agree that JKR really didn't think about what philosophy underlies her books.  Most people don't even think about what their own personal view are, let alone what philosophy underlies them.  That doesn't make the books any the worse for me though. Life is complicated and people - -even really brilliant ones like Dumbledore--don't always think straight, or even rationally. It's difficult to be consistent in one's personal morality. In fact, I would say someone who is always consistent is a bit of a fanatic :-)  The books are more real to me becuase they characters get morally confused, they make mistakes and they pay the consequences.



From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Dec  2 21:55:43 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:55:43 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fiv8hc+hkmr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fiv9kv+s1g1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179534

> > Magpie:
> > Really? That's the most important value in the book? That just 
> seems 
> > kind of...so what? 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Are you talking about making friends for their personality as being 
> so what value for you, just to be clear? Or are you talking about 
> courage is important, standing against evil is important being so 
> what values for you as well? Because if all of what I listed are 
> matters not for you, there is really nothing to discuss I guess.
> 
> If we are only talking about making friends with connections, then 
> read on.

Magpie:
I'm talking about the value being to not make friends with someone 
because of their connections rather than their personality. I can't 
think of a single person in my sixth grade class that I would 
describe as having "connections." If I were a first year in Harry's 
year the main person to get that title would be Harry "the boy who 
lived" himself, since I'd apparently have grown up hearing his name 
and I'd know him even if I were Muggleborn.
> 
> Magpie:
> I mean, how many children are struggle with that? 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I do not know how many. I think Harry did.

Magpie:
When did Harry struggle with wanting to be friends with anyone 
because they had connections? What connections has he really wanted 
in canon? I can think of far more times where he rejects other 
peoples' advances.

> Magpie:
>  Harry's got far more social clout that any other person he meets 
> > in his life so he's got nowhere to climb to. (And before somebody 
> > points out that sometimes Harry is a pariah--yeah, that's part of 
> > being an Important Person. Everybody has an opinion about Harry. 
> > Nobody's friendship will change his social standing.)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Nope, not in my opinion. The fact that Harry is a pariah sometimes 
> is one of many things that does not make me to think of him as 
> important person, never will, never would.

Magpie:
Then I guess I don't know what to reply to that. The kid is actually 
called "The Chosen One." In the newspaper. He's a celebrity. The 
biggest celebrity in his world. If Harry isn't an important person I 
don't know who possibly could be. He's almost literally the only 
person who matters most of the time in his entire world.

Alla: 
> And everybody has an opinion about Harry is I think again an 
opinion.

Magpie:
With consistent canonical evidence. 


> Magpie:
> > Not being friends with someone because of their connections isn't 
> an 
> > issue in the books at all. Harry is never tempted by it. The 
> closest 
> > the books get to raising the issue is maybe Draco's lines on the 
> > train, but there's no temptation there. Harry already hates Draco 
> > personally and Draco has nothing to offer him that we can see. If 
> any 
> > sixth grader came on to another with a line like that they'd be 
> > laughed at and probably be a complete social misfit. Draco's an 
> > annoyance to Harry, somebody jealous of him. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> That's your intepretation. Mine is that this moment ( and this is 
of 
> course the moment I was thinking of) is one of the defining moments 
> in the book, when Harry instead of choosing pureblood ideology, 
> instead of choosing everything Malfoys stand for, chooses Ron and 
> what Weasleys stand for as I perceive it - love, loyalty, 
> friendship, putting blood purity as something very unimportant on 
> their list of values. I view it as very symbolic. IMO of course.

Magpie:
Yeah, it's defining and symbolic. That doesn't make it any real 
temptation for Harry whatsoever. There's not a single moment where 
Harry is ever even close to thinking of making a friend in Draco 
Malfoy. Even when Draco walks into the traincar the narrator is 
criticizing his presentation. The moment Harry refuses to shake his 
hand tells us, if it weren't already obvious, that Harry doesn't like 
assholes even if they are trying to be his friend. Harry himself 
doesn't have to think about it or regret anything he's given up (he's 
not given up anything as far as we ever see). As a signpost for Harry 
being the Good Kid it's obvious. The author didn't let Harry sink so 
low or Draco rise so high as to make it any sort of real temptation.

And of course, it's Draco who's trying to make the connection here to 
Harry. Because Harry is Important. And still is when he tells Draco 
off.

-m




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  2 23:38:46 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:38:46 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED222@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>
Message-ID: <fivfm6+s6cb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179536

> >>Betsy Hp:
> <snip>
> I don't, however, think JKR illustrated this *on purpose*. I'm not
> even sure she really thought about what sort of "philosophy" she was
> putting forward.
> <snip>

> >>Sharon:
> I agree that JKR really didn't think about what philosophy         
> underlies her books.  Most people don't even think about what their 
> own personal view are, let alone what philosophy underlies them.    
> That doesn't make the books any the worse for me though. Life is    
> complicated and people - -even really brilliant ones like          
> Dumbledore--don't always think straight, or even rationally. It's   
> difficult to be consistent in one's personal morality. In fact, I  
> would say someone who is always consistent is a bit of a            
> fanatic :-)  The books are more real to me becuase they characters 
> get morally confused, they make mistakes and they pay the          
> consequences.

Betsy Hp:
As an author though, building a world where good and evil are going 
to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea to have 
some sense of what differentiates your good guys from your bad guys.  
And I don't think JKR bothered with that.  I don't see where our good 
guys faced any consequences for "moral confusion".  Hermione brands a 
girl and she's cool.  Harry refuses to think things through, someone 
dies because of it, and he's grand.  The twins...  well, one of them 
died but it was played as a tragedy, not the outcome of their own 
mistakes or a consequence.

That's actually the big falling down with this entire story for me.  
Our heroes are perfect.  If they do "bad things" it's because they're 
so darn cool and don't we all just love them for it?  And gosh, but 
they shouldn't lose any sleep over it, because they're good!  I was 
hoping and hoping for some consequences for our heroes in DH.  They 
never came.

SO, IMO, this series is a moral mockery.  If you're a Gryffindor you 
don't really have to think about good or evil actions.  It's already 
been determined you're good and therefore all of your actions are 
good.  If you're a Slytherin...  well, the Gryffindors need a group 
to smugly compare themselves to, right?  To judge for using dark 
magic, etc.  (Though of course when a *Gryffindor* uses dark magic, 
it's a good action, because they're Gryffindors.)

I think it would have behooved JKR to put some thought into her 
personal philosophy before sitting down to write an epic struggle 
between good and evil.  It would have made for living, breathing 
characters in the end.  Instead, as far as I'm concerned, no one got 
out of DH alive. <g>

Betsy Hp (not sure if this will post or not -- darn internet)




From mros at xs4all.nl  Mon Dec  3 00:56:31 2007
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 01:56:31 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
References: <fivfkc+rdcl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c83547$58865d50$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 179537

Betsy Hp:
>>As an author though, building a world where good and evil are going 
>>to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea to have 
>>some sense of what differentiates your good guys from your bad guys. 
<snipped lots of stuff I totally agree with>
>>SO, IMO, this series is a moral mockery. 

Marion delurks for just a moment:

Totally agree with you Betsy (as usual <grin>) but even on a 'lower' level, so to speak, the Harry Potter books are a moral mockery. 
I mean, not only are there no consequences when a 'good guy' does a truly despicable thing like throwing torture spells or facially scarring (how many schoolchildren reading the books will actually have experience with these kind of things after all) but there are no consequences to the everyday stupid, disobedient, dishonest or plainly wrong things schoolchildren are familiar with and tempted by.
And JKR applauds all these things as being totally 'okay' and 'cool'.

For instance:

*Cheating at your schoolwork - Harry cheats all year long in Potions class using some other kids work and is awarded grades he doesn't deserve - message: its totally okay to cheat.

*Roaming around at night, causing mayhem, is fun! - the Marauders loved to roam around at night with a barely controlled werewolf - message: ain't those scamps cool! Its the sign of True Friendship to climb out of the window at night, join up with your bad ass buddies and make the neighbourhood unsafe. It's utterly cool! Well, yes, there were a few close calls and people nearly died, but hey! As long as you're having fun, right?

*Joyriding in a stolen, illegal car - Harry and Ron take the Weasley's flying car and crash it into school property - message: look how cool and exciting! Aren't teachers who say that joyriding is wrong killjoys?!

*Schoolwork is stupid anyway - Hermione might be a swot, but she's a useful swot. Harry and Ron never crack a book if they can help it, but hey! if they get bad grades its just because the teacher hates them, right?

*When you don't like a teacher (when he expects you to do your homework, take that obstinate and arrogant look of your face and *pay attention* for instance), you can yell at him, be rude to him and call him names - message: teachers should only be respected, no strike that, teachers should only be *tolerated* when they pander to you, give you sweets, give you presents and break rules in your favor.

*Don't respect anybody, least of all adults - one of Harry's most annoying characteristics is that he simply does not *like* anybody (let alone respects them) as long as they do not clearly state to be on *his* side, to take *his* view on things and to agree mindlessly with anything *he* says. Perhaps not so strange for somebody who grew up in a cupboard, but then there are the Weasley twins, and Ginny, and Ron, and Hermione. Each and every one of our 'heroes' are totally self-absorbed and have less empathy that yesterday's baked bread. Message: *you* are the only person who is important. Everybody should pander to YOU. Don't give a moment's thought about other people's feelings, wishes, heck, don't give a moment's thought about their *existence*. They only matter in what they can do for *you*, and if they're not with you, they're against you. 

*Attack the nerdy kid four to one, he deserves it for being so fiendishly clever - do I really need to explain? Message: intellectuals are creepy. Those who look, think or talk differently are creepy. Those who are obviously richer than us is creepy. Those who are obviously poor are creepy. ATTACK!! ATTACK!!

*Those who are intelligent and want to better themselves are betraying their families - God forbid that anyone should have ambition! And what could be better than being a Weasley, having such loving siblings who constantly make fun of you, belittle you and throw mashed turnip in your face just to show you how much they love you -not! Message: stupid is Good. Stupid is Honest, Salt-of-the-Earth. 

*Drop out of school completely. Who needs school anyway? - Harry's got better things to do than *learn stuff*.. The Twins drop out of school and become succesful businessmen - message: school is a waste of time; it's not as if you needs diplomas or anything.

And I could go on, and on, and on...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Dec  3 01:07:14 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 01:07:14 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice
In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED214@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>
Message-ID: <fivks2+ro8i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179538

Sharon Hayes wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179369>:

<< If someone takes polyjuice and transforms into another person,
they retain their own mind. That is, they are in another body but
their personality is still *theirs*. Is that all they retain? if so,
how does that work? To me that means they must also retain their own
brain, since mind comes from brain. >>

In Potterverse magic, the mind exists as itself, not as a mere product
of the brain. We see ghosts clearly still have their minds even though
their brain turned to dust or ashes centuries ago. Part of Animagus
magic is that the Animagi keep their own minds while their brains have
temporarily changed into an animal brain. (Do I have to quote canon
from QTTA that a wizard Transfigured into a bat will have only a bat's
mind and not remember to where he wanted to fly, so only the rare bat
Animagus will be able to use animal form to fly on purpose?)

<< On the subject of polyjuice, do the internal organs transform as
well? So, for example, when the 7 friends transform into Harry's
doppelgangers, do they retain their own internal organs and
characteristics? Is it just the external appearance that is changed?
(snip) 
Also on the subject of the doppelgangers, Hermione and Fleur are the
only girls to transform into Harry. JKR makes no mention of how weird
that must have been. Sorry if this seems trivial but to go from having
female "bits" to suddenly having male "bits" must feel awfully odd.
Neither Hermione nor Fleur bat an eyelid at the change, 
(snip) 
Hermione and Fleur would also have been much smaller than Harry (one
assumes?) and no mention is made about them busting out of their bras
or clothes. Is Hermione sans bra already and does she have jocks or
boxers on already -- I can't imagine Fred and George watching them
stripping off and seeing Hermione/Harry or Fleur/Harry in pink lacey
knickers and not making some comment! Seriously. >>

Last to first -- back in CoS, Rowling showed that Harry and Ron got
larger and burst out of their clothes when Polyjuicing into Crabbe and
Goyle, a situation in which gender (sorry, Carol) was not involved.
Presumably all the doppelgangers who started out smaller than Harry
prepared by arriving wearing Harry-sized undershirts and underpants.
So their underwear would be big enough and not girly. 

(I believe we have canon that wizarding undershirts for Harry's
generation are t-shirts, but I recall no canon about wizarding
underpants except that Old Archie's generation didn't wear them. I
imagine the older generations wearing under-robes as underwear, while
Harry's parents' generation had undergone a fashion change to wearing
chemises and drawers as underwear (those words can have a lot of
meanings: I mean chemises are pullover blouses with drawstrings at
neck and wrist, and drawers are knee-length pants with drawstrings at
waist and knee. I think I need a costume historian to tell me how the
flies worked.) I'm not sure which side of the fashion change Arthur
and Molly were on. 

To me, there was another fashion change, around Bill's time, that
included wearing t-shirts and boxers instead of chemises and drawers,
as well as wearing jeans, trainers, and other Muggle outerwear. To me,
this fashion begun when Voldie fell the first time, as part of a
movement to show how anti-Voldie and pro-Muggle one had always been.
It eventually so much turned from fashion statement to fashion that
even Draco wore jeans.)

Middle point -- I agree that Hermione and Fleur must have felt strange
to suddenly have male 'bits' (unless they had rehearsed taking
Polyjuice with Harry or some other male's hair in it -- maybe Fleur
and Bill had tried turning into each other to understand each other
better or for sexual kinks) but Harry wasn't watching to see who else
felt freaked out besides him.

First point -- I completely disagree that internal organs don't
change. << Immediately, his insides started writhing as though he'd
just swallowed live snakes - doubled up, he wondered whether he was
going to be sick - then a burning sensation spread rapidly from his
stomach to the very ends of his fingers and toes - next, bringing him
gasping to all fours, came a horrible melting feeling, as the skin all
over his body bubbled like hot wax - and before his eyes, his hands
began to grow, the fingers thickened, the nails broadened, the
knuckles were bulging like bolts -his shoulders stretched painfully
and a prickling on his forehead told him that hair was creeping down
toward his eyebrows - his robes ripped as his chest expanded like a
barrel bursting its hoops - his feet were agony in shoes four sizes
too small. >> That description, from CoS, is his whole body, inside
and outside.

Mike Crudele wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179416>:

<< I have to go along with just the external appearance, with some
allowance for stretching or shrinking the spine and muscles as
necessary for height differences. Remember, Hermione accidentally
took Polyjuice with a cat hair, I don't think her internal organs
changed to that of a cats. >>

Remember that the book from the Restricted Section said that Polyjuice
was not intended for human to animal transformations, and that
Hermione's cat face didn't go away in one hour like the boys' Crabbe
and Goyle appearance. We don't know if it would ever go away without
Madam Pomfrey's medimagical treatment. So human->animal Polyjuice
cannot be taken as a sign of ho human->human Polyjuice works.

<< They don't have a sense of being male, they only have the
appearance. If they retained all their internal organs, like both of
us think they did, then their male "bits" don't work like they would
if the had been men transforming. Those "bits" probably don't even
have any sensation to them, as in there's no there there. >>

As you know, I totally disagree with your idea of how Polyjuice works.
Off-topic, I imagine there is something to quibble with the idea that
having a sense of being male and having physical sensation of male
anatomy are the same thing -- some male -> female transsexuals
fathered children before their surgical transformation, which suggests
that they could feel their male 'bits' even when they felt that they
were trapped in the wrong body. Back on topic, we used to discuss
whether a pregnant woman who Polyjuiced into a man would still be
pregnant when the Polyjuice wore off. I said, it's magic: her fetus
would transform into one cell clinging to a convenient organ and
transform back undamaged.

<< Shall I tell you what a friend and I in our adolescence imagined we
would do if we suddenly changed into a member of the other sex? No,
I think I'll not. >>

If it was like what my Tim said about Draco Polyjuicing Crabbe and
Goyle into little girls, you and your friend would have taken turns to
change sex, not done it simultaneously.

Sharon Hayes wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179419>:

<< that means that for the hour you were polyjuiced you would have two
lots of DNA-- one for your cells and one for the foreign cells. I know
it's magic and magic can do all kinds of seemingly unreasonable
things, but that just seems downright dangerous. What an easy way to
get a bit of someone else's DNA or stem cells, for example! >>

To me, all the cells have the foreign DNA. But it would turn back to
one's own DNA when the hour was up. So you can't use one hair to
Polyjuice into someone and then cut off a bit of that person's hair
from your head to use to Polyjuice into that person on a future
occasion. I can't think why it wouldn't work to use a bit cut off your
own transformed hair to take another dose before the hour was up, but
Crouch!Moody apparently didn't think it would work, so he kept
Real!Moody alive as a source of hair. I suppose if he had cut all the
hair off and then killed Moody, he would have Polyjuiced into a
Dead!Moody, the hair having continued its contagious magic connection
with the person despite having been cut off and taken to another place.





From AllieS426 at aol.com  Mon Dec  3 01:23:00 2007
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 01:23:00 -0000
Subject: post DH musings on PS
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40711291051w5fa9bd7k5bb803f4c0c594e4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fivlpk+j07t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179539

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette <jnferr at ...> wrote:
>

> montims:
> and without having my book with me, doesn't it talk about Harry 
learning the
> uses of dittany, and also what to do if bitten by a werewolf, or 
something?
> 
> 
Allie:

Yes, something like "ways of treating a werewolf bite."  Snape also 
talks about using a Bezoar as an antidote to most poisons in his first 
lesson.  




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 01:26:17 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 01:26:17 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fiv9kv+s1g1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fivlvp+9lar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179540

> Alla:
>
> Nope, not in my opinion. The fact that Harry is a pariah sometimes
> is one of many things that does not make me to think of him as
> important person, never will, never would.

Magpie:
Then I guess I don't know what to reply to that. The kid is actually
called "The Chosen One." In the newspaper. He's a celebrity. The
biggest celebrity in his world. If Harry isn't an important person I
don't know who possibly could be. He's almost literally the only
person who matters most of the time in his entire world.


Alla:

Oh, of course he is the Chosen one and sure, he is important. I was 
thinking about one of the most recent debates as to whether he is a 
popular guy on campus, because that I disagree with - that he is not 
popular all the time and not with everybody.

Alla:
> And everybody has an opinion about Harry is I think again an
opinion.

Magpie:
With consistent canonical evidence.

Alla:

I would like then to see canon where **every** Hogwarts student has 
opinion about Harry.

Not some students have opinion about Harry, because that assertion I 
agree with, but every single one of them? I think that a lot of 
Hogwarts students have a lot of things on their mind besides having 
to think about Harry, yes despite him being a chosen one.

JMO,

Alla.




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Dec  3 03:22:38 2007
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 19:22:38 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How do the books affect children? (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fivlvp+9lar@eGroups.com>
References: <fiv9kv+s1g1@eGroups.com> <fivlvp+9lar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0712021922j46cfa060leea8187d9bccf5d5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179541

Lenore:
Yes, they accept the hidden messages much less critically
than adults. They accept the inconsistency in values which
has been pointed out by many of our posters here. Just
like the ugliness in TV and movies, their minds take it all in,
indiscriminately, hook, line and sinker, and many aspects
of their lives are ultimately shaped by what they think and
perceive and ACCEPT, as children.

Lynda:

Do they? I work with kids, and while some do accept things less critically,
many do not. I cannot tell you how many times I've had kids point out
something to me that many of us as adults miss.  Now all of this is not
saying that as we let the kids in our lives read Harry Potter or read and
watch other media we do not need to find out what their reactions and
thoughts are and why they are thinking them, but simply saying that they
accept things indiscriminately is a little bit much, I think.

Lynda--remembering a book she thought she would read when she was a
kid---eight years old--and how she closed it and put it down after reading
two pages, telling her mother "I'm too young for that book. I think I'll
always be too young for *that* book."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec  3 06:11:12 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:11:12 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fivfm6+s6cb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj06m0+noct@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179542

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> As an author though, building a world where good and evil are going 
> to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea to have 
> some sense of what differentiates your good guys from your bad guys.  


Pippin:
Is it necessary to have good guys and bad guys in order to tell of heroism
and villainy or good and evil?  Can't there be stories about heroes where 
it's not guaranteed that they'll make the right choice, or even that 
they'll always want to?  Heroes, in short, less like the characters in a 
TV serial and more like you and me?

When Moody tells Harry, "I have to disillusion you" at the beginning of OOP,
he states what is going to happen in the next three books, IMO. Harry will
lose most of his illusions about the WW, and a lot  of his illusions about 
himself. He doesn't lose them all; who could bear that? But unless we 
willingly blind ourselves, we can only be disillusioned too.

Harry escaped into a world of wonder and magic, but he did not escape 
into a world where moral choices are made easier by the presence of 
infallible role models or simple formulas for discerning dark deeds from
light.  The Potterverse is not, it turns out, constructed like a Mega-man 
cartoon with the moral summed up at the end for those who weren't
paying attention and villains whose only penalty for refusing to learn 
that crime does not pay is to be foiled again in the next episode. 

I wept when I realized Voldemort's fate, (and I never thought JKR could 
make that happen) but it was his choice and that is more than he granted to 
his victims.  I don't understand why some readers seem to think it's unjust
that there's no healing for the undead remnant of Voldemort's soul 
when he never wished to heal the souls he maimed or the families
he tore asunder. Not even his own.


As for Dumbledore, he did enough questionable things that only 
someone as besotted  as Elphias Doge could approve of them all, but
there are many times when he did uphold justice and mercy. Who
else would have maintained Hagrid's innocence, or admitted Lupin to 
Hogwarts, or given Snape a second chance, or hired a werewolf
to teach,  or offered help to the Giants or risked so much to teach
Draco that he was not a killer at heart? 

Even when characters were involved with the Plan, he helped them
in ways that were not  needful for it. There was no plan as yet when 
Snape defected. There were obvious ways to make sure Draco didn't 
kill Dumbledore without the bother of having him learn that he could 
choose not to do it.

Betsy_HP
> And I don't think JKR bothered with that.  I don't see where our good 
> guys faced any consequences for "moral confusion".  Hermione brands a 
> girl and she's cool.

Pippin:
If she's so cool, how come nobody but Luna, Neville and Ginny would
come  when she tried to summon the DA at the end of OOP and 
once more at the end of HBP? 

OTOH, even Cho turns up when Neville calls.  It's not an obvious
moral, but any kid who nees an obvious moral to tell them that  
branding a girl's face is a lousy way to win friends and influence 
people has got way bigger problems than reading the wrong books. 

Betsy_HP:
  Harry refuses to think things through, someone 
> dies because of it, and he's grand.

Pippin:
If you're talking about Sirius, Harry is hardly grand about that.
He's not grand with losing Snape either. He pays his debts forward,
by doing all that Sirius and Snape would have wanted him to do,
and that *is* grand, IMO. It's a far greater tribute to those men and
to the gravity of their loss than anger and despair could ever be. 


Betsy_Hp:
  The twins...  well, one of them died but it was played as a tragedy, 
not the outcome of their own  mistakes or a consequence.

Pippin:
Um,  tragedy in literature *is* the outcome of one's own
mistakes or a consequence. Otherwise it's melodrama, IIRC. There's
no Greek chorus to tell us that  Fred's murderers were no more
concerned for his fate than he was for Montagues', or to remind us
that the Twins were just as willing to sell dangerous devices to 
dubious wizards as Borgin and Burkes were. But do we need one?  
Does JKR have to insult our intelligence in order to prove that she 
knows  that careless disregard for human life is wrong?

For me the characters live and breathe precisely because they
refuse to be good guys or bad guys. They're people: complicated,
ornery, frustrating, little lower than the angels,  little better than
the worms. 

Pippin




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 06:34:46 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:34:46 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fiv7bv+rkks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj0827+d6ku@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179543

> lizzyben:
> 
> And honestly, I'm trying to remember what was so awful about 
> Scrimgeour. Didn't he want Harry to be involved in the 
> Ministry's fight against Voldemort?
>   -<snip>-
>  & again asks him to release Stan Shunpike. 
> At the time, I was self-righteously nodding along 
> w/Harry - you tell that Scrimgeour! Stand up to authority!

Mike:
Yeah, I was hoodwinked too. All I was thinking about was Sirius 
and his unjust imprisonment. Which JKR wanted me to think, based 
on Harry's comments to Scrimmy during Christmas. All that throwing 
the wrong people into jail stuff and you people are all the same 
comments that Harry throws out at Scrimmy. And, with Arthur's help, 
we get it that Stan isn't a DE, he's just a kid trying to sound 
important.

JKR did a good job on selling me on the 'question authority' motif 
that I was primed to follow after Sirius and Crouch. How could 
anyone trust a Ministry that would do that to Sirius? And now 
they're doing it again to the dumb conductor. Then what happens 
after Xmas? While we're at it, let's throw in there a couple of 
more cases wherein Tom Riddle gets the stupid Ministry to blaim 
his crimes on other innocents. Geez, this Ministry can't do 
anything right. Remember, they tried to get Harry kicked out of 
school and were planning on snapping his wand until Harry's hero 
stepped in. Bad ole Ministry, bad, bad people! <eg>


> lizzyben:
>  -<snip>-
> Srimgeour implies that DD has kept Harry from any other 
> officials who might want his support or might want to gather
> more information about LV.

Mike:
Well, DD can't let anyone have access to his puppet, ... umm, his 
minion, ... no, how about his protege. Yeah, that one will do. <g>



> lizzyben:
> 
> And the end of the chapter is now chilling to me  
> -<canon snip>-
> I think old Scrimmy had Dumbledore's number all along. 
> 
> After the funeral, he again asks Harry to help to raise people's 
> morale, & offers Aurors as protection for Harry. 

Mike:
Strange, isn't it, how "raising the people's morale" seems to be a 
worthless endeavor in the eyes of Harry and DD. Maybe worse than 
worthless, maybe they were thinking it was an effort at false hope 
and that they wouldn't be a party to it. Mr. Manipulation I can see 
not giving two hoots of a snowy owl's worth thought to raising the 
spirits of the common folk. But I would have thought that Harry 
would actually care what the common people thought after his ordeal 
in OotP. 


> lizzyben:
> 
> Oh, oh, he also repeats DD's sickening slogan from COS about 
> showing personal loyalty to Him.  -<snip>-

Mike:
Thank you lizzyben. Call me thick, but I never really understood 
when folks were talking about "cult of personality" with 
regards to the books. Something clicked when you wrote this post.
I get it now. And I see it clearly.


> lizzyben:
> I now totally identify w/Scrimgeour in these scenes. They're 
> fighting a dangerous wizard, and people need hope & promise 
> that the MOM can succeed. And here's Harry Potter, so 
> brainwashed by DD that he'll repeat everything DD says, allow 
> DD to isolate him from the MOM, & even refuse to assist in the 
> fight against LV in favor of following DD's orders only.  DD did
> indeed do a good number on Harry Potter, & Scrimmy knows it.

Mike:
It's not the book as written, but imagine if DD had spread the word 
loud and wide that Lord Voldemort was really the half-blood Tom 
Riddle, that he had split his soul several times and encased the 
pieces in Horcruxes, that he had killed his own father and that you
can tell one of his DEs by the Dark Mark on their left forearm. To
me, it emphasizes how idiotic DD's way of fighting, including his 
shutting out of the Ministry and all his secrecy.

Poor Scrimmy, he inherited his predecessor's problems and ill will, 
with the added benefit of a rogue idiot savant controlling the one 
person that could turn the tide in his favor. Rasputin couldn't 
have done it any better than Albus Dumbledore.



> lizzyben
>  
> There's the MOM falling easily to the Death Eaters because
> people don't have the courage, hope or morale to fight. There's 
> Harry w/o any protection or contacts at all. 

Mike:
A side note - I didn't believe how easily the MoM falls. It's needed 
to further the story, but I remember thinking there aren't enough 
DEs to accomplish everything that LV was able to make happen.

Harry without any Ministry contacts? Just as DD wanted. Because 
Harry has to search for the Horcruxes with just R&H's help.
Otherwise, the secret would get out and maybe hundreds of people
would be looking for Horcruxes. And after all, the most brilliant 
wizard of the age found one and a half Horcruxes in the four years 
(at least) of searching. It shouldn't take three teenagers that long 
to find and destroy the other four, should it?


> lizzyben:
> There's Scimgeour, tortured to death for refusing to reveal 
> Harry's whereabouts. 

Mike:
And barely getting a sidelong glance from the Trio. "Hmm, the guy 
died protecting me. Maybe he wasn't so bad. Nah. Hey Remus, what's 
up?"


> lizzyben:
> I think Scrimgeour was a good guy who was looking for Harry's
> assistance in the battle against LV. And DD's attempts to 
> isolate & control Harry prevented the MOM from getting that 
> assistance - thereby allowing the MOM to quickly fall, & leaving 
> Harry w/o any protection or assistance in his own fight. 

Mike:
Speaking of protection, where was the Order. Did they just disband
after the flight from Outhouse,... uh, Privet Drive? Kingsley did
his turn at Pottercast and the rest,... went into hiding I guess.
What exactly did Lupin's spying on the werewolves accomplish? What
about his wife, the one that could assume any appearance she chose?
Couldn't we have at least heard that Mr. Weasley turned Delores into 
an actual toad before he went into hiding?

Mike, taking his tongue out of his cheek and seriously questioning
why all these things about Tom Riddle had to be kept secret.




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 09:03:20 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:03:20 -0000
Subject: Moody's death/In Defense of Scrimgeour - Authority
In-Reply-To: <fiv7bv+rkks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj0gop+tjt4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179544

--- "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Pippin:
> > The Ministry had made it an imprisonable offense to 
> > transport Harry from Privet Drive by apparation, portkey 
> > or Floo powder. I speculate Scrimgeour's motive for wanting
> > Harry trapped was to force him to endorse his regime. <snip>

> > a_svirn:
> > This is the whole conspiracy theory you spin. Don't you 
> > think you are  casting slurs on the memory of a brave man, 
> > who wanted the same thing as Harry had, and died heroically
> > without betraying Harry's whereabouts even under torture? 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> ... trying to remember what was so awful about Scrimgeour. 
> Didn't he want Harry to be involved in the Ministry's fight 
> against Voldemort? ...he said that Harry the hero's 
> involvement would lift people's spirits & give them hope. 
> And of course, Harry self-righteously rejects this ...
> After DD's funeral, Scrimgeour again attempts ...& Harry cuts
> him off ..., ... & again asks him to release Stan Shunpike. 
> At the time, I was self-righteously nodding along w/Harry - 
> you tell that Scrimgeour! Stand up to authority! 
> 

bboyminn:

Well several people have made some valid points, including,
much to my surprise, Mike, so while good small points are
being made, I think more important larger points are being
ignored.

For one, Scrimgeuor was NOT asking Harry to join him in
fighting Voldemort. He was asking Harry to help him create
the perception that the Ministry was doing a good job,
which they absolutely were not.

That is the problem with politics in the real world today,
everything is about perception and nothing is about substance.
Even the News is not so much about truth as it is about
validating preferred perceptions.

Scrimgeour wasn't asking Harry to help in the substantial
efforts of the Ministy, he was asking Harry to help him 
create the false preception that the Ministry was doing 
good, when if fact, they were making the most insubstantial
and ineffective effort.  

When ever this subject comes up, I'm reminded of the 
'Bartimaeus Trilogies', most noticably in 'Golem's Eye'. 
The hero, of sorts, John Mandrake works in Magical Law
Enforcement which is a collection of wizards who are 
bend on positive perception. That is, they spend their 
time crushing their colleagues and ignoring the problem,
while trying desperately to make themselves look good.
It is all about status; it's all about perception over
substance. Not only does it remind me of the HP-Ministry, 
but it reminds me of the DE's.

The hero solves the problem because he is the only one
working on it, 'The Ministry' is spending all it's time
trying to make each other look bad, and themselves better
by comparison.

Notice the the Ministry is never anywhere to be found in
any of the final battles, or if they do arrive, it is far
too late. Yet Harry IS there, because he is actually 
searching for the answers and trying to find the culprit.

Also, notice that when the time came, the Ministry tumbled
like a house made of tissue paper. They were gone and 
thoroughly corrupted and co-opted in a blink. If they
were creating substantial efforts rather than perception,
they might have stood a chance.

So, the heart of the Harry Potter story is not about defying
Authority, that's not the lesson at all. It is about knowing
when to defy authority, and this is a very critical lesson 
for kids to learn. 

Further I think most kid readers could see that the Ministry
was a flawed and ineffective organization. If it had been
left up to them, the resident authority, the wizard world
would have been lost. Harry won, not by joining the Ministry,
but by actually following the clues, solving the problem,
and fighting the good fight regardless of what impression
that left on the Ministry or the public. Again, the fight
is not about looking good, it's about winning. A lesson
the Ministry would do well to learn.

Generally, we tell kids to obey adults (teachers, parents, 
elders, policemen, firemen, etc...) but we do them a great 
disservice if we do not also teach them that there are times 
when the right thing to do is to NOT obey adults, to not yield
to authority. When an adult says 'get in my car, and I'll give 
you candy', 'come with me and I'll show you a puppy', or anyone
one of several common lines. Good sweet children who are 
rigidly train to ALWAYS obey adults are in deep trouble. Those
who are taught that sometimes authority must be disobey, are 
going to be alright. 

> lizzyben:
>
> Except Harry was really just submitting to another authority
> all  along - Dumbledore's authority. ... He also says that 
> DD's been "very protective" & hasn't allowed Harry to meet 
> w/anyone after the OOTP fiasco. Srimgeour implies that DD 
> has kept Harry from any other officials who might want his 
> support or might want to gather more information about LV.
> 

bboyminn:

While Dumbledore is protecting Harry from clearly corrupt, 
self-serving, and ineffective Ministry, that does not mean that
Dumbledore is not keeping the Ministry informed. At Harry's
hearing, Fudge mentions a tale about 'the reversal of time'
which implies that Dumbledore gave him an account of what
happened in Prisoner of Azkaban. There are several other hints
that the Ministry is aware of events that have happened to
Harry over the course of the years. So, it is not like he
is keeping them totally in the dark.

Yes, there are secrets Dumbledore is holding, such as, as 
Mike pointed out, Dumbledore not telling people about the
Horcruxes. But as we all know the Ministry is worse than
a leaky cauldron, it is more like a colander. If you tell 
them a secret, you might as well publish it in the paper,
and that doesn't bode well for the plan. It is essential
that Voldemort NOT KNOW that people are aware of his
Horcruxes for as long as possible.

It is also important to keep the information away from 
Voldemort so he won't change his pattern. He has hidden the
Horcruxes under a certain premise; notable places, places
that are significant to him. If he had know, he would have
moved them to more random places, places that had no
discernible logic which would have made them impossible
to find. It would have also encourage other Dark Wizards
to do the same, which would have made the task much harder.

Dumbledore kept the secret because he is actually trying to
solve the problem, the Ministry would not have kept the 
secret because all they are trying to create is a positive
though thoroughly false perception. Personally, I'd rather
win than look good. 

I think Scrimgeour was a basically good guy, and was grateful
and impressed when he went down without betraying Harry. But
I think he spent too many years as a bureaucrat in a political
organization. I think, once becoming Minster, politics and
impression became more important than results. 

But then, that's just my opinion.

Steve/bboyminn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 09:11:41 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:11:41 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fiv9kv+s1g1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj0h8d+elpu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179545

> Magpie:
> When did Harry struggle with wanting to be friends with anyone 
> because they had connections? What connections has he really wanted 
> in canon? I can think of far more times where he rejects other 
> peoples' advances.

a_svirn:
Exactly. But I think *Ron* did want connections. He certainly was 
keen on making friends with Harry because Harry was such a celebrity. 
Same way as Draco did. He also wouldn't have minded to make friends 
with Krum for the same reason (though that was before the Yule ball). 
Again, same way as Draco did. So how Ron was so different from Draco 
in terms of friendship values? 

(I feel a disclaimer is needed at this point, since I was already 
accused of "bashing" Ron. I actually rather like Ron, and don't 
particularly like Draco. But although I believe Ron is a better 
person, I don't think it because of the "values" Alla named.)

> > Alla:
> > 
> > That's your intepretation. Mine is that this moment ( and this is 
> of 
> > course the moment I was thinking of) is one of the defining 
moments 
> > in the book, when Harry instead of choosing pureblood ideology, 
> > instead of choosing everything Malfoys stand for, chooses Ron and 
> > what Weasleys stand for as I perceive it - love, loyalty, 
> > friendship, putting blood purity as something very unimportant on 
> > their list of values. I view it as very symbolic. IMO of course.
> 
> Magpie:
> Yeah, it's defining and symbolic. That doesn't make it any real 
> temptation for Harry whatsoever. There's not a single moment where 
> Harry is ever even close to thinking of making a friend in Draco 
> Malfoy. 

a_svirn:
And, frankly, I think saying that Harry chose one ideology over 
another is a bit of overkill. Harry didn't even know much about 
the "pure-blood ideology" at that point. He simply disliked Draco on 
sight and he liked Ron. He didn't choose Ron as a representative of 
the "Weasley values". He was fascinated with this completely new word 
and Ron was a part of it, and the part Harry definitely liked. I 
agree it was symbolic, but at the time it wasn't a conscious choice 
between the two ideologies. 








From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 09:54:12 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:54:12 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj0827+d6ku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj0jo4+ah8f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179546

> lizzyben:
> After the funeral, he again asks Harry to help to raise people's 
> morale, & offers Aurors as protection for Harry. And Harry rudely 
> cuts him off & repeats that he's "DD's man." Oh, oh, he also 
repeats 
> DD's sickening slogan from COS about showing personal loyalty to 
> Him.

a_svirn:
And in the end that final assessment of Snape's character? "Severus 
Snape wasn't yours, he was Dumbledore's". And that of course says it 
all, does it? Whatever Snape had done during the wars and in-between 
his ultimate loyalty to Him was his indulgence. 

Mike:
Thank you lizzyben. Call me thick, but I never really understood
when folks were talking about "cult of personality" with
regards to the books. Something clicked when you wrote this post.
I get it now. And I see it clearly.

a_svirn:
And speaking of cults, the one of the things that galled me in HPB 
and DH is that the Order of the Phoenix is actually more like a 
religious sect, than a resistance group. There is The Chosen One ? 
Harry and His Prophet ? Dumbledore. And there is this Mystery of the 
Prophesy, the esoteric knowledge that only Harry and Dumbledore 
share. The others aren't worthy to know.  The organization's single 
goal seems to be ensuring that Harry fulfill his Destiny whatever it 
is. The destiny of all the lesser mortals is of very little interest 
to the Order. Where is the organized underground network for the 
muggle-borns protection for instance? That wizard (Dirk Cresswell?) 
from the Goblin Liasons Office got away because Dawlish had been 
thoroughly Confounded as a part of Harry's Protection plan. Why 
nobody thought of confounding Yaxley and Co? Why nobody tried to help 
the people whose wands were confiscated? Surely they could find some 
second-hand wands for them? Or even brand new ones for that matter. 
Grigorovotch was still alive at the beginning of DH, and there must 
have been other wand-makers in other countries. Why couldn't they 
organize help-line for those who were forced to beg? And so on. The 
answer is simple ? because it was all about Harry, the object of 
their cult. If Harry was alive there was hope of salvation. So they 
only concentrated on keeping him alive. When they couldn't do even 
that, they resorted to prayers on the "Potterwatch". 





From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 10:21:37 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:21:37 -0000
Subject: The Fall of the Ministry (Was Re: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD)
In-Reply-To: <fj0827+d6ku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj0lbh+11089@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179547

> Mike:
> A side note - I didn't believe how easily the MoM falls.  
> It's needed to further the story, but I remember thinking 
> there aren't enough DEs to accomplish everything that LV 
> was able to make happen.

Goddlefrood:

Never lived through a coup yourself, then? Thought not. 
It's amazing how quickly power is usurped by one side 
and relinquished by another when a change of regime 
takes place.

Happily for me (as it's something for the grandkids, 
probably), I've been through two coups in my life. 
During the first one there had been some loose talk 
about the possibility of a take-over for a few days 
prior to the actual event. It seemed well known, 
including to the Government of the time, that the 
coup would happen immediately after a demonstration 
march. The march started and proceeded towards the 
Parliament complex, ostensibly to hand in its list 
of grievances, but when it reached there the leaders 
of the coup (or more likely the paid lackeys of the 
leaders of the coup in that instance) waltzed into 
the debating chamber and announced that they were 
now in power. The actual takeover was effected within 
a matter of minutes. The number of people involved in 
the take-over, that is in terms of those at the Parliament 
was no more than 15, of whom 12 were armed. The coup 
leaders themselves referred to it as a civilian coup.

The second one was announced by the military chief 
quite some time beforehand. It'll be the anniversary 
on Wednesday. This time the military were directly 
involved and the Army Commander was the man doing the 
warning, as well as the one who went and deposed the 
elected Government. It took just a few hours to execute.

So, you see, it's really quite easy to effect a coup, 
as long as those doing so act either with the backing 
of an army, as happened last year, or with a small group 
of determined people. The Ministry of Magic's fall is 
really quite similar to the former of these in that a 
small group of determined people, in the HP world a 
few Death Eaters (with presumably Lord Voldemort making 
overt threats close to hand), took power in a short space 
of time with little internal resistance. It's quite probable 
that, as here, the Ministry really didn't believe it would 
fall. Both the Governments that fell here were of a similar 
opinion and thus ill-prepared for what transpired.

Goddlefrood, not recommending that anyone seeks out a 
potential coup to see empirically what I mean.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 14:22:09 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:22:09 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj0827+d6ku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj13eh+al58@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179548

Mike:
<SNIP of the whole post>
Poor Scrimmy, he inherited his predecessor's problems and ill will,
with the added benefit of a rogue idiot savant controlling the one
person that could turn the tide in his favor. Rasputin couldn't
have done it any better than Albus Dumbledore.
<SNIP>


Alla:

I agree with calling Dumbledore's secrecy idiotic and who knows, if 
he played his cards better, Harry could have gained ally in the 
Ministry.

BUT I think Harry had an absolutely independent from Dumbledore and 
very valid way to dislike Scrimgeour.

Umbridge was still working there. I do not blame Harry for disliking 
the minister who still employs the person who did so much harm to 
Hogwarts and to him personally.

Isn't he still looking at his "I will not tell lies" at some point 
during conversation with Scrimgeour?

It is my inference, but I think it is a valid one.

Maybe Harry if he decided to go deeper would see that Scrimgeour 
does not share Umbridge's values, etc, BUT under circumstances I 
cannot blame him that he did not try. IF that is the reason of 
course.


JMO,

Alla




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 17:22:43 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:22:43 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes (WAS Re: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD)
In-Reply-To: <fj0827+d6ku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj1e13+aaoa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179549

> Mike:
> A side note - I didn't believe how easily the MoM falls. It's 
needed 
> to further the story, but I remember thinking there aren't enough 
> DEs to accomplish everything that LV was able to make happen.

zgirnius:
"Imperio!"

> Mike:
> And after all, the most brilliant 
> wizard of the age found one and a half Horcruxes in the four years 
> (at least) of searching. It shouldn't take three teenagers that 
long 
> to find and destroy the other four, should it?

zgirnius:
Dumbledore had, at the end of HBP, found the Diary (destroyed by 
Harry), the Ring (destroyed by him), Nagini, slated for destruction 
last so that Voldemort would not know what it doing on, and the 
locket which I deduce you are calling "half". That's 3 1/2, leaving 2 
1/2 for the three teenagers.

Dumbledore also arranged to get the teenagers the tool they would 
need to destroy the Horcruxes (the Sword, via Snape).

Still not great, but a bit better than your version.

I do not believe this was the original plan. In my view, Dumbledore 
planned to deal with all of the Horcruxes himself until just after 
the end of OotP. It was at this point that he foolishly put on the 
Ring, and Snape was only able to get him one more year of life with 
all his Dark Arts skills.

At that point, Dumbledore was forced to revise his plan for the 
Horcruxes, since he saw he would not complete the task himself in the 
time he had left. Based on his actions, I conclude that it was at 
this point that he decided to pass the task on to Harry after his own 
death, since it is at this point that he started training Harry on 
all that he had learned in his years of pursuit of the Horcruxes.

So to me, the question becomes, at the time OotP ended, was it 
reasonable for Dumbledore to keep the Horcruxes secret? My own answer 
is yes. Whether a wider circle of people than just the Trio could be 
trusted with the secret at that point is open to debate - with 20/20 
hindsight, for example, we can assert that Snape died still enjoying 
what passes for Voldemort's trust, so that the secret would have been 
safe with him despite his precarious position 'dangling on 
Voldemort's arm', and there are doubtless others of whom similar 
arguments could be made.

But to publish the secret in the Daily Prophet, I remain convinced, 
would have been a grave error. It could have jolted Voldemort out of 
his confidence in the secrecy of his Horcruxes and hiding places, and 
the number of searchers would not, in my view, overcome the 
possibilities in Rowling's universe for using magic to hide them 
irretrievably.




> 
> > lizzyben:
> > There's Scimgeour, tortured to death for refusing to reveal 
> > Harry's whereabouts. 
> 
> Mike:
> And barely getting a sidelong glance from the Trio. "Hmm, the guy 
> died protecting me. Maybe he wasn't so bad. Nah. Hey Remus, what's 
> up?"
> 
> 
> > lizzyben:
> > I think Scrimgeour was a good guy who was looking for Harry's
> > assistance in the battle against LV. And DD's attempts to 
> > isolate & control Harry prevented the MOM from getting that 
> > assistance - thereby allowing the MOM to quickly fall, & leaving 
> > Harry w/o any protection or assistance in his own fight. 
> 
> Mike:
> Speaking of protection, where was the Order. Did they just disband
> after the flight from Outhouse,... uh, Privet Drive? Kingsley did
> his turn at Pottercast and the rest,... went into hiding I guess.
> What exactly did Lupin's spying on the werewolves accomplish? What
> about his wife, the one that could assume any appearance she chose?
> Couldn't we have at least heard that Mr. Weasley turned Delores 
into 
> an actual toad before he went into hiding?
> 
> Mike, taking his tongue out of his cheek and seriously questioning
> why all these things about Tom Riddle had to be kept secret.
>





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec  3 18:17:22 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:17:22 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj0827+d6ku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj1h7i+q05p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179550

> Mike:
> It's not the book as written, but imagine if DD had spread the word 
> loud and wide that Lord Voldemort was really the half-blood Tom 
> Riddle, that he had split his soul several times and encased the 
> pieces in Horcruxes, that he had killed his own father and that you
> can tell one of his DEs by the Dark Mark on their left forearm. To
> me, it emphasizes how idiotic DD's way of fighting, including his 
> shutting out of the Ministry and all his secrecy.

Pippin:
So, there's nothing wrong with denouncing a person on account
of their race?  Funny how Dumbledore, whom  some
now seem  to think was capable of every horror, never sank that low.

Dumbledore did try to get the Ministry to realize that Morfin was the
wrong man, and everyone did know about the Dark Mark tattoo,
otherwise it could hardly have been used to intimidate people.
After Godric's Hollow the Dark Mark faded and in any case it
didn't tell who was serving Voldemort willingly and who was under
the Imperius curse, nor did all Voldemort's followers have it. We
don't know, for example, when Pettigrew got his dark mark, it
could have been after his return to LV.

 I assumed that Stan Shunpike was innocent and had been placed 
under the Imperius Curse by real DE's after he'd fallen into their 
hands during the mass breakout from Azkaban. He might have
been quite safe if he hadn't been falsely imprisoned in the first place.


Obviously JKR came up with horcruxes in the first place because
she needed a task that would be vital to defeat Voldemort but which
Dumbledore could believe that Harry and his friends
would need to  accomplish on their own (and which they could actually
do.) 

But after years of trying and failing to get the Ministry to
realize that Voldemort was outwitting it at every turn is it so
unrealistic that Dumbledore was sure that involving them in the
Horcrux hunt would do more harm than good?   Not to mention 
that a number of people who had torn souls might feel that a 
horcrux was a better way to prevent ending up in the afterlife
 with a damaged soul than having to repair themselves through
remorse. 

I was surprised and touched by the manner of Scrimgeour's
death, but he never asked Harry to rally the people to fight Voldemort.
He wanted them to think that Harry, the Chosen One, was going
to fight Voldemort, and they didn't have to do a thing but trust
the Ministry.

He wanted him to tell everyone what a good job the Ministry was
doing, and he wasn't the least bit interested in Harry's reasons
for thinking the Ministry wasn't  so hot. He didn't 
believe himself that Harry was the Chosen One, but he was cynically
willing to foster that belief if it would make people think that
they were safer.

I doubt he would have spread the story of the horcruxes if Harry 
had decided to share it with him.  It made the Aurors look bad--
each Horcrux was made through a murder the Ministry failed
to prevent and what's worse most of them had been blamed on
the wrong person --  that's not going to make people feel the
Ministry is their friend.

Pippin




From jnferr at gmail.com  Mon Dec  3 19:49:41 2007
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:49:41 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: post DH musings on PS
In-Reply-To: <fivlpk+j07t@eGroups.com>
References: <8ee758b40711291051w5fa9bd7k5bb803f4c0c594e4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fivlpk+j07t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40712031149h1279f09dm8492bd0057ca96d1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179551

>
> > montims:
> > and without having my book with me, doesn't it talk about Harry
> learning the
> > uses of dittany, and also what to do if bitten by a werewolf, or
> something?
> >
> >
> Allie:
>
> Yes, something like "ways of treating a werewolf bite."  Snape also
> talks about using a Bezoar as an antidote to most poisons in his first
> lesson.


montims:
and of course, as we learn in HBP when Bill is attacked, there is NO remedy
for a werewolf bite...  Hmmm...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 20:06:45 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:06:45 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj1e13+aaoa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj1nkl+fn8s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179552

Zara:
<SNIP>
So to me, the question becomes, at the time OotP ended, was it
reasonable for Dumbledore to keep the Horcruxes secret? My own answer
is yes. Whether a wider circle of people than just the Trio could be
trusted with the secret at that point is open to debate - with 20/20
hindsight, for example, we can assert that Snape died still enjoying
what passes for Voldemort's trust, so that the secret would have been
safe with him despite his precarious position 'dangling on
Voldemort's arm', and there are doubtless others of whom similar
arguments could be made.

But to publish the secret in the Daily Prophet, I remain convinced,
would have been a grave error. It could have jolted Voldemort out of
his confidence in the secrecy of his Horcruxes and hiding places, and
the number of searchers would not, in my view, overcome the
possibilities in Rowling's universe for using magic to hide them
irretrievably.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Eh, did anyone make the argument of publishing the horcruxes in Daily 
Prophet? If anybody did and I missed it, then sure I do not subscribe 
to it either.

But to keep it quiet from the people who are supposed to be your 
comrads in arms and who are supposed to help you?

I mean of course Order and I think DA members as well, and I think 
the best argument for it was made by a_svirn that Battle of Hogwarts 
may have never ever happened, had Mcgonagall and DA members knew that 
they were supposed to look for something.

I mean, Mcgonagall, his Deputy Headmistress, and he **still** did not 
trust her. I mean, I never bought into evil Minerva theories, but I 
certainly understand how those theories came to life.

I mean, WHY why would Dumbledore not trust her of all people? It fits 
for me with his character, but it certainly does not fit for me with 
any logic.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
But after years of trying and failing to get the Ministry to
realize that Voldemort was outwitting it at every turn is it so
unrealistic that Dumbledore was sure that involving them in the
Horcrux hunt would do more harm than good?
<SNIP>

Alla:

Actually I find it very realistic if we look at Dumbledore's behavior 
as the man who tried and got burned, BUT not if we look at 
Dumbledore's behavior from the outside, if that makes sense.
I totally agree for example that if Fudge was still in charge of MoM, 
I would not hold it against Dumbledore at all that he would not 
bother with the ministry.

But I think he ought to at least try when new minister came along, 
maybe they would have understood each other, or maybe not.

My main beef with Dumbledore's secrecy though is the not trusting 
members of the order part AND also forbidding Harry to share with 
anybody else, but Trio instead of encouraging him to share with the 
DA members.

With ministry, I think he should have just tried more, but he indeed 
tried in the past.

Pippin:
<SNIP>
I was surprised and touched by the manner of Scrimgeour's
death, but he never asked Harry to rally the people to fight 
Voldemort.
He wanted them to think that Harry, the Chosen One, was going
to fight Voldemort, and they didn't have to do a thing but trust
the Ministry.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Good point.





From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 20:26:39 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:26:39 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fivlvp+9lar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj1opv+3u22@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179553

Alla:
Nope, not in my opinion. The fact that Harry is a pariah sometimes
is one of many things that does not make me to think of him as
important person, never will, never would.
 
Magpie:
Then I guess I don't know what to reply to that. The kid is actually
called "The Chosen One." In the newspaper. He's a celebrity. The
biggest celebrity in his world. If Harry isn't an important person I
don't know who possibly could be. He's almost literally the only
person who matters most of the time in his entire world.
> 
> 
Alla:
Oh, of course he is the Chosen one and sure, he is important. I was 
thinking about one of the most recent debates as to whether he is a 
popular guy on campus, because that I disagree with - that he is not 
popular all the time and not with everybody.

Steph:
I agree with Alla here.  Just because Harry is famous doesn't mean 
he's popular.  In fact, he spends much of the time in both GOF and 
OotP being distinctly unpopular.  The rest of the time, he just 
seems like someone no one really pays that much attention to, except 
when something spectacular happens, as in SS and CoS, or when he's 
playing Quidditch.  Overall, Harry doesn't appear to have many 
friends beyond Ron, Hermione, the other Weasleys, Seamus, Neville, 
and Dean.  It's not until HBP that he actually becomes popular, when 
everyone finally realizes that he wasn't making up the stuff about 
Voldie.

I also don't think that Ron was looking to make connections when he 
met Harry.  Ron certainly thought it was cool that Harry was who he 
was, but after that it didn't really seem to matter to Ron that 
Harry was famous.  If you want to finger someone for wanting to be 
friends with Harry just because he's famous, Colin Creevy would be 
your boy.   





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  3 20:48:04 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:48:04 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj1opv+3u22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj1q24+kr2p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179554

> Alla:
> Oh, of course he is the Chosen one and sure, he is important. I 
was 
> thinking about one of the most recent debates as to whether he is 
a 
> popular guy on campus, because that I disagree with - that he is 
not 
> popular all the time and not with everybody.
> 
> Steph:
> I agree with Alla here.  Just because Harry is famous doesn't mean 
> he's popular.  In fact, he spends much of the time in both GOF and 
> OotP being distinctly unpopular.  The rest of the time, he just 
> seems like someone no one really pays that much attention to, 
except 
> when something spectacular happens, as in SS and CoS, or when he's 
> playing Quidditch. 

Magpie:
So except for all those times random strangers are throwing 
themselves at him or he's being chased by hoards of girls. Or when 
something spectacular happens, which is once a year. Harry's a 
totally nobody in between the times he's front page news, the stuff 
of legend or the school sports star. Iow, he's never a nobody. If 
nobody cared about Harry he wouldn't have the dramatic shunnings he 
does--that's even spelled out in canon in PS when Harry gets the 
brunt of the reaction to the loss of points because Hermione and 
Neville actually aren't important (rather than just having periods 
where the crowd's attention gets down to a dull roar or turns 
nasty). Harry is far more high-profile all the time. Even if Hannah 
Abbot has twice as many people to her birthday party.

Fame is a whole greater level of importantance and Harry's got it. 
When the head of the government is showing up to try to get you on 
his side, and the new teacher is sucking up to you, and when the 
world goes to hell the whole world is looking to you as a savior 
because you kind of are their savior--come on, how on earth is this 
kid not important? I can't even come up with somebody who's Harry's 
level of importance in our world. Chosen One. Literally. I think 
Harry's central to his universe even more than most fantasy heroes.


Steph:
 Overall, Harry doesn't appear to have many 
> friends beyond Ron, Hermione, the other Weasleys, Seamus, Neville, 
> and Dean.  It's not until HBP that he actually becomes popular, 
when 
> everyone finally realizes that he wasn't making up the stuff about 
> Voldie.

Magpie:
So you're admitting that Harry did become popular in HBP at least? 
His importance doesn't come from how many people are in his circle. 
Julia Roberts probably doesn't have that many more friends than I 
do, but she's still the one with far more importance socially. She's 
the movie star even if she's not "popular" in the way you're using 
the term here (as opposed to meaning somebody with social 
advantages). And yet people probably also dislike her en masse more 
than they do me.

Steph:
> 
> I also don't think that Ron was looking to make connections when 
he 
> met Harry.  Ron certainly thought it was cool that Harry was who 
he 
> was, but after that it didn't really seem to matter to Ron that 
> Harry was famous.  If you want to finger someone for wanting to be 
> friends with Harry just because he's famous, Colin Creevy would be 
> your boy.

Magpie:
The fact remains when it came to connections, it was Ron who made a 
good one in that scene and not Harry. Which is why when Ron's Sorted 
into Gryffindor it's no big deal, while when Harry's Sorted into 
Gryffindor there's a huge cheer and people chant "We got Potter!" 
The only place Harry could possibly come close to meeting somebody 
of a social standing similar to his own is when he meets Viktor 
Krum, and I don't recall him having any desires to make connections 
with him because he, too, was famous. Otherwise he's the one with 
the string of people who are drawn to him like moths to a flame. 
Sure you can say those people don't like the "real Harry" or 
whatever, but that doesn't make him any less important. (As 
presumably Ron knows, since he seems to be the character who 
actually deals with being ordinary.) The fact that Harry has a Colin 
Creevey is just another symptom of his importance.

-m




From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Mon Dec  3 20:49:01 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:49:01 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fivfm6+s6cb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj1q3t+uivv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179555

> Betsy Hp:
> As an author though, building a world where good and evil are going 
> to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea to have 
> some sense of what differentiates your good guys from your bad 
guys.  
> And I don't think JKR bothered with that.

Perhaps JKR's sense of what differentiates good guys from bad guys was 
summed up in Dumbledore's comments to Harry, when Harry was concerned 
that he could have been sorted into Slytherin. Harry chose Gryffindor. 
We can be good or evil, depending on the choices we make.

Pippin Fowler

I see another Pippin in recent posts, so I will try to remember to 
sign with my last name also.




From s.hayes at qut.edu.au  Mon Dec  3 21:27:33 2007
From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 07:27:33 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's
 death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj1q3t+uivv@eGroups.com>
References: <fivfm6+s6cb@eGroups.com>,<fj1q3t+uivv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED22B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 179556


________________________________________
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Pippin [1kf.lists at earthlink.net]
Sent: 04 December 2007 06:49
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)

> Betsy Hp:
> As an author though, building a world where good and evil are going
> to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea to have
> some sense of what differentiates your good guys from your bad
guys.
> And I don't think JKR bothered with that.

Perhaps JKR's sense of what differentiates good guys from bad guys was
summed up in Dumbledore's comments to Harry, when Harry was concerned
that he could have been sorted into Slytherin. Harry chose Gryffindor.
We can be good or evil, depending on the choices we make.

Pippin Fowler

Sharon:
To my mind, it makes the books that much more interesting to have to work through all the confusion and mistakes that the characters undergo, to try to figure out the difference between good and evil. Why should the author just hand it to us on a platter?  Surely the mark of a good novel is the depiction and development of characters who can seem real to us -- ie. flawed, confused, irrational, sometimes immoral, making mistakes--even BIG ones--then suffering because of it.  Where would the plot be if she gave us the good and evil stuff up front.  We need to work for it and that is half the fun of the books. Harry is so dense at times it makes me want to scream! But would I want him all-knowing and wise from the start--no way! The fun part is how he gets through everything in spite of his denseness, how he manages to fulfil his destiny in spite of his impulsiveness and his inability to listen to the advice of others.  Hermione is a royal pain, overly cautious, and drives me nuts as well.  But how could she be otherwise?  I don't want a MarySue. Hermione makes lots of mistakes in spite of being so smart and her antics help the plot along nicely.  So I wouldn't change anything about the books in terms of how good and evil are depicted.  Even the Gryffindors doing Unforgivables near the end. Harry perfoming Crucio just shows how human he is. He has suffered so much in his short life-- my god if you think about it the boy has been abused left, right and centre.  Finally he snaps.  It seems reasonable given the circumstances.  McGonagal too.  Sometimes you ahve to fight evil with evil.  Mind you Harry never once even considers using the Avada Kedavra, even when faced with Voldemort. That speaks volumes about his morality if you ask me.



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 21:46:09 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:46:09 -0000
Subject: Harry's "importance" (Was: How do the books affect children?)
In-Reply-To: <fj1opv+3u22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj1tf1+ehr1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179557

Alla wrote:
> Oh, of course he is the Chosen one and sure, he is important. I was 
> thinking about one of the most recent debates as to whether he is a 
> popular guy on campus, because that I disagree with - that he is not 
> popular all the time and not with everybody.
> 
Steph replied:
> I agree with Alla here.  Just because Harry is famous doesn't mean 
> he's popular.  In fact, he spends much of the time in both GOF and 
> OotP being distinctly unpopular.  The rest of the time, he just 
> seems like someone no one really pays that much attention to, except 
> when something spectacular happens, as in SS and CoS, or when he's 
> playing Quidditch.  Overall, Harry doesn't appear to have many 
> friends beyond Ron, Hermione, the other Weasleys, Seamus, Neville, 
> and Dean.  It's not until HBP that he actually becomes popular, when 
> everyone finally realizes that he wasn't making up the stuff about 
> Voldie.
> 
> I also don't think that Ron was looking to make connections when he 
> met Harry.  Ron certainly thought it was cool that Harry was who he 
> was, but after that it didn't really seem to matter to Ron that 
> Harry was famous.  If you want to finger someone for wanting to be 
> friends with Harry just because he's famous, Colin Creevy would be 
> your boy.
>
Carol responds:

for the most part, I agree with both of you. There are times when no
one is paying much attention to Harry (for example, the beginning of
GoF, before his name comes out of the goblet) and others when he's
largely *un*popular, as when many if not most of the students think
he's the Heir of Slytherin or that he put his own name in the GoF. In
the second instance, the Gryffindors are behind him only because they
want a champion from their House to win the TWT. He becomes generally
popular with everyone except Slytherin after the first task because he
scored a lot of points for Hogwarts in the first task. (Cedric and
Krum, also TWT champions, retain their popularity, IIRC.) For that
reason, not because he's the Boy Who Lived, much less the Chosen One
(the term hasn't been used yet), the girls clamor for the honor of
being his date at the Yule Ball. Many of them don't even know him and
consequently, they can't *like* him. They only want to be his arm
decoration. (Notice that Parvati, who does know him and ends up being
his date for the Yule Ball, never clamors to be his girlfriend. Nor
does Lavender, who also knows him, though she eventually goes after
ron--not for his connection with Harry but because of his silly action
involving a Fanged Frisbee. Or she'd already developed a cursh on him.
We don't know.) In OoP, no one is chasing after him. He's getting
publicity, all right, but all of it indicating that he's unstable and
dangerous. In HBP, the wave of popularity resulting in his being the
date of choice to Slughorn's party results as much from his being a
member of the Slug Club and from a spectacular Quidditch win as from
his having just been involved in a battle with Voldemort and the DEs
in the DoM. (Neither Neville nor Ron is helped by having also been
there as neither is a potential date for Slughorn's party for anyone
except Hermione, who is a member herself.)

Harry has friends other than Ron and Hermione, but he's not close to
any of them and is at odds with Seamus, Ernie Macmillan, and even Ron
at times during his time at Hogwarts. All come around eventually to
the view that he's the Chosen One, but that has nothing to do with
their original relationship with him. Nor does his fame. It's more
that he's Ron's friend from the beginning, Ernie is a classmate, and
Seamus is a roommate. Harry does have the occasional groupie or fan,
even counting a teacher (Lockhart), but only the Creevey brothers and
Cho (who also evidently has a crush on him and admires his Qiidditch
skills) fall into that category. And again, their hero worship
(Creeveys) or crush 9cho) has nothing to do with being *important.* It
has to do with being *famous." His scar may be legend, to paraphrase
Film!Lucius, but his fame consists entirely in having survived, as an
infant, an AK that nearly destroyed Voldemort. Not one of those
students expects him to duplicate the feat. It takes a long time to
persuade anyone other than Hermione, Luna, Ernie, and the Weasleys
that Harry isn't a liar and a "nutter." Even the DA members largely
join so that they can pass their OWLS, not because they believe that
Voldemort is back and they'll need to fight him. And not one even
among the DA expects Harry to save the WW--at least not until DH when
the Ministry has fallen and Harry is on the run, at which point he
becomes important as a symbol of hope--in fact, he's almost the mascot
that Scrimgeour was trying to make him except that he represents the
(extremely feeble) resistance movement rather than the MoM.

Important? I really don't think so. He's "famous Harry Potter," of
whom Draco is chronically jealous and Ron is occasionally envious, but
he's also a not particularly good student who's willing to cheat on
his homework, an exceptional Quidditch player (which makes him
generally popular with Gryffindor but not with anyone else except Cho
and maybe Loony Luna), a kid who's always breaking rules and getting
into trouble ("Dumbledore's favorite," as Draco complains, not without
reason). People who meet him for the first time stare at his scar, but
the staring passes. He's not being followed most of the time by a fan
club, and half the time, those who stare and point are afraid of him
or think he's done something unworthy.

Carol, who thinks that no one except DD and to a lesser degree, the
Order members, especially Snape, realizes how important Harry really
is, and even in DH, he is important more as a symbol of hope and
resistance than as a potential hero capable of defeating Voldemort




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec  3 21:52:48 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:52:48 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj1nkl+fn8s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj1trg+aatv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179558

Alla:
> 
> I mean, Mcgonagall, his Deputy Headmistress, and he **still** did not 
> trust her. I mean, I never bought into evil Minerva theories, but I 
> certainly understand how those theories came to life.
> 
> I mean, WHY why would Dumbledore not trust her of all people? It fits 
> for me with his character, but it certainly does not fit for me with 
> any logic.

Pippin:

McGonagall would have been honored to keep any secret  entrusted
to her, IMO,  but considering her idea of how to conceal that Harry was 
getting his own broom in PS/SS and the fact that she looked "very odd"
in a Muggle dress and coat (OOP) , stealth and undercover work don't  
seem to have been her forte. Entrusting secrets to her would put her 
in needless peril. 

Anyway what good would it have done to know that Harry needed something
of Ravenclaw's? People had been seeking the lost diadem for a thousand 
years with no luck, just as they'd been seeking the Chamber of Secrets.

Harry had a way with outcasts, with Myrtle and Helena, that Dumbledore 
and McGonagall, those pillars of The Establishment, could never have. 

> 
> Pippin:
> <SNIP>
> But after years of trying and failing to get the Ministry to
> realize that Voldemort was outwitting it at every turn is it so
> unrealistic that Dumbledore was sure that involving them in the
> Horcrux hunt would do more harm than good?
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> But I think he ought to at least try when new minister came along, 
> maybe they would have understood each other, or maybe not.

Pippin:
Scrimgeour didn't just 'come along', he was mentioned in OOP ch 7 as
asking  questions about Sirius. He and Dumbledore surely knew
each other well enough. Scrimmy was apparently willing to
entertain the idea that Voldemort might have come back, but not
to question the guilt of either Sirius or Stan Shunpike at the expense 
of making his department look bad. If Scrimgeour didn't care 
about their welfare why should he be entrusted with Harry's?

Even with our Muggle-ish grasp of horcrux lore most of us realized
there was a good chance that Harry had inadvertently become
one. Surely Scrimgeour would have drawn the same conclusion --
do you think he'd have seen the situation as Dumbledore did?
Would he have trusted that Harry's power of love and those who
loved him would have the best chance of resisting
their powers, which were sure to grow as Voldemort himself
grew stronger? Or would he have destroyed the one horcrux
he could be sure of getting at?


Pippin
noticing there is now another Pippin on the list. Welcome!




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 22:18:02 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:18:02 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED22B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>
Message-ID: <fj1vaq+cbpt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179559

Sharon wrote:
> To my mind, it makes the books that much more interesting to have to
work through all the confusion and mistakes that the characters
undergo, to try to figure out the difference between good and evil.
Why should the author just hand it to us on a platter?  Surely the
mark of a good novel is the depiction and development of characters
who can seem real to us -- ie. flawed, confused, irrational, sometimes
immoral, making mistakes--even BIG ones--then suffering because of it.
 Where would the plot be if she gave us the good and evil stuff up
front.  We need to work for it and that is half the fun of the books.
Harry is so dense at times it makes me want to scream! But would I
want him all-knowing and wise from the start--no way! The fun part is
how he gets through everything in spite of his denseness, how he
manages to fulfil his destiny in spite of his impulsiveness and his
inability to listen to the advice of others.  Hermione is a royal
pain, overly cautious, and drives me nuts as well.  But how could she
be otherwise?  I don't want a MarySue. Hermione makes lots of mistakes
in spite of being so smart and her antics help the plot along nicely.
 So I wouldn't change anything about the books in terms of how good
and evil are depicted.  Even the Gryffindors doing Unforgivables near
the end. Harry perfoming Crucio just shows how human he is. He has
suffered so much in his short life-- my god if you think about it the
boy has been abused left, right and centre.  Finally he snaps.  It
seems reasonable given the circumstances.  McGonagal too.  Sometimes
you ahve to fight evil with evil.  Mind you Harry never once even
considers using the Avada Kedavra, even when faced with Voldemort.
That speaks volumes about his morality if you ask me.
>
Carol responds:

While I agree that the main characters are not black and white in the
sense of being all bad or all good (even Bellatrix and Tom Riddle are
shown to have human traits on rare occasions), and I think that Harry
grows more perceptive, perhaps wiser, throughout the books (though
it's a very slow process until Snape's revelations and Harry's choice
to sacrifice himself complete the process), I don't agree that the
Crucio is justifiable (no matter how much you've suffered and how evil
your opponent, you don't Crucio that opponent for spitting, IMO). 

I also disagree that Harry never considered using an AK (he's
certainly considered using Crucio as far back as GoF, when he wants to
Crucio Snape for giving him and Ron what he perceives to be an unfair
detention). I think that the one Unforgiveable that he never considers
using (until Griphook suggests it and he follows through) is the
Imperius Curse. As of OoP, when he first hears the Prophecy, he thinks
that he's going to have to murder or be murdered, and the only Killing
Curse he knows is Avada Kedavra. (Even after he learns Sectumsempra, I
don't think he considers using it on Voldie, if only because Snape
knows the countercurse and he thinks that Snape is a loyal DE.) It's
only when he sees Snape's memories and realizes that he has to
sacrifice himself, letting Voldemort kill him (or attempt to) without
fighting back, that he stops thinking in terms of killing Voldemort. 

The fact that Avada Kedavra is an Unforgiveable Curse has ceased to be
important to Harry (or even, I suppose, to Hermione, who's the only
one of the Trio who ever worried much about rules and laws). If it's
the only weapon he has, he'll use it, just as he uses Crucio and
Imperius when (in his opinion, not mine) the need arises. He attempts
to use Crucio at least twice before the corrupt MoM (presumably)
legalizes it (or illegality ceases to matter).

I agree that his decision not to kill Voldemort after all the
Horcruxes are destroyed, instead relying on Expelliarmus, the Elder
Wand's loyalty, and perhaps the failure of Voldie's spells resulting
from Harry's earlier self-sacrifice, is a good one. IMO, it's the
right decision, reflecting the loss of desire to avenge or punish and
the renunciation of power. But were it not for Snape's message and
memories, I think that Harry would have tried to kill Voldie the first
time around, resulting in his own death and the revaporization of
Voldemort, who would have died when Neville or someone else killed Nagini.

Carol, who thinks that Harry's choice of Gryffindor does not in itself
mark him as good and that only in DH is he cured of his worst trait,
the desire for revenge




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 22:32:52 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:32:52 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj06m0+noct@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj206k+3j93@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179560

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > As an author though, building a world where good and evil are     
> > going to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea   
> > to have some sense of what differentiates your good guys from    
> > your bad guys.  

> >>Pippin:
> Is it necessary to have good guys and bad guys in order to tell of 
> heroism and villainy or good and evil?  Can't there be stories     
> about heroes where it's not guaranteed that they'll make the right 
> choice, or even that they'll always want to?  Heroes, in short,    
> less like the characters in a TV serial and more like you and me?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Goodness, yes, of course.  But we're talking about the Harry Potter 
books here where good and evil characters are rather sharply 
deliniated and determined at a very young age.  And where, IMO, 
actions don't mean that much at all in the end.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Harry will lose most of his illusions about the WW, and a lot of   
> his illusions about himself.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I never saw that happen.  On the contrary, Harry was shown to be one 
of the most special of special boys who ever lost their mom.  And 
business as usual within the WW was his happy ending. 

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Harry escaped into a world of wonder and magic, but he did not      
> escape into a world where moral choices are made easier by the     
> presence of infallible role models or simple formulas for           
> discerning dark deeds from light.

Betsy Hp:
Sure he did.  The easiest formula of all: what color is your tie?  
Harry is lucky enough to be wearing gold and red so any choice he 
makes is by default the morally correct one.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> I don't understand why some readers seem to think it's unjust
> that there's no healing for the undead remnant of Voldemort's soul 
> when he never wished to heal the souls he maimed or the families
> he tore asunder. Not even his own.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not sure about justice or not (though the thought that Dumbledore 
has standing to deliver justice to Voldemort or anyone is sickening 
to me) but since Voldemort is shown to be a sociopath, that he's not 
repentant is... unsurprisingly boring.  He's presented with a choice 
he's incapable of making and that's supposed to be the dramatic 
denouement?

> >>Pippin:
> As for Dumbledore, he did enough questionable things that only 
> someone as besotted  as Elphias Doge could approve of them all, but
> there are many times when he did uphold justice and mercy. Who
> else would have maintained Hagrid's innocence, or admitted Lupin to 
> Hogwarts, or given Snape a second chance, or hired a werewolf
> to teach,  or offered help to the Giants or risked so much to teach
> Draco that he was not a killer at heart? 

Betsy Hp:
And then had him dropped like a hot potatoe two seconds after his 
usefulness was over?  Yeah, that Dumbledore... he's all heart.  
Combined with his keeping Lupin strung along in abject poverty, 
sticking Hagrid in a position he was in no way qualified for without 
assistance or training, emotionally abusing and then discarding Snape 
as soon as he was done with him (ooh, a theme!), oh, and 
offering "help" to the giants he was in no position to give...  No, 
I'm sorry, I don't look to Dumbledore for either justice or mercy.  I 
don't think Dumbledore has a clue as to what those two things are. 

> >>Betsy_Hp:
> > The twins...  well, one of them died but it was played as a      
> > tragedy, not the outcome of their own  mistakes or a consequence.

> >>Pippin:
> Um,  tragedy in literature *is* the outcome of one's own
> mistakes or a consequence. Otherwise it's melodrama, IIRC.

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, exactly. Melodrama about covers it. <eg>

> >>Pippin:
> <snip> 
> Does JKR have to insult our intelligence in order to prove that she 
> knows  that careless disregard for human life is wrong?

Betsy Hp:
I guess so. <bg>  To borrow a phrase from Mike, I may be a bit thick, 
but yeah, I don't see any evidence in the text at all that suggests 
JKR saw the twins actions (or any of her heroes actually) as wrong.  
But then, the lives they treated carelessly weren't those considered 
human according to the books, I think.  Magic creatures, Slytherins 
or Harry's muggle relatives: go ahead and prick them, they won't 
bleed.

> >>Pippin:
> For me the characters live and breathe precisely because they
> refuse to be good guys or bad guys. They're people: complicated,
> ornery, frustrating, little lower than the angels,  little better   
> than the worms. 

Betsy Hp:
And for me, they're not "people" at all.  They're cardboard cutouts 
being moved through a creaky plot for no discernable purpose.  
Plaster saints who's actions should not be questioned because the 
author has made it good.

> >>Pippin Fowler:
> Perhaps JKR's sense of what differentiates good guys from bad guys 
> was summed up in Dumbledore's comments to Harry, when Harry was    
> concerned that he could have been sorted into Slytherin. Harry     
> chose Gryffindor. We can be good or evil, depending on the choices 
> we make.

Betsy Hp:
Based on one choice made at age eleven.  And after that, no backsies! 
<bg>

> >>Sharon:
> To my mind, it makes the books that much more interesting to have   
> to work through all the confusion and mistakes that the characters 
> undergo, to try to figure out the difference between good and evil.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So.. what did you figure out?  What's the difference between good and 
evil as per these books?

Betsy Hp (armed with a new modem and loaded for bear <rbg>) And 
reminding everyone this is all just my opinion... just in case you 
were afeared. <g>




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 22:38:37 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:38:37 -0000
Subject: What's good about the good guys?
Message-ID: <fj20hd+2hj9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179561

We've heard a lot of complaints lately about the good guys,
particularly Dumbledore. I'd like to turn that around and ask those
who admire those characters and even those who are disappointed in
them to consider what's good about the good guys, particularly HRH and
Dumbledore but also anybody who qualifies as "good" by virtue of
ending up on the right side of the battle.

For example, I lost most of my respect and all of my affection for
McGonagall in DH. Can someone help me to get them back? I couldn't
even enjoy the moment when she herede all those desks onto the
battlefield because I was too upset by her dealings with Snape and the
Slytherins and by her use of the Imperius Curse when surely a
Confundus Charm or Expelliarmus would have done the trick.

I don't think anyone needs help admiring Neville (hooray for Nagini's
Bane!), but I'd like us to think about ways in which the good guys are
genuinely admirable in DH or how they've grown and developed over the
series. 

If you want to talk about what's good about the bad guys or what's bad
about the good guys, please use a different thread. (I'm counting
Snape and Slughorn as good guys because they fought against Voldemort.
And, love him or hate him, I'm counting that old Machiavellian
puppetmaster DD as a good guy, too. Let's think about how things would
have been different had he not been involved in Harry's life and the
running of Hogwarts (or getting Snape to change sides). 

Carol, noting that the "good guys" don't have to be alive in DH or
acting through portraits (Sirius Black counts, too)




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 22:47:40 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:47:40 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj1opv+3u22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj212c+l1gu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179562

> Steph:
> I agree with Alla here.  Just because Harry is famous doesn't mean 
> he's popular.  In fact, he spends much of the time in both GOF and 
> OotP being distinctly unpopular. 

a_svirn:
I think you sort of confuse being unpopular with being notorious. 
Harry's fame and importance is a fact of canon, but it is a mixed 
blessing. In GoF and OotP it turns temporary against him. Just as 
Dumbledore's fame turns to notoriety in OotP. But Harry's still 
widely known, granted, unfavourably known for some time, but still 
conspicuous and still important. In GoF he's a school champion, and 
as such has more social clout than any fourth-year could dream of. In 
OotP for all his alleged unpopularity a few dozens of people turn up 
in a seedy pub to listen what he has to say. And they recognize him a 
leader from the get-go. Just imagine how many people would turn up if 
Hermione invited them to listen to *her* rather than to Harry. This 
is not what being unpopular means.

It was Hermione who was unpopular for the part of PS. And it was 
because her friendship with famous and popular Harry her standing in 
Gryffindor improved. (Though unlike Ron she did not set out to 
befriend the famous Harry Potter.) Neville was has been unpopular for 
the most of the books. Snape was obviously unpopular as a kid ? one 
of the reasons he hated the popular Marauders. Luna was distinctly 
unpopular. Neither Neville until his miraculous transformation, nor 
Snape while at school, nor Luna possessed any sort of popular appeal. 
They were loners and longed for acceptance. Harry never had these 
problems. Not only did he always have a core of friends on his side, 
his very notoriety held a certain appeal. Otherwise why did all those 
people come to the Hog's Head? 


> Steph:
 The rest of the time, he just 
> seems like someone no one really pays that much attention to, 
except 
> when something spectacular happens, as in SS and CoS, or when he's 
> playing Quidditch.  Overall, Harry doesn't appear to have many 
> friends beyond Ron, Hermione, the other Weasleys, Seamus, Neville, 
> and Dean.  

a_svirn:
Huh. That's what, about a dozen people who would die for you without 
even asking a single question? Poor Harry, that must be tough being 
so unpopular. 

> Steph:
> I also don't think that Ron was looking to make connections when he 
> met Harry.

a_svirn:
If I want to rub shoulders with famous and celebrated it has nothing 
whatsoever with my desire to get important connections? Really? Why 
would I want to do so, then? 

> Steph:
Ron certainly thought it was cool that Harry was who he 
> was, but after that it didn't really seem to matter to Ron that 
> Harry was famous.  

a_svirn:
Didn't matter? When he was obviously consumed with jealousy all the 
time? To the point of succumbing to the Horcrux's influence? 




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec  3 23:07:10 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:07:10 -0000
Subject: What's good about the good guys?
In-Reply-To: <fj20hd+2hj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj226u+e5fe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179563

Carol:
> We've heard a lot of complaints lately about the good guys,
> particularly Dumbledore. I'd like to turn that around and ask those
> who admire those characters and even those who are disappointed in
> them to consider what's good about the good guys, particularly HRH and
> Dumbledore but also anybody who qualifies as "good" by virtue of
> ending up on the right side of the battle.

a_svirn:
I think Arthur Weasley is a decent man. Also, Bill and Fleur. I rather 
liked Aberforth . As for kids, Ron, Harry, Neville, Luna (though she's 
still somewhat creepy). I have my reservations about Hermione, though. 
She is a very interesting character, but one I would make sure to keep 
distance from. 

a_svirn, who thought for a moment that HRH meant His Royal Highness. 





From cottell at dublin.ie  Mon Dec  3 23:24:04 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:24:04 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED22B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>
Message-ID: <fj236k+qtdj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179564

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes <s.hayes at ...> wrote:
> 
> > Betsy Hp:
> > As an author though, building a world where good and evil are 
> > going to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea to 
> > have some sense of what differentiates your good guys from your 
> > bad guys.
> > And I don't think JKR bothered with that.
> 
> Sharon:
> To my mind, it makes the books that much more interesting to have to 
> work through all the confusion and mistakes that the characters 
> undergo, to try to figure out the difference between good and evil. 
> Why should the author just hand it to us on a platter?

Mus:

But that's not really, I think, the point that Betsy Hp is making -
it's certainly not the problem that I have with the nature of good and
evil in the books.  Whenever you read a book set in another world, one
does, as a reader, have to work out what the "rules" are - what the
morality is, in other words.  We have to do it with Tolkien, with Le
Guin, with Gaiman, with hundreds of others.  That we would have to do
it with the Potterverse isn't asking anything out of the ordinary - in
that, I'm in complete agreement with you.

The problem I have, and the problem that Betsy Hp referred to, is that
the *author* doesn't seem to have decided what the moral rules of her
universe are.  What exactly about Dark Magic makes it bad?  Snape in
HBP gives us a sort of a description of its nature: " 'The Dark Arts
are many, varied, ever-changing and eternal.  Fighting them is like
fighting a many-headed monster, which each time a neck is severed,
sprouts a head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting
that which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible' " [HBP UKhb: 169] 
But that, in seven books, is as close as we get to a definition, and
it's not a definition at all.  It's a description, and nothing in it
would allow you to examine a given spell and determine whether it was
Dark or not.  What it's really saying is that the Dark Arts are
*chaotic*, and chaos magic is by definition neither good nor bad,
since chaos has no rules.  JKR does not provide us with the means to
determine what makes a spell Dark.

Sectumsempra is depicted as a pretty nasty device, one that we'd be
tempted to regard as Dark.  But it's hard to distinguish it from a
spell which permanently disfigures someone without warning, combined
with the application of a memory charm which renders the scarred
person incapable of remembering what had caused the scar.  That's the
combination of what Hermione and Shacklebolt do to Marietta.  For many
here, Marietta's fate was richly deserved, and I don't want to debate
it, because that's not the point.  The point is that we're supposed to
think it's deserved because it was carried out by the White Hats -
it's who does it and who it's done to that make it acceptable, not the
 procedure itself. 

The ritual that restores Voldemort to full size and strength in the
graveyard reeks of Black Magic - "blood of the enemy forcibly taken,
bone of the father unwillingly given", all that.  But there's another
spell in canon that falls under the traditional classification of
Black Magic, the one which uses a body part of another person, the one
that is essentially identity theft: the Polyjuice Potion.  What makes
one good and one bad?  Polyjuice isn't bad because Our Heroes use it.
 Voldemort's ritual is bad because he does it.

In a series ostensibly about the struggle between Good and Evil, there
are in principle two ways to go with magic.  Either there is Good
Magic and Bad Magic, or there is only one kind, whose *users* are good
or bad.  I'm quite happy to have to work out either scenario by
myself.  For me, the problem with the nature of Good and Evil in the
series is that the first option doesn't work, because the White Hats
do some awfully questionable things.  The second option doesn't work
either, because for that to work, magic itself has to be neutral, but
the author has already spiked our guns on that score, because she
tells us repeatedly that there is Dark Magic.  The hallmark of a Dark
Wizard, as far as one can tell, is that they do Dark Magic, and Dark
Magic is what Dark Wizards do.  That is a circular argument.

I find it interesting that, although JKR is purporting to be writing a
dualist universe, "good" magic is never defined - there is Magic, and
there is Dark Magic, which must mean that one is a subset of the
other.  In that case, this universe isn't dualist at all.  In the end,
what defines Magic that we are to approve of is whether the White Hats
use it (Marietta, hexing Muggles, Imperio, Crucio, etc, as well as
Reparo and Lumos)- the ends, in other words, justify the means.  But
if they do, then this isn't Good and Evil.

My problem isn't that I have to figure out what is Good and what is
Evil, rather that there's no coherent answer to that question in the
books.  I have no objection to a universe with no answer to that
question, but in that case I think it's wise for the author not to
tell me there's Good and Evil.  It's contradictory.  So either JKR is
being astonishingly cynical, or she never thought the thing through to
begin with.

Mus, who doesn't expect anyone to agree with her.




From mros at xs4all.nl  Mon Dec  3 23:36:37 2007
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:36:37 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
References: <fj236k+qtdj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c83605$594bb7d0$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 179565

Mus said:
>>>>My problem isn't that I have to figure out what is Good and what is
Evil, rather that there's no coherent answer to that question in the
books. I have no objection to a universe with no answer to that
question, but in that case I think it's wise for the author not to
tell me there's Good and Evil. It's contradictory. So either JKR is
being astonishingly cynical, or she never thought the thing through to
begin with.

Mus, who doesn't expect anyone to agree with her.<<<<


Marion:

Mus, I agree with you. Totally.

I'm also very amused by the fact that Quirell's remark about Voldemort teaching him that 'there is no Good or Evil, only Power'  is exactly what Harry is being taught by DD in DH and the readers are being taught in the space of seven books. There is no Good or Evil in the Potterverse, only those who have powerful friends, a powerful wand and 'really mean it when they want to torture people'.

Cynical? The woman wouldn't recognise cynical if it dropped on her head.... Harry is her alter ego, after all. 'Not thinking things through' sounds more like it.. 

(all in my opinion, of course)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Dec  3 23:43:27 2007
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:43:27 -0000
Subject: FILK: Cousin Barny
Message-ID: <fj24av+a76b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179566

I think this is one of the few popular Christmas Carols that has yet 
to be Potterized
..

Cousin Barny (DH, Chap. 8)

To the tune of Christmas in Killarney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3fNIYOfsE

Dedicated to Louise Freeman Davis

THE SCENE: HARRY, disguised as one of the innumerable Weasley 
cousins, enjoys himself at the nuptials of Bill and Fleur. 

HARRY:
The lights shine bright this wedding night
Although now my robes are a bit too tight
I'm playing Cousin Barny
Right here at the Weasley home
 
None will deduce my clever ruse
Unless I should run out of Polyjuice
And Luna Lovegood has been bit
By one of the Weasley gnomes  

I'm here to see the union
Of Bill and Delacour
And Ronald's Aunt will have her rant
Against Al Dumbledore 

Let me obtain a glass to drain
For I've reached the age I can drink champagne
Soon Vold will send his army
And far from here I'll roam
Till then I'm Cousin Barny
Right here at the Weasley home.

     -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm
A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm 





From s.hayes at qut.edu.au  Mon Dec  3 23:49:25 2007
From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:49:25 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's
 death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj236k+qtdj@eGroups.com>
References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED22B@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>,<fj236k+qtdj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED22E@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 179567


Mus:
<SNIP>My problem isn't that I have to figure out what is Good and what is
Evil, rather that there's no coherent answer to that question in the
books. I have no objection to a universe with no answer to that
question, but in that case I think it's wise for the author not to
tell me there's Good and Evil. It's contradictory. So either JKR is
being astonishingly cynical, or she never thought the thing through to
begin with.

Sharon:
I can see your problem, but I have to say that I don't have that problem myself. I love it that the answers aren't there, that I am left wondering about the nature of good and evil. The books seem to depict good and evil, not as a "black and white" dichotomy, nor even as a continuum, but as shades of grey that overlap each other in various ways. Individuals or houses may tend towards certain characteristics of good or evil, but noone is that dark or light. The individuals are all a mixture of both, in varying degrees. Now I understand that your problem is: how can we even contemplate that if we don't know what exactly good or evil consists of? but again, I think that is OK. The novels let our imaginations and our own moral senses try to come to terms with the contradictions. The fact that there are contradictions give us pause to think about the nature of morality and of good and evil. That JKR doesn't give us answers doesn't make the questions any less worthy of discussion or contemplation (OK, I know you'd agree with that :-) I guess it just doesn't bother me that the definitions aren't there - -in fact I think it enriches my ability to use my interpretive imagination in coming to terms with the key themes of the series.

Tolkein was a christian and his books show that morality, but that isn't what makes his books great. Sometimes excellent novels also depict dark and confusing moralities--Anne Rice's books, for example, or Stephen King come quickly to mind -- though I know y'all will scream at me for comparing them to Tolkein! LOL, sorry in advance. I'm afraid I am not precious about "literature"-- but it is not the depicition of morality that makes them good books either.



From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  4 00:01:54 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:01:54 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj1vaq+cbpt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj25di+1ijm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179568

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> Carol, who thinks that Harry's choice of Gryffindor does not in 
itself
> mark him as good and that only in DH is he cured of his worst trait,
> the desire for revenge

Allow me to state my previous thought another way. No one in this 
world of JKR gets to be marked good or evil from any decision. It 
appears to be the author's intention to convey that people (wizards, 
muggles, all) are neither good nor evil, but each choice is good or 
evil (or neither). I would also guess that JKR also finds thoughts and 
desires (such as desire for revenge) unimportant. Actions--choices--
are the key indicators of character.

As just one example, I can't think of Narcissa as an evil witch. She 
kept Harry alive, and she chose protection of Draco over aiding 
Voldemort. Nor does she become a good witch by those actions. Of 
course, trends do lead us to expectations, but fortunately for these 
books, expectations lead to some surprises, conflicts, and 
contradictions, just like we see in real people.

Pippin Fowler





From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  4 00:23:24 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:23:24 -0000
Subject: a trivial insertion
Message-ID: <fj26ls+evr9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179569

[raising hand with attitude of Hermione]
If Harry Potter is HP, why isn't Albus Dumbledore AD rather than DD in 
this forum?

Pippin Fowler




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 00:31:48 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:31:48 -0000
Subject: a trivial insertion
In-Reply-To: <fj26ls+evr9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj275k+c329@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179570

> Pippin Fowler
> If Harry Potter is HP, why isn't Albus Dumbledore AD rather 
> than DD in this forum?

Goddlefrood:

DD is AD at times in this forum, although the former prevails 
usually. Either one would be understood to be the former HM.





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 00:55:50 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:55:50 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj1h7i+q05p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj28im+bsd8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179571

 > Mike:
> > It's not the book as written, but imagine if DD had spread the 
word 
> > loud and wide that Lord Voldemort was really the half-blood Tom 
> > Riddle, that he had split his soul several times and encased the 
> > pieces in Horcruxes, that he had killed his own father and that 
you
> > can tell one of his DEs by the Dark Mark on their left forearm. To
> > me, it emphasizes how idiotic DD's way of fighting, including his 
> > shutting out of the Ministry and all his secrecy.
> 
> Pippin:
> So, there's nothing wrong with denouncing a person on account
> of their race?  Funny how Dumbledore, whom  some
> now seem  to think was capable of every horror, never sank that low.

a_svirn:
Where does his "denouncing a person on account of their race" come 
from? Even if you think the difference between half-bloods and pure-
bloods as "racial" ? which is in itself a bit of a stretch ?that 
wasn't the point Mike was making. The point is that the air of 
mystery that Voldemort was cultivating so carefully was and always 
had been instrumental to his success (Lee, Fred and Kingsley said the 
very same thing on Potterwatch, btw). Dumbledore helped him to 
cultivate it, there's no way around it. 

> Pippin:
 > Dumbledore did try to get the Ministry to realize that Morfin was 
the
> wrong man <snip>

a_svirn:
I don't remember that from canon.   








From cottell at dublin.ie  Tue Dec  4 01:14:16 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:14:16 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj28im+bsd8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj29l8+rjtc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179572

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > Pippin:
> > Dumbledore did try to get the Ministry to realize that Morfin was 
> > the wrong man <snip>
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't remember that from canon.

It's in "A Sluggish Memory": " 'However, I was able to secure a visit
to Morfin in the last weeks of his life, by which time I was
attempting to discover as much as I could about Voldemort's past.  I
extracted this memory [of Tom's visit to the Gaunt house at the time
the Riddle family get murdered - Mus] with difficulty.  When I saw
what it contained, I attempted to use it to secure Morfin's release
from Azkaban.  Before the Ministry reached their decision, however,
Morfin died.' " [HBP UKhb: 344]

If you believe him, that is.  <eg>

Mus, who would have difficulty at this stage believing DD's word that
fire is hot. 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 02:22:16 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:22:16 -0000
Subject: What's good about the good guys?
In-Reply-To: <fj20hd+2hj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj2dko+ouo7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179573

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> We've heard a lot of complaints lately about the good guys,
> particularly Dumbledore. I'd like to turn that around and ask those
> who admire those characters and even those who are disappointed in
> them to consider what's good about the good guys, particularly HRH 
and
> Dumbledore but also anybody who qualifies as "good" by virtue of
> ending up on the right side of the battle.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Oh, oh I want to play I so want to play. What is good about good 
guys?

I think friendship is one of the most admiring traits I can find in 
them. This is something I can particularly relate to, since if I 
call a person my friend, I can and I did go extra mile for that 
person.

Therefore when I read about Trio and Ron offering to die for Harry, 
I can actually feel it as something very real and something - well, 
I obviously did not experience the necessity of dying for a friend, 
but I certainly made certain sacrifices, more everyday life, but 
still sacrifices.

I certainly admire that in Ron. Of course I admire that very same 
thing in Harry and Hermione. 

The next thing is of course arises from the fact that they are 
friends with Harry, but I do admire that they are brave enough to 
not let Harry stand alone against Voldemort and are committed to do 
anything to help him, to sacrifice their personal comfort, their 
desires, etc, etc.

I would count my blessings if I had friends like Ron and Hermione, 
honestly.

Hmmm, hardest thing is what good about Dumbledore, but I will try. I 
mean, again it is a given for me that his goals are good, the 
problem comes when I try to see how he viewed the individuals he was 
leading, whether he saw the **person** in people under his 
leadership, whether he loved **them**, not just the abstract 
principles, etc.

So do I think he tried to love those people? Hmmm, yes, tried, I 
think. Everything else is for another thread.

Okay, again I consider the fact that he was able to realise that 
Gridenlwald's goals are bad to be quite to his credit.

I consider the fact that he was able to recognise that power is not 
something that he should be trusted with to be a good thing and him 
deciding to teach is quite admirable, BUT I have some reservations 
about that, but this is indeed for another thread.

What else? Oh, right the fact that he felt (IMO) genuine affection 
for Harry, I think is good too, the fact that he felt remorse about 
how he treated Harry I like as well.


Harry, well, I can talk a lot about many good things I see in his 
character, so maybe I come back to that later on.

Carol:
> For example, I lost most of my respect and all of my affection for
> McGonagall in DH. Can someone help me to get them back? I couldn't
> even enjoy the moment when she herede all those desks onto the
> battlefield because I was too upset by her dealings with Snape and 
the
> Slytherins and by her use of the Imperius Curse when surely a
> Confundus Charm or Expelliarmus would have done the trick.

Alla:

I am sorry I cannot :) I mean I cannot in a sense that I do not 
consider her actions in any way shape or form bad - I mean, her 
dealings with Snape and Slytherins.

I do not consider her Imperius to be admirable though, but did not 
lose any affection for her, since consider it to be perfectly 
understandable - she spent a year seeing Carrows torture students 
after all.

 
>> Carol, noting that the "good guys" don't have to be alive in DH or
> acting through portraits (Sirius Black counts, too)
>


Alla:

Loyalty, brotherhood, friendship, love again. The fact that such a 
damaged person was able to feel affection for **anybody** after 
twelve years of hell will never cease to amase me.

I am going to do a post on Sirius soon so I am not going to talk 
much about him for now, even though am always tempted :)

Thanks very much for the topic Carol.




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 02:28:22 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:28:22 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj29l8+rjtc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj2e06+dlbo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179574

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" <cottell at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn@> wrote:
> >
> > > Pippin:
> > > Dumbledore did try to get the Ministry to realize that Morfin 
was 
> > > the wrong man <snip>
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > I don't remember that from canon.

Mus:
> It's in "A Sluggish Memory": " 'However, I was able to secure a 
visit
> to Morfin in the last weeks of his life, by which time I was
> attempting to discover as much as I could about Voldemort's past.  
I
> extracted this memory [of Tom's visit to the Gaunt house at the 
time
> the Riddle family get murdered - Mus] with difficulty.  When I saw
> what it contained, I attempted to use it to secure Morfin's release
> from Azkaban.  Before the Ministry reached their decision, however,
> Morfin died.' " [HBP UKhb: 344]
> 
> If you believe him, that is.  <eg>
> 
> Mus, who would have difficulty at this stage believing DD's word 
that
> fire is hot.
>

lizzyben:

And gosh, I wonder what Morfin died of? Let's see... he died within 
weeks of seeing Dumbledore, & shortly after DD extracted these 
memories. Riddle had placed a powerful memory charm on Morfin that 
would erase his real memories & place a false one in its place. So, 
in order for DD to reach the "real" memory behind the false one, DD 
would have to use some powerful magic indeed to break the memory 
charm - DD says that he had to use a "great deal of skilled 
Legimancy" to "coax" it out of him. 


Funnily enough, Hokey the elf also died shortly after DD managed 
to "extract" a memory from her of Riddle's murder of Hepizah Smith. 
(DD:"As in the case of Morfin, by the time I traced her & managed to 
extract this memory, her life was almost over.") But I'm sure DD 
lobbied for her freedom as well. ;)

And hmmm, where else have we heard of a powerful wizard using 
Legimancy to "extract" hidden memories? Voldemort did exactly that 
to Bertha Jorkins. Her "real" memories had been modified & hidden 
behind a powerful Memory Charm. But LV broke this charm in order to 
extract her real memories about the TWT & Barty Crouch Jr. LV tells 
us that memory charms aren't 100% safe, because they can be broken 
by a powerful wizard.

Voldemort: "We could have modified her memory? But Memory Charms can 
be broken by a powerful wizard, as I proved when I questioned her. 
It would be an insult to her memory not to use the information I 
extracted from her, Wormtail." (GOF 10)

So, Voldemort used powerful magic to break the memory charm & reach 
Bertha Jorkin's real memories. Voldemort says that this magic 
(skilled Legimency?) allowed him to reach the memories that had been 
hidden behind the Charm. And Voldemort also tells us what effect 
this process has: "She told me many things. . . but the means I used 
to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I had 
extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were 
both damaged beyond repair. She had now served her purpose. I could 
not possess her. I disposed of her."Voldemort smiled his terrible 
smile, his red eyes blank and pitiless." (GOF, 424)

Thank you for the information! So, LV placed powerful Memory Charms 
on both Morfin & Hokey in order to erase their memories of his visit 
& make them think that they had committed the murders. LV tells us 
that a powerful wizard can break this Charm, & "extract" the real 
memory, but that this process damages the subject's mind and body 
beyond repair. Voldemort used this process to break the Charm & 
"extract" Bertha Jorkins' real memories -  disposing of her once 
the "questioning" was completed. I submit that DD used the same 
process to break LV's memory charms & "extract" hidden memories from 
both Morfin & Hokey. They both died within weeks after DD visited 
them, shortly after DD himself says that he used powerful magic to  
extract their real memories (with great difficulty). After damaging 
their minds & bodies beyond repair, DD decided that they had served 
their purpose, & disposed of them.

*Adds Morfin & Hokey to the DD death toll.*


lizzyben




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 02:29:53 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:29:53 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj1trg+aatv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj2e31+v8gu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179575

Pippin:
<SNIP>
Scrimgeour didn't just 'come along', he was mentioned in OOP ch 7 as
asking questions about Sirius. He and Dumbledore surely knew
each other well enough. Scrimmy was apparently willing to
entertain the idea that Voldemort might have come back, but not
to question the guilt of either Sirius or Stan Shunpike at the 
expense
of making his department look bad. If Scrimgeour didn't care
about their welfare why should he be entrusted with Harry's?

Alla:

Oh, oh this is very true. Well, OOP is indeed my worst known book 
heheh, but as I said, I just think I wanted to see Dumbledore trying 
with him, same as he more than convincingly for me tried with Fudge 
at the end of GoF. That was perfect for me, trust me - I did not 
need to read one more sentence to be absolutely sure that Fudge is a 
shmack and Dumbledore should not bother to do any more convincing of 
him.

Scrimgeour - not really. I totally do not admire all of his tactics 
that you recounted, at the same time, I see no indication that he is 
best buds with Lucius Malfoy or wants to send dementors on Harry, or 
anything like this. Does that make sense? I think that Dumbledore's 
efforts may not have been lost on him. Or maybe they were, I just 
wanted to see him try - to respect DD character more.



Pippin:
Even with our Muggle-ish grasp of horcrux lore most of us realized
there was a good chance that Harry had inadvertently become
one. Surely Scrimgeour would have drawn the same conclusion --
do you think he'd have seen the situation as Dumbledore did?
Would he have trusted that Harry's power of love and those who
loved him would have the best chance of resisting
their powers, which were sure to grow as Voldemort himself
grew stronger? Or would he have destroyed the one horcrux
he could be sure of getting at?

Alla:

OOOOOOO, Pippin sometimes I think you are genuis. You think 
Dumbledore was afraid that Scrimgeour will kill Harry?

If that speculation is correct, then sure I cannot blame Dumbledore, 
on the other hand, after Scrimgeour dying tortured and not saying 
anything about Harry, I doubt that this is what he would want to do.

And isn't DD supposed to be good judge of character?

JMO,

Alla




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 03:18:02 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:18:02 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj1nkl+fn8s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj2gta+qat6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179576

> Alla:
> 
> Eh, did anyone make the argument of publishing the horcruxes in 
Daily 
> Prophet? If anybody did and I missed it, then sure I do not 
subscribe 
> to it either.

zgirnius:
Mike suggested it should be publicized, without specifying a 
mechanism. 

Alla:
> I mean of course Order and I think DA members as well, and I think 
> the best argument for it was made by a_svirn that Battle of 
Hogwarts 
> may have never ever happened, had Mcgonagall and DA members knew 
that 
> they were supposed to look for something.

zgirnius:
In other words, you would have recommended Dumbledore tell Mundungus 
Fletcher and Zacharias Smith? 

I agree a limited selection of people from the Order and/or the DA 
could have been trusted. So did Dumbledore. This is in fact what 
Dumbledore decided, when he agreed Harry should tell Ron and 
Hermione. Adding a McGonagall or a Snape or a Neville to the list of 
people one thinks should have known is not a criticism of the 
principle of secrecy under which Dumbledore operated, it is a 
tactical disagreement about which small subset of humanity should be 
told.

> Alla: 
> I mean, Mcgonagall, his Deputy Headmistress, and he **still** did 
not 
> trust her. I mean, I never bought into evil Minerva theories, but I 
> certainly understand how those theories came to life.

zgirnius:
He trusted her to lead the defense of Hogwarts in his absence, and 
his trust was well-placed, as we saw more clearly in DH than in HBP. 
Deciding who to trust is not only about having faith in their 
intentions, but about their abilities.








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 03:31:22 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:31:22 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj2gta+qat6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj2hmb+m1sp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179577

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Eh, did anyone make the argument of publishing the horcruxes in 
> Daily 
> > Prophet? If anybody did and I missed it, then sure I do not 
> subscribe 
> > to it either.
> 
> zgirnius:
> Mike suggested it should be publicized, without specifying a 
> mechanism. 

Alla:

So if he wanted news paper article about horcruxes, then I disagree 
with him :)

BUT if what Mike was suggesting was publicising as much as possible 
who Voldemort is, that he is in fact had been called Tom Riddle and 
his name should not be feared among other things.

Oh YES, I think it should have been publicised all right and think 
that this was one of the most idiotic things Dumbledore did.

He was saying good things - fear of name, blah, blag, blah.

So, why not practice what he preached? Why not tell the whole WW 
that Tom Riddle is Voldemort? STupid IMO.


 
> Alla:
> > I mean of course Order and I think DA members as well, and I 
think 
> > the best argument for it was made by a_svirn that Battle of 
> Hogwarts 
> > may have never ever happened, had Mcgonagall and DA members knew 
> that 
> > they were supposed to look for something.
> 
> zgirnius:
> In other words, you would have recommended Dumbledore tell 
Mundungus 
> Fletcher and Zacharias Smith? 
> 
> I agree a limited selection of people from the Order and/or the DA 
> could have been trusted. So did Dumbledore. This is in fact what 
> Dumbledore decided, when he agreed Harry should tell Ron and 
> Hermione. Adding a McGonagall or a Snape or a Neville to the list 
of 
> people one thinks should have known is not a criticism of the 
> principle of secrecy under which Dumbledore operated, it is a 
> tactical disagreement about which small subset of humanity should 
be 
> told.

Alla:

NO, it is more than tactical disagreement, I am afraid.

I suggest the **trust** the people mode as default one. NOT the 
limited people from the Order. OMG, who besides Mundungus is not 
deserving of Dumbledore's trust in your opinion?

Moody? Weasleys, who sacrificed so much? Remus who went to 
werewolves no matter what strain it put on him?

As I mentioned before I understand Dumbledore if he was traumatised 
by Pettigrew betrayal, but by no means I believe his method of 
leadership was the right one.

Do I think that the moment he learned about horcruxes every member 
of the order should have been told in details, explained and asked 
to be on the lookout for them? Oh yes. I repeat every member of the 
order.

Now, should he have told Mundungus? Um, I would leave it up to 
Dumbledore's discretion. I think he is smart enough to see if person 
is not strong enough. He is supposed to figure out IMO that, NOT 
distrust of everybody.

 
> > Alla: 
> > I mean, Mcgonagall, his Deputy Headmistress, and he **still** 
did 
> not 
> > trust her. I mean, I never bought into evil Minerva theories, 
but I 
> > certainly understand how those theories came to life.
> 
> zgirnius:
> He trusted her to lead the defense of Hogwarts in his absence, and 
> his trust was well-placed, as we saw more clearly in DH than in 
HBP. 
> Deciding who to trust is not only about having faith in their 
> intentions, but about their abilities.

Alla:

Really? Did he trust her to lead defense of Hogwarts in his absence? 
I do not remember him confiding much in her about potential DE raid 
before he left for Horcrux trips in HBP.

The fact that Minerva lead the battle so IMO spectacularly had 
nothing to do with DD's trust since he was dead by that point.

She did her job well indeed, but what does Dumbledore have to do 
with it?





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 03:39:47 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:39:47 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour - Authority
In-Reply-To: <fj0gop+tjt4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj2i63+9moi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179578

> bboyminn:
> 
> Well several people have made some valid points, including,
> much to my surprise, Mike, so while good small points are
> being made, I think more important larger points are being
> ignored.

Mike:
Yeah, who'd a thunk it?! Larger points, huh? I'll try to pay 
attention.


> bboyminn:
> For one, Scrimgeuor was NOT asking Harry to join him in
> fighting Voldemort. He was asking Harry to help him create
> the perception that the Ministry was doing a good job,
> which they absolutely were not.

Mike:
But he has to start somewhere. Scrimmy is patronizing Harry, sure. 
But thanks to DD, he knows nothing of Harry's impending mission. 
Has no idea of how to help Harry much less that Harry is being 
trained for something by DD. Do you know that all Scrimmy wanted 
Harry for was as a mascot? It may be his initial approach, yet given 
his lack of information, he has nothing else to offer Harry other 
than access to the Aurors, which he did.

I wrote a different post about Scrimgeour in over his head as a 
politician, being a soldier/general first and foremost. DD admits
Scrimgeour is a man of action and won't take LV's threat lightly.
But it's obvious to me that he doesn't really know or like to play
this game of politics. He quickly gets frustrated with the political 
approach when it doesn't yield the results he's looking for. 

Yes, the Ministry is full of corrupt or inept politicians. OTOH,
Scrimgeour came from the Auror office, isn't it possible that he 
isn't one of the corrupt ones? Yet from Scrimgeour's remark about
DD closing off access to Harry, it doesn't appear he was given a 
chance. He did die rather than reveal Harry's whereabouts, maybe he
wasn't all DD cracked him down to be.



> bboyminn:
>  -<snip>-
> Scrimgeour wasn't asking Harry to help in the substantial
> efforts of the Ministy, he was asking Harry to help him 
> create the false preception that the Ministry was doing 
> good, when if fact, they were making the most insubstantial
> and ineffective effort.

Mike:
Scrimgeour said he wanted Harry to boost morale. Now you can decide 
for yourself whether that was a cynical statement. Possibly his real 
motivation was what Harry said, and which Scrimgeour allowed was 
partially true, that he only wanted Harry to appear to be approving 
of the Ministry's methods. Personally, I think it was a little of 
both. And I think Harry could have used the Ministry's resources (I 
assume they have some) to his advantage, especially if every one 
there is as accomodating towards him as Scrimgeour is.

Still, the bigger point is that Scrimgeour wasn't given a chance. I 
can understand Harry's reluctance, especially after he learns that 
Umbridge is still there. But why doesn't DD try to enlist more 
allies rather than making more enemies?

-<snip the 'Bartimaeus Trilogies' analogies, don't know the books>-


> bboyminn:
> 
> Notice the the Ministry is never anywhere to be found in
> any of the final battles, or if they do arrive, it is far
> too late. Yet Harry IS there, because he is actually 
> searching for the answers and trying to find the culprit.

Mike:
Which battles? The ones at Hogwarts in the first three books and in
HBP? Would you expect the Ministry to be on the scene at Hogwarts?
I wouldn't. 

Ironically, the one time there is Minisrty presence at Hogwarts, the 
battle takes place at the Ministry itself. And I found it highly 
dubious that there were NO Ministry employees to be found anywhere 
during what must have been a very long battle ranging from the DoM 
up to the Atrium. Not realistic, imo, and I've said so in the past.

How about in the graveyard in GoF? Well, if the Ministry could have 
found LV and neutralized him, there wouldn't have been much of a 
story, would there? I didn't notice Dumbledore or any Order members 
in that graveyard either.

The Ministry was at Hogwarts for the final battle in DH, 
unfortunately, they were fighting on LV's side then.


> bboyminn:
> 
> Also, notice that when the time came, the Ministry tumbled
> like a house made of tissue paper. They were gone and 
> thoroughly corrupted and co-opted in a blink. If they
> were creating substantial efforts rather than perception,
> they might have stood a chance.

Mike:
One of my points was I thought it was unrealistic how easily the 
Ministry fell. Goddlefrood set me straight on that score. Was it a 
function of the level of corruptness that allowed the quick 
takeover? A question I don't have an answer for.


> bboyminn:
> 
> So, the heart of the Harry Potter story is not about defying
> Authority, that's not the lesson at all. It is about knowing
> when to defy authority, and this is a very critical lesson 
> for kids to learn. 

Mike:
Agreed. But us adults are here to debate many things about the HP 
books, one of which is Dumbledore's method of fighting LV. Besides, 
Harry wasn't so much defying authority but, as lizzyben pointed out,  
transferring authority to Dumbledore.


 
> bboyminn:
> 
> While Dumbledore is protecting Harry from clearly corrupt, 
> self-serving, and ineffective Ministry, that does not mean that
> Dumbledore is not keeping the Ministry informed. At Harry's
> hearing, Fudge mentions a tale about 'the reversal of time'
> which implies that Dumbledore gave him an account of what
> happened in Prisoner of Azkaban. There are several other hints
> that the Ministry is aware of events that have happened to
> Harry over the course of the years. So, it is not like he
> is keeping them totally in the dark.

Mike:
I just reread the hearing chapter in OotP. I found no mention of 
'the reversal of time'. Could you point me to it, please? Also, 
since Harry and Hermione effected the escape of a wanted criminal 
and a beast sentenced by the Ministry for disposal during their 
time turning, don't you suppose an out-to-get-Harry Fudge would now 
be charging Harry with those offenses if he knew about them?


> bboyminn:
> 
> Yes, there are secrets Dumbledore is holding, such as, as 
> Mike pointed out, Dumbledore not telling people about the
> Horcruxes.  -<snip>-
> 
> It is also important to keep the information away from 
> Voldemort so he won't change his pattern.  -<snip>-

Mike:
Yes, Horcruxes are definitely a seperate issue. How about keeping 
that one just within the Order? You know, like telling Snape, so 
when Bella brags "entrusted me with his most precious..." our good 
friend Severus, might actually suspect what she's talking about, 
bright boy that he is. What about that most amazing bit of detective
work it took for Harry to find the diadem? Do you suppose 
McGonnagall, intelligent as she seems, might have found that one far
in advance of when Harry actually did? As a_svirn pointed out, 
imagine the bloodshed saved had the diadem been awaiting Harry upon
his return to Hogwarts.

What about the Dark Marks? Why were they kept from the Ministry? 
Based on Sirius' comment and Fudge's reaction to Snape, both in GoF,
I believe the Ministry was unaware. Making everyone produce their 
left forearm for inspection prior to entry into the Ministry would 
have been a rather easy to employ safety measure, don't ya think? 
Would have kept Lucius out, at least. 

And why, for heavens sake, keep the fact that Lord Voldemort is 
really the half-blood Tom Riddle and that he killed his own father 
and grandparents framing his uncle for the crimes, a secret? Isn't 
it possible that a few pure-blood bigots would be turned off by 
Riddle's half-blood status after all his posturing?


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179549
zgirnius:
Dumbledore had, at the end of HBP, found the Diary (destroyed by
Harry), the Ring (destroyed by him), Nagini, slated for destruction
last so that Voldemort would not know what it going on, and the
locket which I deduce you are calling "half". That's 3 1/2, leaving 
2 1/2 for the three teenagers.

Mike:
You give DD credit for the diary when it was already de-Horcruxified 
by Harry before DD laid his eyes or hands on it? I don't. Nagini was 
a good guess, but still required destroying. And I was generous with 
the locket, since it still required both finding and destroying. DD 
did much of the legwork on that one, so I'll leave it at half. By my 
revised spreadsheet, that's 2 for DD leaving 4 for the Trio. Not 
counting the piece in Harry, which DD did find, but I'd say the 
destroying of that one was more than half the battle, wouldn't you?


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179550
Pippin:
... and everyone did know about the Dark Mark tattoo,
otherwise it could hardly have been used to intimidate people.

Mike:
Really, Sirius didn't know about it. And Snape had converted before 
Sirius, an Order member, went to Azkaban. Fudge didn't seem to know 
about them either. People knew about the Dark Mark fireworks, but 
don't seem to know about the tattoo. Or do you figure they knew 
about it, knew it was an easy way to identify a DE, but didn't care 
enough to check that their employees (Rookwood, McNair) had it?


Pippin:
After Godric's Hollow the Dark Mark faded and in any case it
didn't tell who was serving Voldemort willingly and who was under
the Imperius curse, nor did all Voldemort's followers have it.

Mike:
Excuse me, but which Dark Marked DE did you think should have been 
absolved of being a DE and let go free? Only DEs get the mark, I 
would think that alone is enough reason to detain them. There is 
zero indication that LV marks those that are Imperiused or just 
duped into following him. Don't you suppose that Snape, after 
DD "gave testimony" about his return to the good side at great 
peril to his life, could have explained to the Ministry the 
ramifications of getting "marked"?

Mike, wondering if he surprised Steve again, or at least kept him 
amused :-P




From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Dec  4 03:43:04 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:43:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] a trivial insertion
In-Reply-To: <fj26ls+evr9@eGroups.com>
References: <fj26ls+evr9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4754CCC8.8040603@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179579

Pippin wrote:
> [raising hand with attitude of Hermione]
> If Harry Potter is HP, why isn't Albus Dumbledore AD rather than DD in 
> this forum?

	Because Harry Potter is very often referred to as Harry Potter, while 
Albus Dumbledore is almost universally referred to as Dumbledore. Of 
course, this is from someone who calls the major villain, "Morty."

	Bart




From AllieS426 at aol.com  Tue Dec  4 03:57:35 2007
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 03:57:35 -0000
Subject: post DH musings on PS
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40712031149h1279f09dm8492bd0057ca96d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fj2j7f+fp50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179580

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette <jnferr at ...> wrote:
>
 > Allie:
> >
> > Yes, something like "ways of treating a werewolf bite."  Snape also
> > talks about using a Bezoar as an antidote to most poisons in his 
first
> > lesson.
> 
> 
> montims:
> and of course, as we learn in HBP when Bill is attacked, there is NO 
remedy
> for a werewolf bite...  Hmmm...
> 
> 

Allie:

Maybe ways of treating the person so they don't die...  Or minimizing 
scars like they tried for Bill...






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 04:22:45 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:22:45 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj2hmb+m1sp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj2kml+7ij2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179581

> Alla:
> Really? Did he trust her to lead defense of Hogwarts in his 
absence? 
> I do not remember him confiding much in her about potential DE raid 
> before he left for Horcrux trips in HBP.

zgirnius:
This is because he did not believe it was possible for DEs to get 
into Hogwarts.

Alla:
> The fact that Minerva lead the battle so IMO spectacularly had 
> nothing to do with DD's trust since he was dead by that point.
> 
> She did her job well indeed, but what does Dumbledore have to do 
> with it?

zgirnius:
That he trusted her to lead the defense, means he believed her worthy 
of that trust in terms of her loyalty to the cause, and that he 
believed her capable of it. That she later showed herself more than 
capable, just shows he trusted the right woman for that job.





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 04:31:44 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:31:44 -0000
Subject: "Need and valor"
Message-ID: <fj2l7g+752p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179582

zgirnius:
Dumbledore's portrait, in DH, "The Prince's Tale" tells Snape that he 
must arrange the transfer of the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry in such a 
way that Harry obtains it under conditions of "need and valor". Harry's 
instincts (DH, "The Silver Doe") seem to support this claim, since he 
feels it is important that Ron be the one to destroy the locket with 
the sword. Ron, of course, is the one who ends up retrieving the sword 
after the locket tries to kill Harry.

So now I am wondering. Why was Dumbledore, who came into possession of 
the sword rather straightforwardly when Harry gave it to him in CoS, 
able to use it to destroy the Ring? Was it because his own ill-advised 
action in putting on the cursed thing created the necessary danger?







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 08:27:35 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:27:35 -0000
Subject: "Need and valor" and the Sword
In-Reply-To: <fj2l7g+752p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj331n+651k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179583

---  "Zara" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
>
> zgirnius:
> Dumbledore's portrait, in DH, "The Prince's Tale" tells Snape
> that he must arrange the transfer of the Sword of Gryffindor 
> to Harry in such a way that Harry obtains it under conditions
> of "need and valor". Harry's instincts (DH, "The Silver Doe")
> seem to support this claim, since he feels it is important 
> that Ron be the one to destroy the locket with the sword. Ron,
> of course, is the one who ends up retrieving the sword after
> the locket tries to kill Harry.
> 
> So now I am wondering. Why was Dumbledore, who came into
> possession of the sword rather straightforwardly when Harry 
> gave it to him in CoS, able to use it to destroy the Ring? 
> Was it because his own ill-advised action in putting on the 
> cursed thing created the necessary danger?
>

bboyminn:

You've presented a very tricky question. I never asked myself
why Harry had to obtain the sword under conditions of 'Need
and Valor', I just accepted it when it came up in the story.
Now, after the fact, it doesn't quite make sense.

On one hand, I don't think the Sword is like the Elder Wand
in that it doesn't transfers it's allegance and it's 
corresponding power to those who obtain it under the stated 
conditions. In short, it is not really transferring allegance.

Its power to serve Harry's need comes from its own natural 
magical power, and from the fact that it has the ability to 
absorb power. For example, it has the ability to destroy 
Horcruxes because it was used to kill the Basilisk and in 
doing so absorbed the Basilik's power. So by being used
valiantly, it has absorb power from everything it has
conquered make it one very very powerful magical object.

The general theory is that the Sword will present itself, or
come to the aid of, a true Gryffindor in need. But, first and
foremost, you must be a TRUE Gryffindor, second you must truly
have a grave and heroic need.

Which brings us to the 'Valor' part. The Sword on the two 
occasions when it spontaneously appeared, it appeared in 
conjunction with the Sorting Hat. In this other case, it was
simply being handed over to Harry by Snape, so perhaps it was 
necessary to create a situation of peril which was countered
by Valor in order for the Sword to ...what... serve the
person who held it? To bend its full power to the person 
who obtained it under heroic circumstances? That's starting
to sound a lot like the Elder Wand, but I personally don't
see the same mechanism in play. But what mechanism IS in
play I can't say for sure.

You were also wise to note that it was Ron who recovered
the Sword under even more heroic and valiant circumstances
than even Harry's effort would have been if he had succeeded.
And that because of this, Harry felt it was Ron who should
wield the Sword against the Locket. I'm not so sure that
effects the power of the Sword, but perhaps it effect the
willingness of the Sword to serve?

So, were does that leave us??? I'm not sure. Certainly you
must have a heroic need for the Sword to come to you and
serve you, but as similar as it sounds, I don't, as I've
said, see the same mechanism at work as I see in the
Elder Wand, but exactly what mechanism is in play with
the Sword, I'm not really sure.

So, after all that talking, I guess I haven't really said
much. Still it is an intriguing question.

Steve/bboyminn




From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  4 06:01:18 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 06:01:18 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic, Dark Wizards (was: Philosophy of Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <fj236k+qtdj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj2qfe+3haf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179584

muscatel1988:

> The problem I have, and the problem that Betsy Hp referred
> to, is that the *author* doesn't seem to have decided what
> the moral rules of her universe are.  What exactly about
> Dark Magic makes it bad?  <snip>....JKR does not provide
> us with the means to determine what makes a spell Dark.

Pippin Fowler:
It seems to me from the short menu of Unforgiveable Curses
that some readers may be looking for more in 'Dark Magic'
and 'Dark Wizards' than JKR intended to place there. What
makes magic dark? It causes pain (Cruciatus), it controls
someone else's mind (Imperius), or it kills (AK). What makes
a wizard 'dark'? His or her wanton uses of these curses.

muscatel1988:
> Sectumsempra is depicted as a pretty nasty device, one that
> we'd be tempted to regard as Dark.

Pippin Fowler:
Sectumsempra is also considered 'dark' by the author.

"Mrs. Weasley looked around and said, 'I can't make it [George's
ear] grow back, not when it's been removed by Dark Magic. But it
could have been so much worse....He's alive.'" (DH Fallen Warrior)

I wonder if Snape had the ability to restore George's ear, as he
healed the Malfoy boy.

muscatel1988:
> For many here, Marietta's fate was richly deserved, and I
> don't want to debate it, because that's not the point. The
> point is that we're supposed to think it's deserved because
> it was carried out by the White Hats - it's who does it and
> who it's done to that make it acceptable, not the procedure
> itself.

Pippin Fowler:
I believe we're supposed to think it's deserved because Marietta
Edgecombe was betraying Dumbledore's Army to Umbridge. Should Cho
Chang get at least some of the blame for Marietta's blemishes?--

"Her friend Marietta looked at them rather sourly and turned
away.
"'Don't mind her,' Cho muttered. 'She doesn't really want to be
here but I made her come with me. Her parents have forbidden her
to do anything that might upset Umbridge, you see--her mum works
for the Ministry.'" (OotP Dumbledore's Army)

muscatel1988:
> The ritual that restores Voldemort to full size and strength
> in the graveyard reeks of Black Magic - "blood of the enemy
> forcibly taken, bone of the father unwillingly given", all
> that.  But there's another spell in canon that falls under
> the traditional classification of Black Magic, the one which
> uses a body part of another person, the one that is essentially
> identity theft: the Polyjuice Potion.

Pippin Fowler:
A potion is a thing. Things have no inherent good or evil. Like
a knife, they can be used many ways with many intentions.

muscatel1988:
>  Voldemort's ritual is bad because he does it.

Pippin Fowler:
Robbing graves and forced body part and blood donations are
generally frowned upon by some people, myself included.

Is there more Dark Magic than the Unforgivable Curses and
Snape's slashing invention? Yes, I think so, but then we get
into matters of intent and morality, and what is good or
wicked depends on one's point of view.

Pippin Fowler



From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Dec  4 09:42:17 2007
From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (lesley)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:42:17 -0000
Subject: What's good about the good guys?
In-Reply-To: <fj20hd+2hj9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj37dp+e79d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179585

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> We've heard a lot of complaints lately about the good guys,
> particularly Dumbledore. I'd like to turn that around and
> ask those who admire those characters and even those who
> are disappointed in them to consider what's good about the
> good guys

Lesley
I'd like to bring the MOM and Scrimgeour into this as despite
the many wrongs, Scrimgeour came good in the end as he was
tortured for Harry's whereabouts but he kept silent and was
killed. I think he was doomed to die anyway but he must have
had a genuine sense of good otherwise he would have given Harry
up to spare himself the torture.

I think the MOM in general were good and would have done a lot
to help from year 4 if they had had better leaders, after all
no-one would have wanted LV back unless they were DEs. I think
their actions should be put down to stupidity.

Lesley



From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 12:32:26 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:32:26 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj29l8+rjtc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj3hcq+s4ep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179586

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" <cottell at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn@> wrote:
> >
> > > Pippin:
> > > Dumbledore did try to get the Ministry to realize that Morfin 
was 
> > > the wrong man <snip>
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > I don't remember that from canon.
> 
> It's in "A Sluggish Memory": " 'However, I was able to secure a 
visit
> to Morfin in the last weeks of his life, by which time I was
> attempting to discover as much as I could about Voldemort's past.  I
> extracted this memory [of Tom's visit to the Gaunt house at the time
> the Riddle family get murdered - Mus] with difficulty.  When I saw
> what it contained, I attempted to use it to secure Morfin's release
> from Azkaban.  Before the Ministry reached their decision, however,
> Morfin died.' " [HBP UKhb: 344]
> 
> If you believe him, that is.  <eg>
> 
> Mus, who would have difficulty at this stage believing DD's word 
that
> fire is hot.

a_svirn:
My bad, I confused Morfin's situation with that of Hokey. Because 
Dumbledore didn't say anything of trying to free her. You are right, 
however, I don't believe Dumbledore. By the time he finished with 
both of them, they were probably in no better state than Berta 
Jorkins. 




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 12:37:16 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:37:16 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj2e06+dlbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj3hls+6cqn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179587

> lizzyben:
> 
> And gosh, I wonder what Morfin died of? Let's see... he died within 
> weeks of seeing Dumbledore, & shortly after DD extracted these 
> memories. Riddle had placed a powerful memory charm on Morfin that 
> would erase his real memories & place a false one in its place. So, 
> in order for DD to reach the "real" memory behind the false one, DD 
> would have to use some powerful magic indeed to break the memory 
> charm - DD says that he had to use a "great deal of skilled 
> Legimancy" to "coax" it out of him. 
> 
> 
> Funnily enough, Hokey the elf also died shortly after DD managed 
> to "extract" a memory from her of Riddle's murder of Hepizah Smith. 
> (DD:"As in the case of Morfin, by the time I traced her & managed 
to 
> extract this memory, her life was almost over.") But I'm sure DD 
> lobbied for her freedom as well. ;)
> 
> And hmmm, where else have we heard of a powerful wizard using 
> Legimancy to "extract" hidden memories? Voldemort did exactly that 
> to Bertha Jorkins. Her "real" memories had been modified & hidden 
> behind a powerful Memory Charm. But LV broke this charm in order to 
> extract her real memories about the TWT & Barty Crouch Jr. LV tells 
> us that memory charms aren't 100% safe, because they can be broken 
> by a powerful wizard.
><snip>

a_svirn:
And considering the effects such "investigation methods" have on 
the "witnesses", I would assume that they are probably not legal. At 
least, they shouldn't be. Therefore I don't see how Dumbledore could 
possibly present his evidence to the Ministry without compromising 
himself. 




From cottell at dublin.ie  Tue Dec  4 13:38:18 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:38:18 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj2e06+dlbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj3l8a+8p8g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179588

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> wrote:
>
> They both died within weeks after DD visited 
> them, shortly after DD himself says that he used powerful magic to  
> extract their real memories (with great difficulty). After damaging 
> their minds & bodies beyond repair, DD decided that they had served 
> their purpose, & disposed of them.
> 
> *Adds Morfin & Hokey to the DD death toll.*

Mus adds:

On the other hand, we don't know that DD disposed of them directly. 
We only know that LV did away with Jorkins, and this sounds like an
immediate death.  In the case of Morfin and Hokey, the deaths occurred
some time after DD broke the Charm.  

If death results inevitably from the breaking of the Charm, then LV's
offing of Jorkins at least gave her a quick death; DD seems to have
left Hokey and Morfin to die slowly.  Of course, a dying witch with a
restored memory wandering around the countryside could perhaps be
dangerous to LV, and he was in a hurry to get away from Albania;
Morfin and Hokey were imprisoned (in Azkaban in his case, though we
don't know for certain in hers), so if they started to talk after his
visit, they could be discounted as raving.  In other words, DD didn't
need to kill them directly.  Time would do it, and his hands would,
naturally, remain clean.

"The only one he ever feared?"  You've got a point there, Tom.  

Of course, all of this raises yet another point about the WW's system
of justice.  We've seen it fail on pretty much every count: it
sentences the innocent without even due process, it fails to convict
the guilty, and now it seems, except in the case of hippogryphs, not
to have any appeals process.  But I'm confident that Hermione will
sort it all out.  <eg>

In passing, I found something odd w.r.t. house-elves.  In HBP Ch20,
when DD tells Harry about Smith's death and Hokey's conviction for it,
there's this:

" 'Yes, that is my conclusion, too,' said Dumbledore.  'And, just as
with Morfin, the Ministry was predisposed to suspect Hokey - '

' - because she was a house-elf,' said Harry.  He had rarely felt more
in sympathy with the society Hermione had set up, SPEW." [HBP UKhb: 410-1]

This is just bizarre.  DD is telling us that wizardkind regards
house-elves *as a class* as suspect and capable of harming their
masters.  It's a good thing the little blighters aren't free, isn't it?




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 14:14:30 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:14:30 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj2hmb+m1sp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj3nc6+ftgn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179589

> Alla:
> 
> NO, it is more than tactical disagreement, I am afraid.
> 
> I suggest the **trust** the people mode as default one. NOT the 
> limited people from the Order. OMG, who besides Mundungus is not 
> deserving of Dumbledore's trust in your opinion?
> 
> Moody? Weasleys, who sacrificed so much? Remus who went to 
> werewolves no matter what strain it put on him?
> 
> As I mentioned before I understand Dumbledore if he was traumatised 
> by Pettigrew betrayal, but by no means I believe his method of 
> leadership was the right one.
> 
a_svirn:
Why on earth should *Dumbledore* be traumatised by Pettigrew's 
betrayal? It's not like Pettigrew was his friend. I think he had been 
traumatised by Grindenwald's betrayal, yes, but if what happened to 
him when he was eighteen made him incapable to trust people at all 
even a century later, it's just too bad, isn't it? The order of the 
Phoenix would have done better with less traumatised leader. Then 
again, it probably wouldn't have been an "order" at all, but a well-
organised Resistance. 




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 14:36:49 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:36:49 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj3hls+6cqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj3om1+r8kj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179590

> a_svirn:
> And considering the effects such "investigation methods" have on 
> the "witnesses", I would assume that they are probably not legal. 
At 
> least, they shouldn't be. Therefore I don't see how Dumbledore 
could 
> possibly present his evidence to the Ministry without compromising 
> himself.

lizzyben:

Well, Barty Crouch Jr. describes this "investigation method" as 
torture. So I'd assume it's probably not legal. Also, DD wouldn't 
want to present expulcatory evidence for Morfin because that memory 
might lead to troublesome questions about the Ring or the Horcruxes, 
or DD's own role in Morfin's death. But still, I can almost see DD 
doing this, and then raging at the evil Ministry for imprisoning 
Morfin, & seeing no hypocrisy there at all. 


Mus adds:

On the other hand, we don't know that DD disposed of them directly.
We only know that LV did away with Jorkins, and this sounds like an
immediate death. In the case of Morfin and Hokey, the deaths occurred
some time after DD broke the Charm.

If death results inevitably from the breaking of the Charm, then LV's
offing of Jorkins at least gave her a quick death; DD seems to have
left Hokey and Morfin to die slowly. 
 
In other words, DD didn't need to kill them directly. Time would do 
it, and his hands would, naturally, remain clean.

lizzyben:

Oh, yes, exactly. I didn't mean that DD "disposed" of them directly -
he'd never be so crass (or obvious). No, DD extracted all the 
information he could from them, destroying their minds & bodies, and 
then left them to die later on - when DD is far, far away. 

Clean hands is the DD mantra, as far as I can tell. He always seems 
to retain enough distance that these deaths can't be directly traced 
to him. But he does say that Hokey & Morfin died shortly after his 
visits - why didn't I ever make the connection before? Argh. 

Mus:
"The only one he ever feared?" You've got a point there, Tom.

lizzyben:

Oh, yeah, DD is chilling. I love how he says that by the time he 
managed to extract her memory, Hokey's life was almost over. LOL, 
yeah, and by the time Voldemort managed to extract Bertha Jorkins' 
memory, her life was almost over too. DD's actually technically 
telling the truth, but in such a misleading way that it becomes a 
lie. 

Mus:

" 'Yes, that is my conclusion, too,' said Dumbledore. 'And, just as
with Morfin, the Ministry was predisposed to suspect Hokey - '

' - because she was a house-elf,' said Harry. He had rarely felt more
in sympathy with the society Hermione had set up, SPEW." [HBP UKhb: 
410-1]

This is just bizarre. DD is telling us that wizardkind regards
house-elves *as a class* as suspect and capable of harming their
masters. It's a good thing the little blighters aren't free, isn't 
it?

lizzyben:

Well, Harry has a tendency to interrupt right when people are about 
to reveal important information. I don't think that DD was about to 
say that the Ministry suspected her because she was a house elf, 
because Morfin isn't a house-elf, yet he's saying that they were 
both suspected for the same reason. Who knows, maybe they're both in 
Slytherin? 


lizzyben






From cottell at dublin.ie  Tue Dec  4 15:55:26 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:55:26 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj3om1+r8kj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj3t9e+jfih@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179591

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Oh, yeah, DD is chilling. I love how he says that by the time he 
> managed to extract her memory, Hokey's life was almost over. LOL, 
> yeah, and by the time Voldemort managed to extract Bertha Jorkins' 
> memory, her life was almost over too. DD's actually technically 
> telling the truth, but in such a misleading way that it becomes a 
> lie. 

Mus:
It's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, isn't it? 

 
> Well, Harry has a tendency to interrupt right when people are about 
> to reveal important information. I don't think that DD was about to 
> say that the Ministry suspected her because she was a house elf, 
> because Morfin isn't a house-elf, yet he's saying that they were 
> both suspected for the same reason. Who knows, maybe they're both in 
> Slytherin? 

Mus:
Or in Slytherin by extension.  DD responds "Precisely" to Harry's "-
because she was a house-elf", so he clearly doesn't mind if Harry
misunderstands.  I assume the common reason for distrusting Morfin and
Hokey is that they're both Other, underlining thus the message that we
shouldn't categorise beings by their superficial qualities.  Where
would we be without DD to point out the moral deficiencies of others?

But that's just
Mus




From riyo at verizon.net  Tue Dec  4 14:05:22 2007
From: riyo at verizon.net (tiiana)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:05:22 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's good about the good guys?
Message-ID: <19780501.1496801196777122924.JavaMail.root@vms064.mailsrvcs.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179592

My favorite good guy, especially after DH, happens to be Molly Weasley. As a mother, she makes me proud. She had one son harmed (George's ear), one son on the run and in the middle of it all (Ron), one son dead (Fred) and a daughter being threatened. She totally pushed aside the Molly we thought we knew and showd what she could be. A fiercely protective mother who would do any and everything, including kill, in order to save her children. I just couldn't see all that happening to her, with Bellatrix trying to kill her and her daughter, and she just use a disarming spell. I'm sorry. Bella was going for the kill. Why shouldn't Molly? Molly wanted to make sure she didn't have to worry about her kids' safety and took out what was making them unsafe. So I applaud Molly Weasley and all the moms out there that wouldn't hesitate to do is necessary to ensure the safety of their family.

I also applaud any of those "good guys" that knew it necessary to do unconventional things in order to win the war. That includes the good guys using evil spells. The way I feel about it, if someone is trying to kill you with a sword, are you going to use a whiffle bat against them? Do you know how fast that fight will end. So if one of our favorite goodies have to go outside of their comfort zone and use the same spells the baddies are using, good for them. It's war.

Oh, and as for Dumbledore? I think this book made him a little more human for me. The man was majorly flawed. 

~~~tiiana

~~~tiiana -<--{@



From blydk at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 14:50:05 2007
From: blydk at yahoo.com (blydk)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:50:05 -0000
Subject: Why Do you Thnk the deathley Hallows were introduced in the 7th book
Message-ID: <fj3pet+7d8r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179593

blydk:
I think that the invisiblity cloak is, in fact, a hallow. But why did we
not hear about the stone and the wand? I also think that the Sorceror's Stone might have been one but it looks like it is not.



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 18:16:27 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:16:27 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic, Dark Wizards (was: Philosophy of Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <fj2qfe+3haf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj45hr+sv86@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179594

> Pippin Fowler:
> It seems to me from the short menu of Unforgiveable Curses
> that some readers may be looking for more in 'Dark Magic'
> and 'Dark Wizards' than JKR intended to place there. What
> makes magic dark? It causes pain (Cruciatus), it controls
> someone else's mind (Imperius), or it kills (AK). What makes
> a wizard 'dark'? His or her wanton uses of these curses.

zgirnius:
This is exactly how I see it. There is also more "minor" Dark Magic. 
JKR's website suggests (and so do the books) that spells classified 
as Jinxes, Hexes, or Curses are to varying extents, Dark. I imagine 
the degree of darkness is related to the severity and permanence of 
the damage, ranging from trivial "Jelly Legs Jinx" to potentially 
deadly "Sectumsempra", which was not classified for us that I can 
recall, but must be a Curse.

> Pippin Fowler:
> Sectumsempra is also considered 'dark' by the author.
> 
> "Mrs. Weasley looked around and said, 'I can't make it [George's
> ear] grow back, not when it's been removed by Dark Magic. But it
> could have been so much worse....He's alive.'" (DH Fallen Warrior)

zgirnius:
Snape also calls it Dark, in the chapter of HBP named after the 
spell. And yeah, I would guess he might have been able to do more for 
George than Mrs. Weasley could.

> muscatel1988:
> > The ritual that restores Voldemort to full size and strength
> > in the graveyard reeks of Black Magic - "blood of the enemy
> > forcibly taken, bone of the father unwillingly given", all
> > that.  But there's another spell in canon that falls under
> > the traditional classification of Black Magic, the one which
> > uses a body part of another person, the one that is essentially
> > identity theft: the Polyjuice Potion.
> 
> Pippin Fowler:
> A potion is a thing. Things have no inherent good or evil. Like
> a knife, they can be used many ways with many intentions.

zgirnius:
Here I must disagree with you (if I understand correctly that you are 
suggesting Potions are not Dark). Spells are also things, that have 
no inherent good or evil. Was the Avada Kedavra cast by Snape at the 
end of HBP inherently evil? Or did Snape do the "right" thing? I 
certainly believe the latter, and that it was no more or less evil 
than it would have been, had Snape used the knife of your example. 
Nor was it evil of Harry to use Sectumsempra against Inferi (just not 
effective).

The resurrection potion of GoF, I would say, is definitely Dark, for 
two different reasons. First, it requires pain and injury to be made 
("Blood of the enemy, forcibly taken"), and second, it is used in 
conjunction with Horcruxes, to restore the unnaturally anchored soul 
of someone already killed to a body. Horcruxes are of course the 
Darkest of Dark Magic, as the text makes plain.

I think Polyjuice may also be Dark in this sense (but again, this 
does not make anyone who ever took a swig of it a Dark Wizard, since 
that is a "wanton" user of Dark Magic). My reasons for supposing this 
include the argument presented by Muscatel above, as well as its 
introduction in the series, in CoS. The potion is mentioned by Snape 
as being in "Most Potente Potions". This is a book shelved in the 
Restricted (Dark Arts) section of the school library. Here is the 
description:

> CoS, "The Rogue Bludger":
> It was clear from a glance why it belonged in the Restricted 
Section. Some of the potions had effects almost too gruesome to think 
about, and there were some very unpleasant illustrations, which 
included a man who seemed to have been turned inside out and a witch 
sprouting several extra pairs of arms out of her head.

zgirnius:
Whether or not you accept Polyjuice in particular is Dark, it seems 
pretty clear to me from this that *some* Potions are.

We had some discussion of Dark Magic before. The threading functino 
of Yahoo is not working for me so I can't find the start of the 
thread, but this post: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176622
was one in which I propose that Dark Magic in the Potterverse is a 
rough analogy to violence/the use of force, in RL.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 18:20:53 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:20:53 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj3nc6+ftgn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj45q6+5ctb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179595

> > Alla:
<SNIP>
>> > As I mentioned before I understand Dumbledore if he was 
traumatised 
> > by Pettigrew betrayal, but by no means I believe his method of 
> > leadership was the right one.
> > 
> a_svirn:
> Why on earth should *Dumbledore* be traumatised by Pettigrew's 
> betrayal? It's not like Pettigrew was his friend. I think he had been 
> traumatised by Grindenwald's betrayal, yes, but if what happened to 
> him when he was eighteen made him incapable to trust people at all 
> even a century later, it's just too bad, isn't it? The order of the 
> Phoenix would have done better with less traumatised leader. Then 
> again, it probably wouldn't have been an "order" at all, but a well-
> organised Resistance.
>

Alla:

Whether he should be or not, of course depends on how much decency you 
think Dumbledore has in himself. I think he has plenty of flaws - as 
leader and as a person - no not those cute little flaws that made him 
more human, but some really bad ones, but I also think he has some 
decency in himself.

So that is my premise ( on my good days LOL), if you do not buy this 
premise, then you will not buy anything to follow this.

If Dumbledore has some decency in himself, I believe he will be 
traumatised that he was hoodwinked so badly and that he was so very 
sure that he let an innocent man spent twelve years in prison and that 
he did not even bother to go and check the truth, look for his memories 
or something like this. 

You do not have to tell me how bad Dumbledore behaved towards Sirius, I 
will agree with you in advance and raise the bar more, but on my good 
days I believe or at least I want to believe that he was shocked by 
Pettigrew's betrayal and traumatised by it.

Now, maybe whole trauma was that Pettigrew outsmarted him and not 
because he felt the slightest bit of sorry for Sirius' sufferings, I do 
not know that, but yes, I believe it is possible he was traumatised.

Speculation obviously.

Oh, and I agree with you that if the only trauma was Grindelwad, that 
is just too bad and does not justify anything.

And hmmm, I would certainly agree with you that Order would have done 
better with another leader, but when I sat down and thought, the 
question is who would that be?

JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 18:47:41 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:47:41 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj212c+l1gu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj47cd+3pqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179596

a_svirn wrote:
> I think you sort of confuse being unpopular with being notorious.
Harry's fame and importance is a fact of canon, <snip> In GoF he's a
school champion, and as such has more social clout than any
fourth-year could dream of. In OotP for all his alleged unpopularity a
few dozens of people turn up in a seedy pub to listen what he has to
say. And they recognize him a leader from the get-go. Just imagine how
many people would turn up if Hermione invited them to listen to *her*
rather than to Harry. This is not what being unpopular means.

Carol responds:

As I said before, being famous is not the same as being important. No
one in Books 1 through 6 (with the exception of Dumbledore) treats
Harry as someone with the potential to save the WW from Voldemort. In
fact, not until Book 6 does anyone believe besides DD, Snape, the
Order, the DEs and a few of Harry's friends believe that Voldemort is
back. (Many of the DA members are more concerned with Umbridge's
failure to teach them than with Voldemort. Others, primarily Zacharias
Smith, want to know what happened to Cedric.) Neither popularity nor
importance has anything to do with it. And they stay on because they
believe that he knows spells that they don't know (which is more a
reflection on bad DADA teaching than on Harry as someone with power or
influence, which is what "important" suggests to me. (Dumbledore is
*important.* Harry is famous. (Of course, when Sirius Black is
believed to be after him, the MoM goes out of its way to protect him,
but that's because they would look very bad if anything happened to
the Boy Who Lived.)

Harry has no "social clout" that I can see. It's only when something
like the Yule Ball or Slughorn's Christmas party is in the offing that
girls clamor to go out with him--so *they* can have a treat and bask
in the reflected glory of a TWT champion or Quidditch champion. I
suppose he's a kind of James in these situations, without the
arrogance. And if Hermione offered to teach DADA, it's posssible that
a few students would at least want to have study sessions with her.
The difference is that no one would be curious to hear her story and
no one has seen her battle a dragon. 

a-svirn 
> It was Hermione who was unpopular for the part of PS. And it was 
because her friendship with famous and popular Harry her standing in
Gryffindor improved. (Though unlike Ron she did not set out to 
> befriend the famous Harry Potter.) <snip>

Carol responds:
When and how does Hermione's social standing improve? Except for
Viktor Krum, who probably likes her precisely because she doesn't
chase after him, and Ginny, who is the younger sisters of one of her
best friends, and Hagrid, who becomes closer to all of the Trio than
is usually the case with a teacher or staff member, Hermione remains
virtually friendless throughout the books. On the few occasions when
she's estranged from both Harry and Ron, she sits alone at the
Gryffindor talbe (unlike Ron, who has the Twins, Dean and Seamus, and
sometimes (IIRC) Lee Jordan to sit with when he's fighting with Harry
in GoF.

As or Ron "setting out" to befriend the famous Harry Potter, that's
not at all what happened. Ron slides open the compartment door and
asks if he can sit down because "everywhere else is full." Then he
asks if Harry is really Harry Potter because he thinks it might be one
of Fred and George's jokes. Harry is as curious about Ron, a boy who
grew up in a whole family of wizards, as Ron is about him. Also, Ron
can tell him about things like Chocolate Frog Cards and Bertie Botts
Beans and Quidditch. Each fills a need for the other. But, IMO, it's
Draco's insulting the Weasley family, marking himself as "the wrong
sort," that seals Harry's friendship with Ron, just as it seals his
enmity with Draco. (Hermione, OTOH, is just a bossy, busybody girl to
both of them. "No wonder she hasn't got any friends," as Ron says
later. And that statement would, IMO, have remained true had it not
been for the incident with the Troll.)
> 
Steph:
><snip>
Overall, Harry doesn't appear to have many friends beyond Ron,
Hermione, the other Weasleys, Seamus, Neville, and Dean.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Huh. That's what, about a dozen people who would die for you without 
> even asking a single question? Poor Harry, that must be tough being 
> so unpopular. 

Carol:
Who besides Ron and Hermione would die for Harry without asking a
single question before OoP? And even then, it's only Ginny, who has
always had a crush on the Boy Who Lived (I forgot to include her in
his fanclub earlier), Luna, who is more than a bit eccentric, and
Neville, whose parents were Crucio'd into insanity by Death Eaters,
who are willing to face DEs with Harry. I'm not sure that Luna knows
what she's getting into nor that Neville is doing it for Harry. And
even after the Battle at the DoM, which teaches Harry to appreciate of
three people he had previously underestimated, none of them becomes
his close friend. BTW, being popular (or famous) and having people
willing to die for you are two completely different things. Are the
girls who follow Viktor Krum because he's a famous Quidditch star and
a TWT champion willing to die for him? I doubt it. Is Romilda Vane,
who tried to trap Harry into asking her to Slughorn's party by giving
him chocolates laced with love potion willing to die for Harry? Funny;
I don't recall her name being mentioned as one of the participants in
the Battle of Hogwarts. (Also, I'm not sure that everyone who fought
in that battle on the good side was fighting "for Harry." Kreacher was
fighting in the name of Regulus Black; Molly Weasley was fighting for
her family; Lupin dies trying to make the world a better place for his
baby son. Harry may be the Chosen One, but he's not the be all and end
all of the WW. Ron fights as much for Hermione as for Harry. Hermione
fights at least in part as a champion of the oppressed, primarily
Muggle-borns like herself.

Unlike Cho, who is genuinely popular (perhaps because she's pretty),
Harry never has crowds of other students following him around. His
circle of friends is restricted to two, with others such as his
roommates and the Weasley Twins as acquaintances with whom he's on
good terms most of the time. What does he know about any of them? It's
the middle of GoF before he even finds out that Neville is
(indirectly) as much a victim of Voldemort as he is. And when does he
worry about their problems rather than his own? Granted, he has a lot
on his plate, but he almost never sees beyond himself and his own
small circle unless it's too worry about Hagrid. He snubs anyone,
whether it's Draco or Colin Creevey, who tries to get too close. And
after awhile, people stop trying. (The Weasleys are close by default,
because he spends so much time with their family, not because of any
effort on their part to befriend him. They just act like themselves
around him, Ginny excepted for the first three and a half books. And,
of course, it doesn't hurt that the Twins themselves are excellent
Quidditch players on the same team as Harry. We don't however, see the
Twins joining him in the DoM or offering to die for him. Admittedly,
George loses an ear "for Harry" and Fred eventually dies, more or less
accidentally, fighting on Harry's side, but matters have changed in DH.)

Steph:
> Ron certainly thought it was cool that Harry was who he was, but
after that it didn't really seem to matter to Ron that Harry was famous.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Didn't matter? When he was obviously consumed with jealousy all the
 time? To the point of succumbing to the Horcrux's influence?
>
Carol:
That was Ron's personal demon, as it's probably the personal demon of
the obscure best friends of many famous people. But, except for a
brief time in GoF, when he thinks Harry is lying to him and Harry
omits the important information that "Moody" thinks someone is out to
kill Harry, and the fight in DH, which he immediately regrets, Ron
does a very good job of suppressing his jealousy or envy of Harry. He
risks his life for Harry or with Harry in SS/PS, CoS, OoP, HBP, and
DH. In PoA, he tells Sirius Black that he'll have to kill him and
Hermione before he kills Harry. 

Most of the time, Ron is Harry's loyal friend and companion who not
only would but does place his life on the line for Harry. In DH, he
risks his own life to save Harry, and, in doing so, makes himself
worthy not only of wielding the Sword of Gryffindor, but of destroying
the locket Horcrux which has tormented him by bringing out all his own
insecurities. (It's not just Harry; the locket taunts him that his
mother wanted a girl.) Look at all the times in which Ron adds humor
or his own brand of courage to the situation. He is by no means
"consumed with jealousy *all* the time, any more than Harry is
consumed by a desire for vengeance against Snape/Draco/Sirius
Black/Umbridge/Voldemort or whoever the target of his rage and desire
for revenge happens to be *all* the time. Both of them have plenty of
time to be just kids and just friends until DH brings matters to a
head. And even in that action-filled book, there are moments of
normalcy. There are moments, too, when Harry envies Ron, who has a
loving family and is clearly on the verge of a relationship with
Hermione that Harry fears will exclude him (HBP, Herbology class; I
forget the name of the chapter, but it's before Slughorn's Christmas
party).

Unless some particular event or Prophet article calls attention to
Harry, most of the students are so used to him that he's just another
student or, at most, an excellent Quidditch player whose popularity or
unpopularity depends on whether the other student is a Gryffindor or a
member of a rival House.

Carol, noting that surviving an AK when you're a baby makes you a
phenomenon but it doesn't necessarily equate to being the future
savior of the WW, which, for the first five books at least, doesn't
even know that it's in jeopardy





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 19:07:22 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:07:22 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj236k+qtdj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj48ha+c16n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179597

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > As an author though, building a world where good and evil are 
> > going to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea   
> > to have some sense of what differentiates your good guys from    
> > your bad guys. And I don't think JKR bothered with that.

> >>Sharon:
> > To my mind, it makes the books that much more interesting to have 
> > to work through all the confusion and mistakes that the          
> > characters undergo, to try to figure out the difference between   
> > good and evil. 
> > Why should the author just hand it to us on a platter?
 
> >>Mus:
> But that's not really, I think, the point that Betsy Hp is making -
> it's certainly not the problem that I have with the nature of good 
> and evil in the books.  Whenever you read a book set in another     
> world, one does, as a reader, have to work out what the "rules"    
> are - what the morality is, in other words.  We have to do it with 
> Tolkien, with Le Guin, with Gaiman, with hundreds of others.  That 
> we would have to do it with the Potterverse isn't asking anything   
> out of the ordinary - in that, I'm in complete agreement with you.
> 
> The problem I have, and the problem that Betsy Hp referred to, is   
> that the *author* doesn't seem to have decided what the moral rules 
> of her universe are. 
> <snip of examples>

Betsy Hp:
Yes! Thank you, this is *exactly* what I'm talking about.  It's not 
so much that JKR needed to pour through philosophy books and pull out 
one or another to rule her world, but she *did* need to have a 
constant or underlying morality running through.  Especially since 
her characters act like there *is* a constant.  What McGonagall 
refers to as things Dumbledore would be far too noble to do in 
PS/SS.  

Because in the usual course of things, I *love* books where the main 
characters struggle with questions of morality as they make their way 
through their world and their various quests.  The struggle is what 
makes it interesting.  The issue I have with the Potter series isn't 
that Harry and friends make moral mistakes or get confused, it's that 
as far as I can tell they *don't* make moral mistakes or get 
confused.  Harry uses Unforgivables, and he doesn't, his friends 
don't, and the author doesn't, even blink about it.

Those uses *could* have been used to make the character of Harry 
deeper, more fully nuanced.  Instead, they seem to be there to make 
the character more "kick-ass" or "cool".  We're not supposed to 
question, nor expect Harry or his friends, to question their use.  I 
*love* to see characters struggle.  Harry doesn't struggle.  Nor do 
any of his friends.  (Except for *possibly* Ron.)  

> >>Mus:
> In a series ostensibly about the struggle between Good and Evil,   
> there are in principle two ways to go with magic.  Either there is 
> Good Magic and Bad Magic, or there is only one kind, whose *users* 
> are good or bad.  I'm quite happy to have to work out either        
> scenario by myself.  For me, the problem with the nature of Good    
> and Evil in the series is that the first option doesn't work,       
> because the White Hats do some awfully questionable things.  The   
> second option doesn't work either, because for that to work, magic 
> itself has to be neutral, but the author has already spiked our    
> guns on that score, because she tells us repeatedly that there is   
> Dark Magic.  The hallmark of a Dark Wizard, as far as one can tell, 
> is that they do Dark Magic, and Dark Magic is what Dark Wizards    
> do.  That is a circular argument.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Amusingly enough I'm reading a series right now with a 
world madeup of various theories of magic.  What's "good" magic for 
one group is "bad" magic to another group. And the politics of the 
various countries also come into play, so you've got wizards tortured 
and/or executed in one country for practicing a type of magic that is 
acceptable and good in another country.  As our protagonists move 
through the world it becomes pretty clear that it's more the user 
than the magic (though there is the complication of various magics 
having slippery slopes).  But the propoganda machines still keep 
spinning and so what's clear to the reader isn't necessarily clear to 
the protagonists.

And JKR could have gone in that direction.  (Honestly, as the series 
progressed and we failed again and again to get a definitive answer 
as to what makes some magic "Dark", I assumed that's where JKR was 
taking us.)  But she didn't.  Not really.  A big flashing sign to 
tell us how evil the Carrows were was that they changed *Defense* of 
Dark Arts class to plain old Dark Arts.  (Teaching children *dark* 
magic!  The horror!)  And yet, when the "good guys" do what seems to 
be "dark magic" they're okay.  So there's no clarity there.  We the 
reader *can't* figure it out for ourselves, we need JKR to out and 
out *tell* us who the good guys and who the bad guys are.  Which I 
think makes for weak story-telling.

> >>Mus:
> My problem isn't that I have to figure out what is Good and what is
> Evil, rather that there's no coherent answer to that question in the
> books.  I have no objection to a universe with no answer to that
> question, but in that case I think it's wise for the author not to
> tell me there's Good and Evil.  It's contradictory.  So either JKR 
> is being astonishingly cynical, or she never thought the thing     
> through to begin with.

Betsy Hp:
If I were figuring things out for myself, Hermione would be further 
down on the scale towards evil than say, Narcissa.  If I were to base 
the outcome on actions taken, etc.  But do I honestly think that's 
where JKR wants me to end up?  No.  Which tells me that there's a 
disconnect between the story JKR was trying to tell and the story she 
actually ended up telling.

> >>Sharon:
> <snip>
> Now I understand that your problem is: how can we even contemplate 
> that if we don't know what exactly good or evil consists of? but   
> again, I think that is OK. The novels let our imaginations and our 
> own moral senses try to come to terms with the contradictions. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm...  Well, I do agree that the lack of a moral rudder makes for 
some interesting discussions.  But to my mind it means that the 
conclusion of the series was... inconclusive. <g>  Harry et al won, 
but was that a good thing in the end?  I mean, yes obviously the 
scary, Nazi-like, blood-baths for all, group wasn't any good.  But 
the scary, cult-like, do as we say it'll be *good* for you, group 
isn't *that* much of an improvement, IMO.  And that very sense that 
it was all for nothing, a seven book quest that ends with an amoral 
whimper, leaves me feeling that the story itself wasn't well told.

Betsy Hp




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Tue Dec  4 19:38:54 2007
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:38:54 -0900
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj45q6+5ctb@eGroups.com>
References: <fj45q6+5ctb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <417F8E26-66E2-4579-9525-77CE6D82C2DB@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179598


On 2007, Dec 04, , at 09:20, dumbledore11214 wrote:

> And hmmm, I would certainly agree with you that Order would have done
> better with another leader, but when I sat down and thought, the
> question is who would that be?
>
> JMO,
>
> Alla

I think Dumbledore and Harry were in similar circumstances:
each had a role thrust upon them and, whether or not they
were the perfect person to perform that role, it was theirs and
it was their job to deal with it.  Each did what he thought had
to be done.  Both had flaws, both tried to counter them.
Together, and with the help of many others, they managed to
succeed - just.

It doesn't bother me that DD or HP had flaws or made mistakes,
because I think it shows their humanity.  We ALL make mistakes;
we all have flaws.  If they were perfect or always did the right
thing, the books would have much less appeal to me.  I think
the world JKR has created seems more REAL for the fact that
the people in it seem like real people - with real histories, with
real failings.  I think this is the basic reason for the appeal of
these books and the story itself.

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 20:04:07 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:04:07 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj236k+qtdj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4brn+hqhr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179599

Mus wrote:
> 
> But that's not really, I think, the point that Betsy Hp is making -
it's certainly not the problem that I have with the nature of good and
evil in the books.  Whenever you read a book set in another world, one
does, as a reader, have to work out what the "rules" are - what the
morality is, in other words.  <snip>
> The problem I have, and the problem that Betsy Hp referred to, is
that the *author* doesn't seem to have decided what the moral rules of
her universe are.  What exactly about Dark Magic makes it bad?  Snape
in HBP gives us a sort of a description of its nature: " 'The Dark Arts
> are many, varied, ever-changing and eternal.  Fighting them is like
> fighting a many-headed monster, <snip> unfixed, mutating,
indestructible' " [HBP UKhb: 169] 
> But that, in seven books, is as close as we get to a definition, and
it's not a definition at all.  It's a description, and nothing in it
would allow you to examine a given spell and determine whether it was
Dark or not.  <snip>
> 
> Sectumsempra is depicted as a pretty nasty device, one that we'd be
tempted to regard as Dark.  But it's hard to distinguish it from a
spell which permanently disfigures someone without warning, combined
with the application of a memory charm which renders the scarred
person incapable of remembering what had caused the scar.  <snip> 

Carol responds:
I agree, and probably even the most ardent fan of the series would
agree, that JKR does not define the Dark Arts (though I do like
Snape's poetic description for what it says about him). And the
business of having the good guys use Unforgiveable Curses in the last
book is at best confusing, at worst disturbing. Nevertheless, I'll
make a stab at defining evil in the HP books. The Dementors, which
suck out happiness and destroy souls, are irredeemably evil, having no
soul of their own. We know that, while killing can be justified (Snape
and DD; Molly and Bellatrix), wilfull murder cannot, particularly when
the murder is used for the unnatural purpose of destroying your own
soul and trying to make yourself immortal. Torturing people seems evil
even when Harry attempts it on Bellatrix and (unsuccessfully) on Snape
until we're shown Harry torturing Carrow merely for spitting on
McGonagall. Possibly we're supposed to think of his motive as
righteous anger, but then he echoes Bellatrix's words about having to
mean the Unforgiveables. Morality seems to be turned upside down. What
happened to magic that the good wizards are too noble to use, to
paraphrase McGonagall's words in SS/PS? Still, torturing people into
insanity is clearly evil. Killing a Unicorn, the epitome of purity, is
evil. Forcing people to commit murder or torture against their will is
evil. So killing people, causing them pain, and controlling their
minds are evil not in themselves but when they do not contribute to
"the greater good" or the welfare of the WW (the justification for
modifying Muggle memories). I don't see any moral absolutes; the end
seems to justify the means, but only when the good to be accomplished
can't be obtained in any other way. Killing the innocent (whether
people or unicorns) is evidently always evil. Violating nature by
trying to make yourself immortal is also evil. But those two things
seem to be exceptions to the rule. Violating a grave for evil ends,
which LV does twice, is evil, but would taking the Elder Wand from
Dead!DD have been justified if *Harry* had done it to keep it from LV?
DD, at least, seems to think so.


Mus:
> The ritual that restores Voldemort to full size and strength in the
graveyard reeks of Black Magic - "blood of the enemy forcibly taken,
bone of the father unwillingly given", all that.  But there's another
spell in canon that falls under the traditional classification of
Black Magic, the one which uses a body part of another person, the one
that is essentially identity theft: the Polyjuice Potion.  What makes
one good and one bad?  Polyjuice isn't bad because Our Heroes use it.
 Voldemort's ritual is bad because he does it. <snip>

Carol responds:
I disagree. First, it's Wormtail who performs the ritual, not
Voldemort, and I think it would be Dark magic no matter who performed
it. There are key differences between taking body parts (hair or
fingernail clippings, which are in themselves already dead and cause
little or no pain to the person they're taken from--"Accio hair!"
might cause momentary discomfort) to make Polyjuice potion and
forcibly taking the bones of a dead man, the blood of an enemy, and
the flesh (the right hand!) of a servant. Voldemort, via Wormtail,
dishonors his father, injures Harry, and maims Wormtail, all for the
unnatural and wholly selfish end of making himself immortal. (Wormtail
has already used a combination of Nagini's venom and Unicorn blood to
create a horrible fetal form for LV which, IMO, foreshadows the form
his mangled soul will take in "King's Cross.") Surely, we don't need
JKR or Voldemort to tell us that this is Dark magic, the opposite in
every way of self-sacrificial love magic, dependent as it is in
harming others (living or dead--the fact that he murdered his own
father before using his bone to restore himself makes that act even
more abhorrent) for wholly selfish and unnatural ends. In contrast,
even stealing Mad-Eye Moody's hair and imprisoning him in his own
trunk in order to impersonate him is not (IMO) Dark magic, however
cruel and wrong and immoral it may be. Mad-eye still retains his own
identity and his life. Crouch Jr. has not taken his blood, flesh,
bone, or soul, only duplicated his body and taken advantage of the
real Moody's job as DADA teacher to manipulate Harry and send him to
Voldemort. Barty Jr. is evil and Demented, but he's not using Dark
magic in this instance to achieve his ends. (He does, however, use at
least two of the three Unforgiveables for evil ends--surely AKing his
father and Imperioing Krum to Crucio Cedric counts as both evil and
Dark.) 

Using Polyjuice to borrow (not steal) another's identity is not evil
in itself by the standards implied in the HP books if used for good or
neutral purposes (such as spying on Draco or visiting Godric's Hollow
or robbing Gringotts for "the greater good"). Even Crouch Jr. doesn't
actually "steal" Moody's identity (Moody in the trunk is still
himself) though he borrows it for a long period and for evil purposes,
meanwhile kidnapping and nearly starving Moody. Evil but not Dark,
IMO, and not evil because of the Polyjuice Potion per se but because
of the abuse of the man and the misuse of his identity. Polyjuice
Potion is not a form of Voodoo. (BTW, Ron's and Harry's treatment of
Crabbe and Goyle, knocking them out with a sleeping potion, locking
them in a cupboard and borrowing their shoes as well as their
identitities, all on Hermione's instructions, is not exactly exemplary
behavior and I don't think that the ends justified the means in this
instance, but at least it was short-term and for a neutral purpose, in
contrast with Crouch Jr.'s treatment of Moody. Are we supposed to
excuse HRH here or are we supposed to see their behavior in a
different light after GoF? I think the latter, but I'm not sure.)

Mus:
> My problem isn't that I have to figure out what is Good and what is
Evil, rather that there's no coherent answer to that question in the
books.  I have no objection to a universe with no answer to that
question, but in that case I think it's wise for the author not to
tell me there's Good and Evil.  It's contradictory.  So either JKR is
being astonishingly cynical, or she never thought the thing through to
begin with. <snip>

Carol:

IMO, and I have nothing to back up this statement because it's not an
argument, JKR just started writing the story that was in her head.
Devices like Polyjuice Potion occurred to her, and she figured out a
way to have the kids use them only to have them used by bad guys
later. (The reverse process may have occurred with the Unforgiveable
Curses.) She needed a way to hide her WW from Muggle eyes (her readers
are Muggles; they need an explanation for why they can't see Hogwarts
or Diagon Alley or dragons or giants) and came up with
Muggle-repelling Charms (no problem there except treating us as
members of an excluded underclass) and Obliviate, which she didn't
realize was just as obtrusive as the Imperius Curse. And she needed
Snape to kill Dumbledore by the easiest, least suspect, and least
painful method even though that same curse had been previously
established as Unforgiveable.

This is the same woman, after all, who can't count to two (Dobby is
out of work for a year and six months, not "two whole years," as Dobby
says in GoF). She tries but does not always succeed in keeping her
characters and the details of her plot consistent. But details like a
consistent number of students or the consistent behavior of wands or a
consistent morality seem to escape her. I really don't think she sat
down and thought about good and evil or Dark magic vs. whatever its
opposite is in the Potterverse. She wanted first and foremost to tell
Harry's story, the journey from adversity and obscurity to triumph,
heroism, and happiness, escaping even the burden of fame. Harry, the
flawed but essentially decent young hero triumphs over Voldemort, the
irredeemably mass murderer and mutilator of his own soul. And that,
for her, equates to the triumph of good over evil.

Carol, wondering if we've been misled by Rowling's ability to spin an
intriguing tale and create colorful characters into overestimating her
genius in other respects (expecting her to be a philosopher, for example)






From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 20:17:10 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:17:10 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj1q24+kr2p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4ck6+4m19@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179600

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" 
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
 
Magpie:
So except for all those times random strangers are throwing 
themselves at him or he's being chased by hoards of girls. Or when 
something spectacular happens, which is once a year. Harry's a 
totally nobody in between the times he's front page news, the stuff 
of legend or the school sports star. Iow, he's never a nobody. If 
nobody cared about Harry he wouldn't have the dramatic shunnings he 
does--that's even spelled out in canon in PS when Harry gets the 
brunt of the reaction to the loss of points because Hermione and 
Neville actually aren't important (rather than just having periods 
where the crowd's attention gets down to a dull roar or turns 
nasty). Harry is far more high-profile all the time. Even if Hannah 
Abbot has twice as many people to her birthday party.
> 
Fame is a whole greater level of importantance and Harry's got it. 
When the head of the government is showing up to try to get you on 
his side, and the new teacher is sucking up to you, and when the 
world goes to hell the whole world is looking to you as a savior 
because you kind of are their savior--come on, how on earth is this 
kid not important? I can't even come up with somebody who's Harry's 
level of importance in our world. Chosen One. Literally. I think 
Harry's central to his universe even more than most fantasy heroes.

Steph:
I never once said Harry wasn't important.  I said he wasn't always 
popular. Huge difference.  There are many people who are important 
who aren't popular.  I'm suggesting that Harry wasn't always one of 
the "cool kids" until HBP.  And yes, I do say that he became popular 
in that book.  Everyone at school new why Harry was important, it 
doesn't however mean that they wanted to be his friend.  You can 
also appreciate someone for their sporting skills but not want to be 
friends with them.  
> 

Magpie: 
> His importance doesn't come from how many people are in his 
circle. 

Steph:
I know.  That's what I said.  Again, importance isn't the same thing 
as popularity.  Harry doesn't have a lot of friends up to HBP.  You 
can even say that everyone in the DA wasn't his friend, but they 
recognized his value as a Dark Arts teacher.  That doesn't mean that 
he's their friend.

Magpie:
The fact remains when it came to connections, it was Ron who made a 
good one in that scene and not Harry. 

Steph:
Just because he made a good connection doesn't mean he went 
*looking* for a connection.  I never got the impression that Ron had 
that motive.  Draco was certainly looking for that, but Ron wasn't.  
Again, I make a distinction between being important and being 
popular.  






From leahbrahms at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 21:00:20 2007
From: leahbrahms at yahoo.com (leahbrahms)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:00:20 -0000
Subject: "Need and valor" and the Sword
In-Reply-To: <fj331n+651k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4f54+kvvr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179601

> bboyminn:
>
> You've presented a very tricky question. I never asked myself
> why Harry had to obtain the sword under conditions of 'Need
> and Valor', I just accepted it when it came up in the story.
> Now, after the fact, it doesn't quite make sense.
>
> <snip>

leahbrahms:

I understood that Dumbledore instructed Snape to create a situation
whereby Harry obtained the sword under the conditions of need and
valor because it was under those circumstances that Harry would
understand what to do; those were the circumstances that would make
sense to Harry. He used what he knew of the sword (what DD taught him)
to attack the situation. Also, it proved the identity of the one
obtaining the sword. It reminded me of how Harry obtained the
Philosopher's Stone in the first book: that only a person with certain
qualities would be able to obtain the object, and having those
qualities proved one's worthiness to obtain said object.

leah





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  4 21:12:24 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:12:24 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj4ck6+4m19@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4fro+fpec@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179602

> Steph:
> I never once said Harry wasn't important.  I said he wasn't always 
> popular. Huge difference.  There are many people who are important 
> who aren't popular.  I'm suggesting that Harry wasn't always one 
of 
> the "cool kids" until HBP.  And yes, I do say that he became 
popular 
> in that book.  Everyone at school new why Harry was important, it 
> doesn't however mean that they wanted to be his friend.  You can 
> also appreciate someone for their sporting skills but not want to 
be 
> friends with them.  

Magpie:
To be honest, I don't think you could ever say that Harry wasn't one 
of the "cool kids" given his level of fame. Who are the cool kids in 
his class? There are none in the fashion of American high school or 
American high school movies, and never were. There's no one crowd 
you can point to who represent the social elite in Harry's class. 

But Harry does just fine socially. Okay, maybe you think somebody 
can be unpopular even though everyone cheers "We got Potter!" at the 
prospect of his becoming a member of their house. Or that being the 
school sports hero doesn't connect with what what'd we'd call being 
popular. 

But who in Harry's class is particularly cooler than he is even in 
his first year? He seems perfectly well-liked in his dorm (certainly 
he's above the social scale of unpopular Neville and Hermione), he's 
accepted onto the Quidditch team with older students. (At least one 
student in his class is jealous of how everybody "thinks he's so 
great.") It's far more usual for Harry to be approached by others 
than for him to approach them. He himself is never in a position 
where he's approaching someone hoping to make a friend and gets the 
brush off or gets rejected. His circle of intimate friends is 
somewhat limited, as is everyone else's, but unpopular? I'm not 
seeing it. 

> Magpie: 
> > His importance doesn't come from how many people are in his 
> circle. 
> 
> Steph:
> I know.  That's what I said.  Again, importance isn't the same 
thing 
> as popularity.  Harry doesn't have a lot of friends up to HBP.  
You 
> can even say that everyone in the DA wasn't his friend, but they 
> recognized his value as a Dark Arts teacher.  That doesn't mean 
that 
> he's their friend.

Magpie:
But you also said he wasn't "one of the cool kids," which also 
doesn't have to do with the number of friends you have so you're 
conflating the two as well. Harry has a perfectly reasonable amount 
of friends, and plenty more people who feel well towards him from 
outside the people he chooses to hang around with the most. I can't 
think of a single time when Harry tries to initiate a friendship 
with someone and is turned down. There's no indication that his 
friendships are limited due to the disinterest or dislike of others, 
like with Neville or Luna. 

It just seems like you're having to cancel out a whole lot of times 
where people are drawn to Harry to make him unpopular. The secret 
army that appoints him their leader and leaps to defend him? Just 
using him as a Dark Arts teacher. Can't be counted as a social 
contact at all. And can't show any sort of popularity even though 
many individuals in the group actually do express positive feelings 
about Harry himself. 
 
> Magpie:
> The fact remains when it came to connections, it was Ron who made 
a 
> good one in that scene and not Harry. 
> 
> Steph:
> Just because he made a good connection doesn't mean he went 
> *looking* for a connection.  I never got the impression that Ron 
had 
> that motive.  Draco was certainly looking for that, but Ron 
wasn't.  


Magpie:
Actually, the first time Draco meets Harry and chats him up he's not 
necessarily looking for a "good" connection either--he doesn't know 
who Harry is and still tries to talk to him. The second time he's 
come looking for Harry Potter because it would be cool to have him 
as a friend, but then so does Ron arrive saying, "Is it true you're 
Harry Potter?" They're only 11 here and not all that up to 
sophisticated social machinations but they both think it's neat to 
meet Harry Potter in different ways--I would include Ron in that 
too. I don't think Ron's some big social climber or manipulator, but 
I think he wants to meet Harry Potter (his sister's in love with him 
even before meeting him, it seems, but in this case that counts).

Steph:
> Again, I make a distinction between being important and being 
> popular.

Magpie:
We both, it seems, connect being popular with being "cool." I think 
Harry is important (savior of the world), cool (celebrity, savior or 
the world, sports star, hero, notorious dark wizard) and popular 
(generally liked by his schoolmates, never having his own overtures 
for friendship rejected, recognizing those who actually are 
unpopular unlike himself, his friendship sought by others, his 
sexual interest sought by others, including two of the most popular 
and sought-after girls that we know of). Honestly, I think JKR has 
made sure to make Harry basically cool throughout canon--and it's 
not like she doesn't know how to write social outcasts. She does 
them with Neville and Luna and Myrtle and Snape. I think the only 
change in HBP is that Harry's attractiveness has a sexual component 
and that's it. 

-m





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 21:20:14 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:20:14 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj4fro+fpec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4gae+dlqm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179603

Magpie:
<SNIP>
It just seems like you're having to cancel out a whole lot of times
where people are drawn to Harry to make him unpopular. The secret
army that appoints him their leader and leaps to defend him? Just
using him as a Dark Arts teacher. Can't be counted as a social
contact at all. And can't show any sort of popularity even though
many individuals in the group actually do express positive feelings
about Harry himself.
<SNIP>

Alla:

And it just seems that you're having to cancel several times where 
people dislike Harry and even hate him to make him popular 
throughout. In OOP not just many people in school, the whole world 
turns against him. Of course there is the mentioned before times in 
PS, etc. IMO.




> Magpie:
<SNIP>
>Honestly, I think JKR has 
> made sure to make Harry basically cool throughout canon--and it's 
> not like she doesn't know how to write social outcasts. She does 
> them with Neville and Luna and Myrtle and Snape. I think the only 
> change in HBP is that Harry's attractiveness has a sexual component 
> and that's it. 

Alla:

Yes, and to me those times in PS and OOP Harry sounds if not as 
social outcast, then pretty darn close to being one.
JMO,

Alla




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  4 21:43:44 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:43:44 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj4gae+dlqm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4hmg+ta5u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179604

> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> It just seems like you're having to cancel out a whole lot of times
> where people are drawn to Harry to make him unpopular. The secret
> army that appoints him their leader and leaps to defend him? Just
> using him as a Dark Arts teacher. Can't be counted as a social
> contact at all. And can't show any sort of popularity even though
> many individuals in the group actually do express positive feelings
> about Harry himself.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And it just seems that you're having to cancel several times where 
> people dislike Harry and even hate him to make him popular 
> throughout. In OOP not just many people in school, the whole world 
> turns against him. Of course there is the mentioned before times 
in 
> PS, etc. IMO.

Magpie:
No, I completely acknowledged those times. I know there are times 
when everyone is hostile to Harry (though the whole school/whole 
world actually never turns against him). Saying that Harry 
is "unpopular" has certain meanings when you're talking about 
school. Snape, Luna, Neville meanings. Having everyone angry at you 
because they think you did something bad (lied about Voldemort, set 
a monster on everyone, stole the championship) does not make 
you "the unpopular kid" in terms of your usual social standing. (Not 
that Harry lacks for a consistent circle of friends during any of 
those times, btw.) Harry has times where he is, as a_svirn put it so 
well, notorious. Snape is "the unpopular kid." Harry is the socially 
fine kid who is occasionally Wrongly Accused. It's a totally 
different thing to go through.

Even when Harry is having one of his terrible times where everyone's 
angry at him, he's not picked on the way Snape is in his worst 
memory, nor is he picked on or neglected the way Neville sometimes 
is or Luna is. Despite all of Harry's anger at not being believed in 
OotP, the school *doesn't* turn against him at all. His day to day 
experience is pretty much just like always--and a number of kids 
stand with him in his club. The only person with whom he has any 
unpleasantness outside of Slytherins who are consistently unpleasant 
(and quarantined) is with Seamus, and that's an equal fight between 
the two of them. In his dorm Dean, Neville and Ron are all on 
Harry's side, and Seamus isn't even really against him. Harry's 
still got the friends he had before, he's still an accepted member 
of the Quidditch team, he makes more friends with the DA. His 
troubles in OotP come from Umbridge and the idea that people in the 
world don't believe him, not becoming somebody like Luna with no 
friends. (Ironically it's in that book that Harry has two moments of 
discomfort in being faced with the social isolation of people like 
Luna and Neville.) The only time his classmates ever really provoke 
him that I recall is in GoF where they're wearing Support Cedric 
badges and he knows that they resent him for becoming champion. And 
of course even then the whole's thing's made him very popular in 
Gryffindor. 


> > Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> >Honestly, I think JKR has 
> > made sure to make Harry basically cool throughout canon--and 
it's 
> > not like she doesn't know how to write social outcasts. She does 
> > them with Neville and Luna and Myrtle and Snape. I think the 
only 
> > change in HBP is that Harry's attractiveness has a sexual 
component 
> > and that's it. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, and to me those times in PS and OOP Harry sounds if not as 
> social outcast, then pretty darn close to being one.

Magpie:
The whole reason those times stand out for Harry is because they're 
not normal. If he was actually just an unpopular kid his whole 
school experience would just be one grey haze of loneliness, not 
isolated painful memories when he did something bad or was thought 
to do something bad and lots of people got mad at him for it (though 
luckily in every single one of those times he still actually had 
friends standing by him).

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 21:58:52 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:58:52 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj4hmg+ta5u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4iis+paus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179605

Magpie:
<SNIP>
Saying that Harry
is "unpopular" has certain meanings when you're talking about
school. Snape, Luna, Neville meanings. Having everyone angry at you
because they think you did something bad (lied about Voldemort, set
a monster on everyone, stole the championship) does not make
you "the unpopular kid" in terms of your usual social standing.
<SNIP>


Alla:

I think this is the crux of disagreement and I think I already came 
to agree to disagree point. I believe calling the kid unpopular only 
when the kid is **constantly** unpopular is limiting the meaning of 
that world, because I do not buy that only kids who are constantly 
disliked to the extent Snape was and Luna and Neville were (up to 
certain point only though) can be called unpopular.

To me popular means likable, always was always will be. Harry - well 
he is important, sure, who can dispute that, he is liked sometimes by 
his limited circle of friends OR the whole school, but since I see 
him just as violently disliked and hated by the majority of student 
population at least if not the whole school, I can never call him 
popular kid all the time.





> > Alla:
> > 
> > Yes, and to me those times in PS and OOP Harry sounds if not as 
> > social outcast, then pretty darn close to being one.
> 
> Magpie:
> The whole reason those times stand out for Harry is because they're 
> not normal. If he was actually just an unpopular kid his whole 
> school experience would just be one grey haze of loneliness, not 
> isolated painful memories when he did something bad or was thought 
> to do something bad and lots of people got mad at him for it 
(though 
> luckily in every single one of those times he still actually had 
> friends standing by him).

Alla:

So, wait, only if kid disliked all the time, kid is deemed worthy to 
be called unpopular? Is that what you are saying?

My experiences contradict that.

To go back to Potterverse, I would certainly call Harry famous and 
important, but not popular, no. If whole school consistently liked 
him and worshipped him, then absolutely I would call him popular. I 
do not see it in the book.

The very fact that it changes from love to hate so fast to me means 
that he is not popular.

JMO,

Alla 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 22:04:05 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:04:05 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour - Authority
In-Reply-To: <fj2i63+9moi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4isl+cb65@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179606

Mike wrote:
> <snip> But he has to start somewhere. Scrimmy is patronizing Harry,
sure. But thanks to DD, he knows nothing of Harry's impending mission.
Has no idea of how to help Harry much less that Harry is being 
trained for something by DD. Do you know that all Scrimmy wanted 
Harry for was as a mascot? It may be his initial approach, yet given
his lack of information, he has nothing else to offer Harry other 
than access to the Aurors, which he did.
<snip>
> Yes, the Ministry is full of corrupt or inept politicians. OTOH,
Scrimgeour came from the Auror office, isn't it possible that he 
isn't one of the corrupt ones? Yet from Scrimgeour's remark about DD
closing off access to Harry, it doesn't appear he was given a  chance.
He did die rather than reveal Harry's whereabouts, maybe he wasn't all
DD cracked him down to be.

Carol responds:

I'm not sure, but I think we have an example here of the kind of
suspicion and distrust that Voldemort revels in. I agree that
Scrimgeour was a good guy and that DD should have trusted him, but
possibly the fact that Scrimgeour was pursuing sirius Black in OoP,
suspecting Tonks and Shacklebolt of knowing his whereabouts, made DD
leery of trusting him, or maybe he just didn't trust the Ministry in
general. Meanwhile, Scrimgeour seems not to have trusted DD (he wants
to know where DD has been going throughout HBP) and he seems not to
trust Harry, either, simply because he's a young and unqualified
wizard. Harry doesn't trust Scrimgeour because of the Stan Shunpike
arrest, but he keeps holding up his fist, as if he expects Scrimgeour
to read it and understand immediately how the words "I must not tell
lies" got there. Scrimgeour wasn't the Minister for Magic in OoP, and
not even Fudge knows the methods Umbridge uses on uncooperative
students ("What Cornelius knows won't hurt him.") How can Scrimgeour
possibly know that those scars got onto Harry's hand via Umbridge's
blood-letting quill? I think she's still at the Ministry because
neither Scrimgeour nor Fudge knows about the quill or that Umbridge
sent the Dementors after Harry. But does Harry explain that? No. He
just expects Scrimgeour to read his mind. DD, of course, far from
trusting too easily, as Harry thought in HBP, trusts hardly anybody.
And Harry seems to be learning from his mentor to be secretive and
suspicious, not to mention that in every book, he's suppressing
information that he ought to tell someone that he trusts, whether it's
his friends or McGonagall or Lupin or DD. And in this case, it would
help a lot if he'd shared that particular information with a person he
*doesn't* trust. But it's almost like his relationship with Snape all
over again. He learns, too late, that Scrimgeour died withholding
information about him. And (in contrast to Snape), he barely gives him
a passing thought. Imagine what might have happened had Harry in HBP
told Scrimgeour about the cave and the locket Horcrux (not the
Horcruxes in general, only the one) and about Umbridge's crimes. He
could have put two and two together and deduced that the locket
Umbridge was openly wearing was the Slytherin Horcrux and destroyed it
without any harm or danger to HRH. He might even have prevented the
takeover of the Ministry instead of wasting a whole month pondering
the significance of DD's gifts to Harry and his friends. Why didn't
JKR write it that way? Because it would have spoiled the story,
especially the "Doe Patronus" chapter. <snip>

Mike:
> 
> Still, the bigger point is that Scrimgeour wasn't given a chance. I
can understand Harry's reluctance, especially after he learns that 
Umbridge is still there. But why doesn't DD try to enlist more allies
rather than making more enemies?

Carol:
Because Albus learned secrecy at his mother's knee and was betrayed at
an early age by a boy he cared too much about? Because Albus was a
genius who didn't think that anyone's intellect could match his own?
Because he thought that Scrimgeour had succumbed to the lure of power,
which was his own personal temptation? Because the more people you
tell a secret to, the more likely it is that the information will
reach someone that you want to keep the secret from? (I can see, BTW,
why DD would trust Hagrid with his life but not with his secrets. I
can also see why he wouldn't tell Mundungus about the Horcruxes. And
his experience with Peter Pettigrew would teach him that the most
innocuous-seeming person may be a secret enemy.) IMO, it's perfectly
in character for DD not to trust Scrimgeour or anyone at the Ministry
with information that he won't even share with his own Order members.
Personally, I think that the living DD should have told Snape about
the Horcruxes and about the Elder Wand; Portrait!DD should have told
McGonagall about Snape. Harry should have told Scrimgeour about
Umbridge and, based on his reaction, perhaps given him more
information. But Harry could hardly anticipate that the Ministry would
fall from within, in part through Umbridge's collaboration with the
DES (not a canon fact; just my own reading), and he's simply following
his mentor's example. 

It's interesting that one of the lessons Harry partially learns in DH
is to trust others, to let the DA in on *part* of his secret, to
delegate authority ("Kill the snake") instead of trying to do
everything himself. I think we see that Harry is in no danger of
becoming another Dumbledore (secretive and tempted by power) or
another Snape (obsessed by vengeance) though he's in danger of
becoming both at different times in the books. (Giving up the wand
shows that he's resisted the lure of power; the self-sacrifice shows
that he's forsaken revenge in favor of love).

Mike:
<snip>
> Ironically, the one time there is Minisrty presence at Hogwarts, the 
> battle takes place at the Ministry itself. And I found it highly 
> dubious that there were NO Ministry employees to be found anywhere 
> during what must have been a very long battle ranging from the DoM 
> up to the Atrium. Not realistic, imo, and I've said so in the past.
> 
> How about in the graveyard in GoF? Well, if the Ministry could have 
> found LV and neutralized him, there wouldn't have been much of a 
> story, would there? I didn't notice Dumbledore or any Order members 
> in that graveyard either. <snip>

Carol:

Re the absence of Ministry employees in the DoM battle, the one
security guard (Eric Somebody) is absent from his desk. Evidently, he
doesn't work nights or, more likely, the DEs have killed or otherwise
dealt with him or his night-time counterpart. But you'd think they'd
have security guards patroling every floor or some sort of intruder
alarm. Even if you can't Apparate directly into the Ministry and the
fireplaces are connected directly to the homes of top Ministry
employees, it's all too easy to get in using the visitor's entrance.
All Lucius Malfoy has to do is tell the other DEs the "magic"
telephone number, and they can invade on false pretenses any time.

As for the graveyard, I think only the DEs knew how to get there (the
Dark Mark must have some sort of built-in radar to tell them where LV
is). DD wouldn't know and Snape was staying away. (They couldn't
Apparate from the Hogwarts grounds, anyway.) The Ministry may have
detected some Unforgiveable Curses in a Muggle graveyard, but maybe
the spells only show up if there's a Muggle present or magic is
performed in a place where an underage witch or wizard is known to
live. I'm not sure that their sensors automatically pick up
Unforgiveable Curses. If they did, a lot more DEs would be in prison
(and Barty Jr.'s AK of his father would also have been detected).


> Mike:
> Yes, Horcruxes are definitely a seperate issue. How about keeping 
> that one just within the Order? You know, like telling Snape, so 
> when Bella brags "entrusted me with his most precious..." our good 
> friend Severus, might actually suspect what she's talking about, 
> bright boy that he is. What about that most amazing bit of detective
> work it took for Harry to find the diadem? Do you suppose 
> McGonnagall, intelligent as she seems, might have found that one far
> in advance of when Harry actually did? As a_svirn pointed out, 
> imagine the bloodshed saved had the diadem been awaiting Harry upon
> his return to Hogwarts.

Carol:
Agreed about Snape, but I'm not sure that Helena Ravenclaw would have
opened up to McGonagall as she did to Harry. After all, she seems to
have pretended to know nothing about the tiara when others questioned
her, and surely those others included DD and Flitwick. And McGonagall
is not exactly the type to invite confidences, especially the
revelation of past misdeeds or indiscretions.
> 
Mike:
> What about the Dark Marks? Why were they kept from the Ministry? 
> Based on Sirius' comment and Fudge's reaction to Snape, both in GoF,
> I believe the Ministry was unaware. Making everyone produce their 
> left forearm for inspection prior to entry into the Ministry would 
> have been a rather easy to employ safety measure, don't ya think? 
> Would have kept Lucius out, at least. 

Carol:
I agree that Fudge doesn't seem to have known about the Dark Marks
since Snape has to explain their purpose. And it wouldn't be just
Lucius but Rookwood and Macnair who were prevented from entering the
Ministry (both were Ministry employees). Dark Marks would also have
made it easier to determine who was a real DE and who was acting under
the Imperius Curse, both in the first war and the second. Does Stan
Shunpike have a Dark Mark? I doubt it.)

BTW, Eric What's his name does use a secrecy sensor on Harry in OoP
before Harry's trial. Wouldn't it pick up the Dark Mark? And shouldn't
he have a Sneakoscope as well?

Mike:
> 
> And why, for heavens sake, keep the fact that Lord Voldemort is 
> really the half-blood Tom Riddle and that he killed his own father 
> and grandparents framing his uncle for the crimes, a secret? Isn't 
> it possible that a few pure-blood bigots would be turned off by 
> Riddle's half-blood status after all his posturing? <snip>

Carol:
I'm not so sure about the pure-blood bigots being deterred from
joining (though that knowledge might have kept Regulus out). I think
Lucius Malfoy knew it (he was at the graveyard, after all, and he had
charge of a certain diary embossed with the name Tom Marvolo Riddle
and bought at a Muggle shop. He must have thought that either
Voldemort's agenda or his descent from Slytherin (not to mention his
formidable appearance and powers) overrode the small defect of being a
Half-Blood. (Had he been a Muggle-born, of course, it would have been
another matter, but I can't see a Muggle-born with an anti-Muggle
agenda). Bellatrix didn't know, but she wasn't in the graveyard and
she was very much in denial about any flaw in her precious master. She
even overlooked his missing nose.

As for keeping Tom Riddle's crimes a secret, DD didn't. He obtained
those memories from Morphin and Hokey and tried to persuade the
Ministry of their innocence. Unfortunately, both of them died soon
afterwards (unlike Lizzyben, I don't believe that DD's attempts to
obtain the true memories had anything to do with it--after all, it
didn't hurt Slughorn to trick him into giving Harry the correct
memory), and by the time that DD obtained the memory from Hokey,
handsome Tom Riddle had presumably been transformed into the
blurred-featured Voldemort of the DADA interview and had fled the
country to consort with Dark wizards. (Did Grindelwald meet him and
dismiss him as an ignorant interloper, I wonder? He seems to know
quite well who he is and to hold him in contempt for his ignorance
right before LV murders him.)

Carol, who doesn't consider the Dark Mark a tattoo because it doesn't
involve ink (I think it's burned into the skin with the Morsmordre spell)




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Dec  4 22:16:11 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:16:11 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj206k+3j93@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4jjb+te1i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179607


> Betsy Hp:
> So.. what did you figure out?  What's the difference between good and 
> evil as per these books?
> 

Pippin:
I figured out that in practice it's naive to think that there is a simple answer 
to that question, and we may question the wisdom or the motives of any 
character who suggests there is one. But in theory, evil is  doing to our 
fellow beings that which is hateful to us, and good is learning not to do it.

Some learn best from the experiences of others, some learn best by 
making their own mistakes. Both methods are valid, though making one's
own mistakes is undoubtedly more painful. But as Hermione says, how
else will you learn? Therefore if the characters  wish to live in a more 
moral universe, they must tolerate the moral mistakes of  others as 
long as they're not life-threatening.

Does that help?

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 22:25:23 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:25:23 -0000
Subject: post DH musings on PS
In-Reply-To: <fj2j7f+fp50@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4k4j+rkf3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179608

Allie:
> > >
> > > Yes, something like "ways of treating a werewolf bite."  <snip>
> > 
montims:
> > and of course, as we learn in HBP when Bill is attacked, there is
NO remedy for a werewolf bite...  Hmmm...

Allie:
> 
> Maybe ways of treating the person so they don't die...  Or
minimizing  scars like they tried for Bill...

Carol:

Probably, we're just dealing with a JKRian inconsistency (or maybe
just Wolfsbane potion, which is the closest thing to a remedy for
werewolf bites in the books. (And you can use a Homorphus Charm to
identify the werewolf though that's more like a death sentence than a
cure.) I'm surprised that werewolves (and vampires) were mentioned at
all in first year since they're not even covered until third year.
(Side note: Except for Lockhart, Umbridge, and Snape, all of the DADA
teachers seem to have used the same textbook--at least, Harry and his
friends bring the same book that they used in Quirrell's class to
Fake!Moody's class. He, however, tells them to put their books away. I
guess he didn't want no book learnin' to interfere with practical
matters like cursing his own students. So are Dark creatures and Dark
curses covered in the same book?)

Regarding Bill's scars, it's possible that Madam Pomfrey, who is no
expert in the Dark Arts despite her skill in treating broken bones and
elongated teeth. It's surprising that she didn't at least try dittany,
which Snape tells Draco to take to prevent scars from Sectumsempra
(and which progresses to actually healing wounds in DH). I wonder
whether Snape, whose Healing skills relate directly to the Dark Arts,
could have helped her provide the right remedy for Bill's scars. He
might even have had whatever was needed already on hand.
Unfortunately, however, he was unavailable, just as he was unavailable
to help Bill's brother George after he (snape) accidentally blasted
off George's ear. Mrs. Weasley can stop the bleeding, but she and
Lupin think that nothing can heal that Dark curse and give George back
his ear. Harry doesn't think to tell them about Snape's countercurse,
which healed Draco of the damage done by that same Dark curse. Then,
again, Harry probably doesn't want to admit that he cast that curse
(or to say anything good about Snape).

Carol, thinking that our best bet is simply to sigh and say, "Oh,
dear, consistency!" when confronted with such lapses






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 22:34:51 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:34:51 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj47cd+3pqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4kmb+bquu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179609

> Carol:
> 
> As I said before, being famous is not the same as being important. 

a_svirn:
Have you never noticed, though, how often the latter comes with the 
former?

> Carol:
No
> one in Books 1 through 6 (with the exception of Dumbledore) treats
> Harry as someone with the potential to save the WW from Voldemort. 

a_svirn:
Well, up until OotP the issue of saving world from Voldemot had not 
arisen. However, as soon as it did Harry became the most important 
teenager of the WW. 

> Carol:
In
> fact, not until Book 6 does anyone believe besides DD, Snape, the
> Order, the DEs and a few of Harry's friends believe that Voldemort 
is
> back. 

a_svirn:
Which is roughly about a hundred of people of no little importance. 
All of whom find Harry very important person indeed. So important in 
fact, that Lucius Malfoy reminded his son in CoS that  "it is not - 
prudent - to appear less than fond of Harry Potter, not when most of 
our kind regard him as the hero who made the Dark Lord disappear".

> Carol:
(Many of the DA members are more concerned with Umbridge's
> failure to teach them than with Voldemort. Others, primarily 
Zacharias
> Smith, want to know what happened to Cedric.) Neither popularity nor
> importance has anything to do with it.

a_svirn:
OK for popularity. But importance has everything to do with it. 
Zacharias Smith would not have come to the less than respectable 
Hog's Head to listen to Hermione. But he did come to listen to the 
notorious Harry Potter. 

> Carol:
 And they stay on because they
> believe that he knows spells that they don't know (which is more a
> reflection on bad DADA teaching than on Harry as someone with power 
or
> influence, which is what "important" suggests to me. 

a_svirn:
Really? So why didn't they organize an inter-house study group for a 
history of magic? And called it an "army" and elected a leader? 

> Carol:
> Harry has no "social clout" that I can see. It's only when something
> like the Yule Ball or Slughorn's Christmas party is in the offing 
that
> girls clamor to go out with him--so *they* can have a treat and bask
> in the reflected glory of a TWT champion or Quidditch champion. I
> suppose he's a kind of James in these situations, without the
> arrogance. 

a_svirn:
That's because he does not make *use* of it. Which is one his more 
likable qualities. Had he wanted to whip up some following for 
himself, he would have found it an easy task. As it indeed proved in 
OotP. One meeting in a pub et voilas he is a leader of an army. 

> Carol:
And if Hermione offered to teach DADA, it's posssible that
> a few students would at least want to have study sessions with her.

a_svirn:
Highly improbable. Certainly not the students from other houses. 

> Carol:
> The difference is that no one would be curious to hear her story and
> no one has seen her battle a dragon. 

a_svirn:
Indeed. The difference, in short, that disqualifies her from being 
regarded as a leader.  


> Carol responds:
> When and how does Hermione's social standing improve? 

a_svirn:
Well, let's see. From a nerd with no friends at all she became a 
Friend of Harry Potter Himself, and gained an entr?e to the wizarding 
world outside school through the Weasleys. She would never have had 
enough authority to make a successful prefect on her own, even though 
her grades would have entitled her to that position. And of course 
Ron's appointment is nothing if not blatant favoritism ? he would 
have never been made a prefect if he hadn't been Harry's friend. 
How's that for "social clout"? Two key position of power in 
Gryffindor to his two friends? 

> Carol:
> As or Ron "setting out" to befriend the famous Harry Potter, that's
> not at all what happened. Ron slides open the compartment door and
> asks if he can sit down because "everywhere else is full." Then he
> asks if Harry is really Harry Potter because he thinks it might be 
one
> of Fred and George's jokes. 

a_svirn:
"Convenient, eh?" Couldn't find a place in any other compartments, 
but the one the famous Harry Potter occupied. And once settled he 
proceeded to pump Harry for information asking question his mother 
had explicitly forbidden him to ask. (Harry showed more tact with 
Neville, though admittedly he was older at the time.) And three years 
later he repeated the performance though less successfully with Krum:

"Over here! Come and sit over here!"  Ron hissed.  "Over here! 
Hermione, budge up, make a space -" 
"What?" 
"Too late," said Ron bitterly. 
Viktor Krum and his fellow Durmstrang students had settled themselves 
at the Slytherin table.  

> Carol:
Harry is as curious about Ron, a boy who
> grew up in a whole family of wizards, as Ron is about him. 

a_svirn:
That's certainly true. The fact remains, however, that it was Ron who 
made the fist move. 

> Carol:
> Who besides Ron and Hermione would die for Harry without asking a
> single question before OoP? And even then, it's only Ginny, who has
> always had a crush on the Boy Who Lived (I forgot to include her in
> his fanclub earlier), Luna, who is more than a bit eccentric, and
> Neville, whose parents were Crucio'd into insanity by Death Eaters,
> who are willing to face DEs with Harry. 

a_svirn:
We were discussing the series as a whole I believe. And in any case 
you forget Hagrid, the elder Weasleys, Sirius since PoA. Not too bad 
really. Most people have much less friends whose first loyalty is 
always for them. 

> Steph:
> > Ron certainly thought it was cool that Harry was who he was, but
> after that it didn't really seem to matter to Ron that Harry was 
famous.  
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > Didn't matter? When he was obviously consumed with jealousy all 
the
>  time? To the point of succumbing to the Horcrux's influence?
> >
> Carol:
> That was Ron's personal demon, as it's probably the personal demon 
of
> the obscure best friends of many famous people. But, except for a
> brief time in GoF, when he thinks Harry is lying to him and Harry
> omits the important information that "Moody" thinks someone is out 
to
> kill Harry, and the fight in DH, which he immediately regrets, Ron
> does a very good job of suppressing his jealousy or envy of Harry. 

a_svirn:
Certainly. But I don't altogether understand the point you are 
making. I said that far from being of little importance to Ron, 
Harry's fame was a source of constant jealousy and torture for him. 
You are saying now that but for a few lapses he has managed to 
suppress it successfully. Does it prove that Harry's fame mattered 
little for Ron? Hardly. It mattered enough to have become his 
personal demon, as you say. 






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 22:46:53 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:46:53 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj3l8a+8p8g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4lct+jhrv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179610

lizzyben wrote:
> >
> > They both died within weeks after DD visited them, shortly after
DD himself says that he used powerful magic to extract their real
memories (with great difficulty). After damaging their minds & bodies
beyond repair, DD decided that they had served  their purpose, &
disposed of them.
> > 
> > *Adds Morfin & Hokey to the DD death toll.*
> 
> Mus adds:
> 
> On the other hand, we don't know that DD disposed of them directly.
We only know that LV did away with Jorkins, and this sounds like an
immediate death.  In the case of Morfin and Hokey, the deaths occurred
some time after DD broke the Charm.  
> 
> If death results inevitably from the breaking of the Charm, then
LV's offing of Jorkins at least gave her a quick death; DD seems to
have left Hokey and Morfin to die slowly.  <snip>

Carol responds:
You're comparing apples and oranges here. No Memory Charm was placed
on Morfin or Hokey. Tom simply placed his own memory of killing the
Riddles and/or Hepzibah into their heads without destroying or
replacing the true memory. Just as the true memory was still in
Slughorn's mind (and easily accessible by Slughorn himself under the
right conditions), all DD needed to do was access the true memory and
painlessly remove it from Morfin's and Hokey's heads. (Both he and
Snape do the same thing to themselves rather frequently with no ill
effects. There's no Memory Charm to break.

Carol, who thinks that the efforts to absolve Morfin and Hokey should
be chalked up on the list of DD's *good* deeds or at least as acts
with good intentions which unfortunately failed (like Harry's attempt
to save Sirius Black)

There is absolutely no evidence that DD "damaged their minds and
bodies beyond repair." Morfin had been in Azkaban, no health spa, and
Hokey was already ancient. In contrast, LV says stragiht out that he
*murdered* Bertha, and she shows up among the people AK'd with his wand.




From rpertaub at gmail.com  Tue Dec  4 20:12:03 2007
From: rpertaub at gmail.com (radha)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:12:03 -0000
Subject: Just a thought about how Harry would have turned up had he ..
Message-ID: <fj4caj+6scp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179611

befriended Malfoy...I just saw parts of the first movie this past
weekend and one thought struck me...HP had no idea of wizard world and
what's good and bad till he joined Hogwarts. What if he had met Malfoy
first and Malfoy was his friend and told him his good people were
persecuted since his hero was driven away 11 years ago..?
Just a thought...

~radha



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Dec  4 23:11:31 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:11:31 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj2hmb+m1sp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4mr3+s8jm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179612

 
> Alla:
> 
> NO, it is more than tactical disagreement, I am afraid.
> 
> I suggest the **trust** the people mode as default one. NOT the 
> limited people from the Order. OMG, who besides Mundungus is not 
> deserving of Dumbledore's trust in your opinion?

Pippin:
Er, haven't you often defended Hermione's jinx by saying  you 
wished Dumbledore had used something like it  to 
catch Pettigrew? That doesn't sound like trust to me. 

On the whole, I like Dumbledore's method better -- release 
information on a 'need to know' basis and you won't have to set 
traps for your own side (it wasn't *his* idea to make Pettigrew
the secret keeper.)  I wouldn't trust anyone not to betray 
the Order under any circumstances. Everyone has a breaking point 
and Voldemort is very good at figuring out what they are. 

It is dangerous to know Voldemort's secrets. He would have killed
anyone he suspected of knowing about the horcruxes, and short
of blanketing the wizarding world with the information there would
have been no way to stop him from trying to do so. 


Pippin




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Dec  4 23:12:30 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:12:30 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj4iis+paus@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4msu+e9fi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179613

> > Magpie:
> > The whole reason those times stand out for Harry is because 
they're 
> > not normal. If he was actually just an unpopular kid his whole 
> > school experience would just be one grey haze of loneliness, not 
> > isolated painful memories when he did something bad or was 
thought 
> > to do something bad and lots of people got mad at him for it 
> (though 
> > luckily in every single one of those times he still actually had 
> > friends standing by him).
> 
> Alla:
> 
> So, wait, only if kid disliked all the time, kid is deemed worthy 
to 
> be called unpopular? Is that what you are saying?

Magpie:
Not disliked all the time by everyone, but he his regular social 
standing has to at least warrant being called unpopular. It's a 
recognizable stereotype--Neville, Luna and Snape all pretty much 
glow with it when they're young. If you say "Harry was unpopular 
with the Hufflepuffs when his name came out of the Goblet" then 
yeah, I'll agree with the use of the word. But to say Harry is 
unpopular as a general description of his social position at school? 
No. He never is. Except at the Dursleys where JKR is sure to tell us 
that his unpopularity is artificial and not due to his own social 
skills at all.

At Hogwarts, Harry achieves the social standing a kid like him 
would. He's likable, socially adept, athletic, attractive. He also 
has this bizarre celebrity thing going that causes worship and 
resentment in people who don't know him. That's the fame part. 

When I say Harry isn't unpopular I'm talking about his general 
social level, not claiming he's worshipped and loved by everyone all 
the time--nobody's ever had that. That's impossible. There are 
specific contexts I could use the word in Harry's case: "Harry was 
very unpopular with the Hufflepuffs when his name came out of the 
Goblet" for instance. But if somebody told me Harry was an unpopular 
boy and then I read this series I'd ask why they gave me a false 
impression of who Harry was. If he's supposed to be an unpopular kid 
give me a kid who's actually unpopular like Luna, Snape and Neville 
(none of whom are disliked all the time by everyone, but are 
obviously unpopular). Not perfectly likable sports hero kid and his 
plucky friends.

-m (who wouldn't consider herself unpopular in high school, and yet 
still never reached Harry's heights)






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec  4 23:43:49 2007
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:43:49 -0000
Subject: Just a thought about how Harry would have turned up had he ..
In-Reply-To: <fj4caj+6scp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4onl+dkc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179614

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "radha" <rpertaub at ...> wrote:

> What if he had met Malfoy first and Malfoy was his friend 
> and told him his good people were persecuted since his hero 
> was driven away 11 years ago..?

But Harry *did* meet Draco first :-)! Harry met him before he met Ron, 
at Madam Malkin's, and he didn't like Draco, didn't like him at all! 
First, Draco reminded Harry of Dudley - not a very good 
recommendation :-). Second, he made fun of Hagrid, whom Harry already 
loved. Third, he said that kids from muggle families (who didn't even 
know about Hogwarts until they got their letters) shouldn't be allowed 
at school - not knowing that Harry identified with those kids, because 
he didn't know about Hogwarts himself. Poor Draco didn't stand a 
chance :-).

zanooda




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 00:04:08 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:04:08 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj45q6+5ctb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4pto+ik6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179615

> > a_svirn:
> > Why on earth should *Dumbledore* be traumatised by Pettigrew's 
> > betrayal? It's not like Pettigrew was his friend. I think he had 
been 
> > traumatised by Grindenwald's betrayal, yes, but if what happened 
to 
> > him when he was eighteen made him incapable to trust people at 
all 
> > even a century later, it's just too bad, isn't it? The order of 
the 
> > Phoenix would have done better with less traumatised leader. Then 
> > again, it probably wouldn't have been an "order" at all, but a 
well-
> > organised Resistance.
> >
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Whether he should be or not, of course depends on how much decency 
you 
> think Dumbledore has in himself. 

a_svirn:
Actually, my point was that Pettigrew did not betray *Dumbledore*. He 
betrayed James and Lilly. And since Dumbledore wasn't betrayed there 
is no reason for him to be traumatised. This time. 

> Alla:
> Now, maybe whole trauma was that Pettigrew outsmarted him and not 
> because he felt the slightest bit of sorry for Sirius' sufferings, 
I do 
> not know that, but yes, I believe it is possible he was traumatised.

a_svirn:
But it wasn't *him* whom Pettigrew outsmarted. It was Sirius. Who 
sure was traumatised by the whole thing. 

> Alla:
> And hmmm, I would certainly agree with you that Order would have 
done 
> better with another leader, but when I sat down and thought, the 
> question is who would that be?

a_svirn:
I think that the WW would have done better without the Order 
altogether. I don't like this organisation. As I said upthread (or 
perhaps it was another thread), it looks more like a religious sect, 
than a resistance group. I suppose that for a position of the Prophet 
of the Chosen One Dumbledore was indeed the only candidate. Not 
surprisingly since he was the one to have created both of these 
posts. 




From cottell at dublin.ie  Wed Dec  5 00:14:48 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:14:48 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj4jjb+te1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4qho+ei8d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179616

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> Pippin:
> I figured out that in practice it's naive to think that there is a 
> simple answer to that question, and we may question the wisdom or 
> the motives of any character who suggests there is one. But in 
> theory, evil is  doing to our fellow beings that which is hateful to 
> us, and good is learning not to do it.
> 
> Some learn best from the experiences of others, some learn best by 
> making their own mistakes. Both methods are valid, though making 
> one's own mistakes is undoubtedly more painful. But as Hermione 
> says, how else will you learn? Therefore if the characters  wish to 
> live in a more moral universe, they must tolerate the moral mistakes 
> of others as long as they're not life-threatening.
> 
> Does that help?

It helps (for me, at any rate) because it is manifest good sense, and
it's true in our world.

But for me, it's simply not true of the Potterverse.  One of the first
things we learn (and are meant, I think, to admire) about DD is that
he has powers he's too noble to use (though by the end I was kinda
wondering what they might be), and this contrasts him with Evil LV.  
 In other words, we're set up initially to expect that there are
objectively admirable properties in this world, but the rest of the
series makes it clear that "admirable" can be summed up in one word:
Gryffindor.  By the end, all that has changed is that LV is gone. 
Children are still categorised at 11 as good or bad, everyone is now a
Weasley, and Ron's still getting one over on the Muggles in true
wizardly fashion.  Along the way, we got Fred and George
muggle-baiting, four-on-one bullying, UCs being used with relish,
"sometimes we sort too soon", the collapse of the anti-slavery thread
and all the rest.  The next Dark Lord will be along in just a while,
because nothing else has changed much.  Our heroes never reflect on
what they do, and the only change I can detect is that they've got
bigger and learnt more magic.

I certainly agree that a very interesting story could have been told
where the Trio (at least) reflected on their moral choices and tried
to learn from them.  But that's not the series we were given.  Harry
has a "saving people thing" not, as Hermione suggests, as a character
flaw, but because he *is* a saving-people thing.  He's a device, and a
largely unknowing one, for ridding the world of LV.  But the
extraordinary thing is that JKR drew for us a world which is rotten to
the core, and by the end has shown us no change in it, and little
desire for change.  Harry, at the last, is shown taking his allotted
place as a slave-owner.  

Someone on another board has suggested that a problem with the books
is that whereas fantasy literature uses the fantasy world to tell us
things about our own world, JKR uses our world to tell us things about
the WW.  By doing so, she imports much more than she intends to, I
think.  For example, when she tells us that goblins have different
ideas about ownership than wizards do, she evokes the notion of many
native peoples' different ideas of ownership in our world, and once
she has done so, the reader (or this one at least) thinks "Hang on -
the goblins have a *point*".  Having raised the idea, though, she just
blows through it as if there weren't a moral issue there at all, but
there is, because she evoked it.  Nothing, I think, would have changed
materially if the goblins had just been (understandably) distrustful
of wizards and so wanted to keep as many objects as possible, but she
went to the trouble of showing us a coherent goblin view of ownership
only to treat it with contempt.  If house-elves had been more like
their antecedents in folklore, the slavery problem wouldn't have
arisen.  But she gave us the house-elves she chose to, drew the
slavery analogy, and then turned round and presented it as the natural
order.  

The extraordinary thing, for me, is not that the WW contains so much
injustice, but that the author took such trouble to point that
injustice out to us, and then did either did nothing about it or
applauded it.

So yes, Pippin, I agree entirely that moral choices are important, and
living with the morality of others is difficult, but I honestly can't
see that that's in the books.  And I'm truly sorry about that.

Mus, who is posting in between making bread, and whose home smells
wonderful in consequence.




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 01:31:25 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:31:25 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj3t9e+jfih@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj4v1d+5l89@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179617

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04@> 
wrote:
> > 
> > Oh, yeah, DD is chilling. I love how he says that by the time he 
> > managed to extract her memory, Hokey's life was almost over. 
LOL, 
> > yeah, and by the time Voldemort managed to extract Bertha 
Jorkins' 
> > memory, her life was almost over too. DD's actually technically 
> > telling the truth, but in such a misleading way that it becomes 
a 
> > lie. 
> 
> Mus:
> It's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, isn't it? 

lizzyben:

It totally is. No one ever suspects the narrator! The truth was 
there all along, hidden in plain sight. It's so... insidious, isn't 
it? JKR scares me a little.

Carol:

As for keeping Tom Riddle's crimes a secret, DD didn't. He obtained
those memories from Morphin and Hokey and tried to persuade the
Ministry of their innocence. Unfortunately, both of them died soon
afterwards (unlike Lizzyben, I don't believe that DD's attempts to
obtain the true memories had anything to do with it--after all, it
didn't hurt Slughorn to trick him into giving Harry the correct
memory)

lizzyben:

But you must see that the situations are totally different? 
Slughorn's memories aren't hidden, & no one has modified his memory. 
Slughorn knows perfectly well what happened & can therefore 
be "tricked" or persuaded into giving Harry that memory. It's 
totally different w/Bertha Jorkins, Morfin & Hokey. All of them had 
their real memories wiped clean - they have no idea what really 
happened, & have no conscious memory of certain events. Therefore, 
they can't be "tricked" or persuaded into handing over those 
memories - they simply don't remember these events anymore. In order 
to get these memories, a wizard would have to use magic to break the 
memory charm that had been placed on them & access the real 
memories. As Voldemort did to extract Jorkins' real memories, & DD 
did to extract Hokey & Morfin's real memories. They even used the 
same phrase to describe the process - *extraction* of memories (not 
persuasion, sharing, or anything voluntary).

Also, in passing, DD never mentions trying to absolve Hokey.

Carol responds:

You're comparing apples and oranges here. No Memory Charm was placed
on Morfin or Hokey. Tom simply placed his own memory of killing the
Riddles and/or Hepzibah into their heads without destroying or
replacing the true memory. Just as the true memory was still in
Slughorn's mind (and easily accessible by Slughorn himself under the
right conditions), all DD needed to do was access the true memory and
painlessly remove it from Morfin's and Hokey's heads. (Both he and
Snape do the same thing to themselves rather frequently with no ill
effects. There's no Memory Charm to break.

lizzyben:

No, they are the same thing. In HBP, as they discuss Hokey, Harry 
says, "Voldemort modified her memory, just like he did with 
Morfin!"  "Yes, that is my conclusion too," said Dumbledore. (439) 
So DD says that LV *modified her memory*. DD agrees that LV modified 
the memories of both Hokey & Morfin.

Going back to LV's statement about Jorkins - "We could have modified 
her memory? But Memory Charms can be broken by a powerful wizard, as 
I proved when I questioned her. It would be an insult to her memory 
not to use the information I extracted from her, Wormtail." (GOF 10)

So "Memory Charms" = memory modification - the two terms are 
synonymous. That's what was done to Bertha Jorkins, Hokey & Morfin. 
DD & LV say that all these individuals had their memories modified, 
& LV says that this modification is done through a memory charm. 
This charm/modification can be broken by a powerful wizard (with 
some regrettable side effects), and the real memory can then be 
extracted.

I don't understand how you're saying that LV didn't destroy or 
replace Morfin's real memories? DD says that Morfin never realized 
that he wasn't the one who had murdered the Riddles, meaning that 
Morfin didn't remember being stunned instead by Voldemort. Also, DD 
doesn't say that the real memory was "easily, painlessly 
accessible," as you've stated - in contrast, he says that it took "a 
great deal of skilled Legimency to coax it out of him", & he says 
(twice!) that the memory was obtained with "enormous difficulty." He 
says that Morfin himself never knew the truth, and that his *real* 
memory could only be reached by "skilled Legimency". IOW, Morfin, 
like Bertha Jorkins, had no concious memory of the real event that 
he had witnessed, because that memory had been erased & replaced 
through memory modification.

Quoting canon now:

Harry - "And Mofin never realized he hadn't done it?"
"Never" said Dumbledore. ...
"But he had this real memory in him all the time!"
"Yes, but it took a great deal of skilled Legimency to coax it out 
of him. ... I was able to secure a visit to Morfin in the last weeks 
of his life, by which time I was attempting to discover as much as I 
could about Voldemort's past. I extracted this memory with 
difficulty." (HBP 367)

Note the direct relationship in DD's statement between his visit, 
the memory extraction, & Morfin's death. That same relationship is 
repeated in his statement about Hokey - "by the time I traced her & 
mamged to extract this memory, her life was almost over." So - DD 
visit, memory extraction, death. He's practically confessing here!

Carol:
Carol, who thinks that the efforts to absolve Morfin and Hokey should
be chalked up on the list of DD's *good* deeds or at least as acts
with good intentions which unfortunately failed (like Harry's attempt
to save Sirius Black)

There is absolutely no evidence that DD "damaged their minds and
bodies beyond repair." Morfin had been in Azkaban, no health spa, and
Hokey was already ancient. In contrast, LV says stragiht out that he
*murdered* Bertha, and she shows up among the people AK'd with his 
wand.

lizzyben:

Oh, I don't know, they both seemed to last pretty long in Azkaban, 
didn't they? An old elf & a mad man survived for many years in 
Azkaban, only to die right after Dumbledore's little inquisition. 
Why did the text tell us, twice, that they both died shortly after 
DD's questioning? I don't believe in coincidences & I think that 
this information is included for a reason. JKR is clearly laying out 
the clues & parallels for readers to follow - memory modification, 
difficult memory extraction, death. That is what happened to Bertha 
Jorkins, Hokey and Morfin Gaunt.

One last piece of evidence: In HBP, Harry watches many other 
memories in the Pensieve, from Dumbledore, MOM official Bob Ogden, 
Burke, etc. But these people didn't die right after DD collected the 
memories. What's the difference?  Ogden & Burkes' memories weren't 
modifed by Voldemort - they had memories of Merope, & LV hadn't 
ever erased or replaced those memories. Thus, these memories could 
be easily accessed w/o ill effect. In contrast, Voldemort *did* use 
powerful charms to modify & replace Hokey & Morfin's memories. So 
accessing their real memories took great difficulty & skill on DD's 
part - and both died shortly after DD's questioning. Just as 
Voldemort needed powerful magic to get past Bertha Jorkin's memory 
modification & access her real memories - and she was damaged beyond 
repair in the process. This isn't me making up some loony theory 
here. IMO the clues & parallels are clearly and intentionally laid 
out in HBP - I just can't believe I didn't see it sooner. 



lizzyben








From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 02:31:08 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:31:08 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj4fro+fpec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj52hc+qlta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179618

Magpie:
We both, it seems, connect being popular with being "cool." I think 
Harry is important (savior of the world), cool (celebrity, savior or 
the world, sports star, hero, notorious dark wizard) and popular 
(generally liked by his schoolmates, never having his own overtures 
for friendship rejected, recognizing those who actually are 
unpopular unlike himself, his friendship sought by others, his 
sexual interest sought by others, including two of the most popular 
and sought-after girls that we know of). Honestly, I think JKR has 
made sure to make Harry basically cool throughout canon--and it's 
not like she doesn't know how to write social outcasts. She does 
them with Neville and Luna and Myrtle and Snape. I think the only 
change in HBP is that Harry's attractiveness has a sexual component 
and that's it. 

Steph:
We're not that far off, I just don't think that Harry became cool
until he was proven right about Voldie at the end of OotP.  Then he
did become cool.

My perceptions of this whole thing are colored by the fact that I'm a
high school teacher and see every day the gradations of students, from
the social outcasts to the kids at the top of the social heap (call
them cool or popular, to me it's the same thing).  There are kids who
are important and popular, such as the sports kids, drama kids,
student council, etc., the kids who are important but not popular
(sometimes the same group, but there's something about them which
makes them not cool - maybe they're nerdy), the kids who are just cool
(hence popular) even though they're not involved in any particular
activity, the kids who are just the 'normal' ones - not popular or but
not particularly unpopular, some of whom are important, some not -
this is the group I'd put Harry in, by the way), the kids who are the
nerdy, kind of unpopular kids, the stoners, the demotes, and the total
social outcasts.  Then there are the gangbangers, which can fit into
any of the above categories.  By the way, I'd put Neville in the
nerdy, unpopular group rather than the total social outcast group,
whereas Luna definitely fits in the social outcast group. If I had to
characterize the others aside from Harry, here's where I'd put them:
Ron: normal, but not important
Hermione: uncool but borderline important because of her academics
Fred and George: important and cool 
Ginny: cool, then important when she gets on the Quidditch team
Dean and Seamus: normal, like Ron; Dean is probably a bit cooler than
Seamus

Again, I'd put Harry into the normal group because, at least until
HBP, no one is really clamoring to hang out with him, aside from
mostly just Ron and Hermione. I got the feeling that Harry didn't
think he was cool enough for Cho as she was dating the actually cool
Cedric in GoF. Even during the DA lessons, he's still just really
hanging out after hours with the usual suspects.  Maybe others didn't
think it was worth it to get close to someone who'd been personally
targeted by Voldie.  I also think that Harry didn't really want or
need a lot of friends, either, he's got Ron and Hermione, and a few
others, and that's good enough for him.  

Interesting discussion, eh?




From cottell at dublin.ie  Wed Dec  5 02:32:27 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:32:27 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour & Offense against DD
In-Reply-To: <fj4v1d+5l89@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj52jr+c0kd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179619

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> wrote:

> In contrast, Voldemort *did* use 
> powerful charms to modify & replace Hokey & Morfin's memories. So 
> accessing their real memories took great difficulty & skill on DD's 
> part - and both died shortly after DD's questioning. Just as 
> Voldemort needed powerful magic to get past Bertha Jorkin's memory 
> modification & access her real memories - and she was damaged beyond 
> repair in the process. This isn't me making up some loony theory 
> here. IMO the clues & parallels are clearly and intentionally laid 
> out in HBP - I just can't believe I didn't see it sooner. 

Mus:
And it gets worse.  There are other characters in the series who have
had their memories modified.  It's pretty certain that those memories
will not need to retrieved as evidence, but it really seems canon that
the only cases we have in canon of memory modification and subsequent
retrieval result in the fairly rapid death of the subject.  

Hermione's parents are trapped childless in Australia as Wendell and
Monica Wilkins, or they die when she restores their identities.  Does
Hermione have any idea what she has done?

Does her creator?

Mus, who's so shocked she can hardly type.




From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 03:33:45 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:33:45 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj212c+l1gu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj566p+bf9p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179620

Steph:
I agree with Alla here.  Just because Harry is famous doesn't mean 
he's popular.  In fact, he spends much of the time in both GOF and 
OotP being distinctly unpopular. 
> 
a_svirn:
I think you sort of confuse being unpopular with being notorious. 

Steph:
I make a distinction between people like Fred and George, who are the
really cool, popular kids, with Harry, who, while being important and
appreciated at times for his Quidditch skills and ability to fight off
Voldemort, doesn't have people knocking down his door to be friends
with him, at least not until HBP.

a_svirn
Harry's fame and importance is a fact of canon, but it is a mixed 
blessing. In GoF and OotP it turns temporary against him. Just as 
Dumbledore's fame turns to notoriety in OotP. But Harry's still 
widely known, granted, unfavourably known for some time, but still 
conspicuous and still important. In GoF he's a school champion, and 
as such has more social clout than any fourth-year could dream of. 

Steph:
Indeed.  I'm not disputing at all that he's important.  I just
disagree that people want to be buddy-buddy with him, except for the
usual suspects.

a_svirn:
In OotP for all his alleged unpopularity a few dozens of people turn
up in a seedy pub to listen what he has to say. And they recognize him
a leader from the get-go. Just imagine how many people would turn up
if Hermione invited them to listen to *her* rather than to Harry. This 
is not what being unpopular means.

Steph:
This is not popularity.  This is a group of smart kids who know that
there's a huge threat out there and that Harry is the guy who's got
the experience to get rid of that threat.  No one would go for
Hermione, because, even though she's book smart, she hasn't fought
Voldie like Harry did.  If you want to learn how to do something you
seek out the person who can teach you, whether you like them or not. 
Harry's that guy.

a_svirn:
It was Hermione who was unpopular for the part of PS. And it was 
because her friendship with famous and popular Harry her standing in 
Gryffindor improved. 

Steph:
It did, but not that much.  Hermione really doesn't have any friends
aside from Harry, Ron, and Neville.  She isn't really all that
friendly with Ginny until OotP, and even we don't ever hear about her
hanging out independently with Ginny.  She's only kind of friends with
Luna.  I'd still call her rather uncool.

a_svirn:
(Though unlike Ron she did not set out to befriend the famous Harry
Potter.) - snip, snip, snip - If I want to rub shoulders with famous
and celebrated it has nothing whatsoever with my desire to get
important connections? Really? Why would I want to do so, then? 

Steph:
Wow, you really dislike Ron, don't you?  You obviously think he's a
social climber who only wanted to be friends with Harry because of who
he is.  I'm probably wasting my time here, but I still don't think
that Ron was the social climber some people make him out to be. You
are taking a chance meeting on the Hogwarts Express platform as a
deliberate move on Ron's part to "rub shoulders with the famous and
celebrated." I've just pulled out my SS.  The twins were the first
ones to realize who Harry was, not Ron, who actually didn't know until
the twins pointed it out to him AFTER Ron was already sitting in the
carriage with Harry.  Ron actually thinks at first that Fred and
George were teasing him until Harry confirms who he is and shows Ron
the scar.  Reading through the chapter, Ron's reaction seems to be
that it's cool that the story is true.  Harry, for his part, is
thrilled to have met someone who is from a full wizarding family, and
assumes out loud that Ron knows a lot of magic already. He's just as
interested in Ron as Ron is in him.   

a_svirn:
Huh. That's what, about a dozen people who would die for you without 
even asking a single question? Poor Harry, that must be tough being 
so unpopular. 
 
Steph:
That wasn't until the end of HBP and DH.  For most of the series,
Harry was not one of the popular kids.  Fred and George, yes; Cedric
Diggory (before his untimely death), yes.  Even Ginny was cool.  In
any case, I wouldn't say that all those people were willing to die
*for Harry*, at least not directly.  Die to get rid of Voldie, yes. 
They were fighting to keep the DEs distracted so Harry could kill
Voldie.  If that meant they would die, they were willing to do that if
that's what it took to take down Voldie.  The DA were all upset
because Harry didn't want them to help him.  They basically said, then
what did they learn all that stuff for, if not to fight to get rid of
Voldie?

Steph:
Ron certainly thought it was cool that Harry was who he 
was, but after that it didn't really seem to matter to Ron that 
Harry was famous.  
> 
a_svirn:
Didn't matter? When he was obviously consumed with jealousy all the 
time? To the point of succumbing to the Horcrux's influence?

Steph:
Ron's jealousy toward Harry was specifically about Hermione - look at
 his reactions regarding Krum.  It was more about Ron being insecure,
feeling that he wasn't good enough for Hermione, rather than about
Harry or Krum.  He even was jealous of McLaggen, which was ridiculous.
 He didn't know why she would want him when there were all these other
obviously more worthy guys around.  He never showed any jealousy of
Harry's fame except for the brief moment in time during GoF, and that
was more because he thought Harry lied to him about putting his name
in the cup, and was tired about being shunted to the side. It always
happened at home, and now he was getting it from his best friend.  He
got over it three chapters later, and apologized to Harry, or was
about to: "Harry knew Ron was about to apologize and suddenly he found
he didn't need to hear it (p.358 USHC)." Ron would have been that way
even if Harry never existed. 




From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 03:41:56 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 03:41:56 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj47cd+3pqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj56m4+4e4d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179621

Carol:
Unless some particular event or Prophet article calls attention to
Harry, most of the students are so used to him that he's just another
student or, at most, an excellent Quidditch player whose popularity or
unpopularity depends on whether the other student is a Gryffindor or a
member of a rival House.
 
Carol, noting that surviving an AK when you're a baby makes you a
phenomenon but it doesn't necessarily equate to being the future
savior of the WW, which, for the first five books at least, doesn't
even know that it's in jeopardy
>
Steph:
Carol, I didn't read your response to a_svirn until I wrote mine, but
you and I practically said exactly the same things to all those
points.  I think this happened in the DH Ch. 8 discussion as well!




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 04:08:03 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:08:03 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj4mr3+s8jm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj5873+i16l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179622


> > Alla:
> > 
> > NO, it is more than tactical disagreement, I am afraid.
> > 
> > I suggest the **trust** the people mode as default one. NOT the 
> > limited people from the Order. OMG, who besides Mundungus is not 
> > deserving of Dumbledore's trust in your opinion?
> 
> Pippin:
> Er, haven't you often defended Hermione's jinx by saying  you 
> wished Dumbledore had used something like it  to 
> catch Pettigrew? That doesn't sound like trust to me. 

Alla:

Scratching her head. Would be nice if you quoted the exact sentence.
I seem to vaguely remember saying that Hermione's ginx may have 
saved the younger generation from the new Pettigrew in the mix.

And please, I indeed just vaguely remember that, so I may be wrong.

But if that is indeed what I was saying, I do not think this has 
anything to do with "trust people" as default mode. I certainly 
would not mind if Dumbledore decides to do something similar as 
extra insurance in case traitor shows up and that would indeed for 
me be perfect. He would show : a. that he trusts people BUT b. that 
he also takes extra precautions in case there is a traitor in the mi

Dumbledore supposed to be super intelligent and good judge of 
character, so I would leave it up to him to figure out exactly who 
the traitor is, not distrust everybody

Pippin:
> On the whole, I like Dumbledore's method better -- release 
> information on a 'need to know' basis and you won't have to set 
> traps for your own side (it wasn't *his* idea to make Pettigrew
> the secret keeper.)

Alla:

Except it seems that he did not release information to some people 
who indeed **needed** to know it in a sense that they could have 
helped Harry in the hunt. And as I said, I have no problems with DD 
setting spell as precaution, while warning people in advance.

Here you go guys, I am about to share something super secret with 
you, something that needed to be guarded beyond belief ( info about 
Horcruxes), and then to make it without Hermione's mistakes - 
anybody who feels that he is not strong enough to keep this a 
secret, please leave now. I also have to warn you that if you betray 
us, I don't know something happens to let everybody know - your lips 
will be sealed forever or something.

Personally I love it. Harry gets help and if somebody tries to 
betray, they are done deal.

Again, this is my hypothetical, and again what Dumbledore did as 
leader works perfectly for me - in a sense that he was deeply 
secretive and manipulative and very problematic leader, while maybe 
wishing well.

Pippin:
  I wouldn't trust anyone not to betray 
> the Order under any circumstances. Everyone has a breaking point 
> and Voldemort is very good at figuring out what they are. 
> 
> It is dangerous to know Voldemort's secrets. He would have killed
> anyone he suspected of knowing about the horcruxes, and short
> of blanketing the wizarding world with the information there would
> have been no way to stop him from trying to do so. 

Alla:

It is dangerous to fight the war. I think Order members signed up 
for it - including sharing information from their leader, even if 
this is dangerous, IMO.

 
> Alla:
<SNIP>
> Now, maybe whole trauma was that Pettigrew outsmarted him and not
> because he felt the slightest bit of sorry for Sirius' sufferings,
I do
> not know that, but yes, I believe it is possible he was 
traumatised.

a_svirn:
<SNIPPPPPPP>
But it wasn't *him* whom Pettigrew outsmarted. It was Sirius. Who
sure was traumatised by the whole thing. <SNIP>


Alla:

Well, yeah, but my point is that it IS sort of outsmarting 
Dumbledore too IMO - that he was made to believe that Sirius is 
guilty. I speculate, only speculate that it was possible to cause 
trauma.



I mean look I would have been traumatised if I knew that some 
**sshole made me think that innocent man is guilty and that I caused 
that man so much grief and pain.

So, when I am feeling charitable to DD I think that maybe he was 
too :)

JMO,

Alla





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Dec  5 06:14:52 2007
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 22:14:52 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's good about the good guys?
In-Reply-To: <19780501.1496801196777122924.JavaMail.root@vms064.mailsrvcs.net>
References: <19780501.1496801196777122924.JavaMail.root@vms064.mailsrvcs.net>
Message-ID: <2795713f0712042214pde4ad99oc82c4c4b38d081bc@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179623

Lynda:
Hmm. Well, the good guys did what needed to be done to win the war. It has
always been my conviction that what makes a spell evil is the intent of the
one casting it. If someone is trying to kill me or a friend and I have the
ability to deflect it, using that ability does not make me evil. So, I don't
have a problem with Mcgonagall or Molly or any of the others fighting Lord
Thingy and the DE's for using the unforgivables on that count. And they
stuck to their purpose and convictions. Bill and Fleur took Harry and
company in when they were in trouble. The trio stuck together and after Ron
left and came back, welcomed him back to the fold. Harry ends up, at the
end, saving Draco Malfoy, who had killed the headmaster of the school not a
year before and whom Harry had thought to never lend a helping hand to. Over
all, its that they consistently offer help to others, even though they also
believe in looking out for their own and themselves.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 07:34:31 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:34:31 -0000
Subject: Just a thought about how Harry would have turned up had he ..
In-Reply-To: <fj4onl+dkc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj5ka7+mi72@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179624

---  "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "radha" <rpertaub@> wrote:
> 
> > What if he had met Malfoy first and Malfoy was his friend 
> > and told him his good people were persecuted since his hero 
> > was driven away 11 years ago..?

> zanooda:
> 
> But Harry *did* meet Draco first :-)! Harry met him before 
> he met Ron, at Madam Malkin's, and he didn't like Draco, 
> didn't like him at all! First, Draco reminded Harry of 
> Dudley ... :-). Second, he made fun of Hagrid, whom Harry 
> already loved. Third, he said that kids from muggle families
> ... shouldn't be allowed at school - not knowing that Harry
> identified with those kids, ...Poor Draco didn't stand a 
> chance :-).
> 
> zanooda
>

bboyminn:

I've said this before, but it bares saying again. Harry, I
suspect, is a fairly polite boy especially around people
he doesn't know. I further suspect that Harry, just out of
politeness, would have shaken Draco's hand on the train IF
Draco hadn't phrased his offer of friendship in such a 
negative way.

Draco, unknowingly and likely uncaringly, phased his offer
of friendship in a way that would have forced Harry to 
allow an insult to Ron. Ron who was Harry's first friend
ever. Ron who was just a curious kid with no ulterior 
motives. Ron who was impressed by 'Harry Potter - The Boy
Who Lived', but quickly got over it, and as far as he was
concerned was just making friends with a regular guy.

Draco stated his offer is a way that was selfish, 'chose
me and reject all others'. Harry simply couldn't abide that.
He couldn't even out of politeness allow Draco to insult Ron.
If Harry didn't accept Draco, well I don't call it friendship,
it was more like a strategic alliance, it was Draco's own
fault for being so arrogant and insensitive. 

If Harry hadn't met Ron right away, I suspect they still would
have been friends because they did share a room for 7 years.
Further, I don't think it would have taken Harry very long to
understand Draco, what with Draco's harassment of Neville, 
general arrogance, and sense of entitlement. All that was
quickly evident in their first meeting. 

So, I don't see the story as changing that much if the 
circumstances had been slightly different.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 07:52:08 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:52:08 -0000
Subject: In Defense of Scrimgeour - Authority
In-Reply-To: <fj4isl+cb65@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj5lb8+e08d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179625

> Carol responds:
> 
> I'm not sure, but I think we have an example here of the kind of
> suspicion and distrust that Voldemort revels in. I agree that
> Scrimgeour was a good guy and that DD should have trusted him,

Mike:
I think this one is more on Dumbledore's shoulders than blaming 
Voldemort's "gift for spreading discord and enmity". I am not even 
asking for Dumbledore to have trusted Scrimgeour nor the Ministry
in general. But he could have at least tried a little harder to 
foster a spirit of goodwill with Scrimmy. 


> Carol:
> Meanwhile, Scrimgeour seems not to have trusted ... Harry, 
> either, simply because he's a young and unqualified wizard.

Mike:
Right. Scrimgeour only knows that Harry lead a group of students 
into the DoM and a sticky spot the year before. He may or may not
buy in to the "chosen one" hoopla, but he does seem to be genuinely 
trying his best in a difficult situation.


> Carol:
> Harry doesn't trust Scrimgeour because of the Stan Shunpike
> arrest, but he keeps holding up his fist, as if he expects 
> Scrimgeour to read it and understand immediately how the words
> "I must not tell lies" got there. -<big snip>-

Mike:
Yes, excellent point. It does seem obvious that Umbridge has 
effectively covered her tracks and that Scrimgeour is oblivious
to her crimes. 




> > Mike:
> > 
> > But why doesn't DD try to enlist more allies
> > rather than making more enemies?
> 
> Carol:
> Because Albus learned secrecy at his mother's knee and was 
> betrayed at an early age by a boy he cared too much about?
> Because Albus was a genius who didn't think that anyone's
> intellect could match his own? Because he thought that Scrimgeour
> had succumbed to the lure of power, which was his own personal
> temptation? Because the more people you tell a secret to, the 
> more likely it is that the information will reach someone that
> you want to keep the secret from? 
  -<snip>-
> IMO, it's perfectly in character for DD not to trust Scrimgeour 
> or anyone at the Ministry with information that he won't even 
> share with his own Order members.

Mike:
My question was more rhetorical, but you have enumerated the many 
reasons why DD acted the way he did. I agree, it was perfectly in 
character. This would be a good place to point out that I don't take 
the position that DD was a bad person. He was a very good person 
imo, but he made a lot of mistakes as the self-appointed leader of 
the anti-Voldemort movement. It's his poor generalship that I am 
criticizing, not the man.

I think Dumbledore could have done much more to prevent the 
Ministry's eventual fall to LV's henchmen. A bumbling and somewhat 
corrupt Ministry is a far sight better than a Ministry under 
Voldemort's control.



> Carol:
> -<snip>-
> 
> As for the graveyard, 
> -<snip>-  The Ministry may have detected some Unforgiveable 
> Curses in a Muggle graveyard, but maybe the spells only show up 
> if there's a Muggle present or magic is performed in a place where
> an underage witch or wizard is known to live. 

Mike:
Umm, can you say "plothole"? <g> Harry was in the graveyard for a 
long time. Harry was underage, so the "Trace" was still on him. AKs
and Crucios being fired off left and right, and nobody from the 
Ministry is alerted? 

I also remember there was an underage wizard that ventured into a 
Muggle's house and promptly AKed three people, who just happen to 
have the same last name as that young wizard. Never caught the boy 
and never suspected the boy, even though they knew the adults were 
killed by magic. Hmm, a "trace" of ignorance to the rules of the 
universe the author set up. Do ya think she invented this "Trace" 
without considering how it might have affected the stories she'd 
already published? <that's rhetorical, too>


> Carol:
> Agreed about Snape, but I'm not sure that Helena Ravenclaw would 
> have opened up to McGonagall as she did to Harry. After all, she 
> seems to have pretended to know nothing about the tiara when 
> others questioned her, and surely those others included DD and 
> Flitwick. 

Mike:
OK, that's reasonable. But Harry didn't even know who the Grey Lady 
was in life. Don't you suppose DD could have at least passed on that 
info to Harry? And, while were at it, DD figured out that Harry was 
the right person to wheedle the memory out of Slughorn. DD also 
suspected Voldemort was using founder magical objects. Was it such
a leap to ask Harry to have a shot at the ghost Helena?


> Carol:
> I'm not so sure about the pure-blood bigots being deterred from
> joining (though that knowledge might have kept Regulus out).

Mike:
Well, you've just speculated on one. I'm talking about DD revealing 
Voldemort's true identity going all they way back to the 1957 
teaching interview. That was the time to throw a wet blanket on all 
this "Lord Voldemort" crap. Surely, the half-blood Tom Riddle 
wouldn't have had as easy of a time recruiting new DEs if his past 
history was an open book. As a_svirn has so eloquently stated 
upthread, removing the cloak of secrecy from Voldemort's true 
identity takes away from his mystique. It's one more straw in the
poor leadership pack of Dumbledore's camel.



> Carol:
> 
> Tom Riddle had presumably been transformed into the blurred-
> featured Voldemort of the DADA interview and had fled the country
> to consort with Dark wizards. (Did Grindelwald meet him and
> dismiss him as an ignorant interloper, I wonder? He seems to know
> quite well who he is and to hold him in contempt for his ignorance
> right before LV murders him.)

Mike:
I think Grindewald was in prison after his defeat by DD in 1945, 
which would have been the year Riddle graduated from Hogwarts. It's 
possible Tom visited GG in his prison, but I rather doubt GG was 
allowed visitors.



> Carol, who doesn't consider the Dark Mark a tattoo because it 
> doesn't involve ink (I think it's burned into the skin with the 
> Morsmordre spell)

Mike:
I think we understand that the Dark Mark on the DE's forearms was 
placed there with magic. I doubt LV took his boys and girls to a 
tattoo parlor. We're calling it a tattoo to distinguish it from the 
like named Dark Mark in the sky conjured by that Morsmordre spell.
Ater all, I doubt a Bludger is manufactured by normal means, but 
it's still a ball.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179617
lizzyben:
Also, in passing, DD never mentions trying to absolve Hokey.

Mike:
DD said that the Ministry blamed Hokey, but they also called it 
accidental poisoning. I don't remember DD saying that Hokey was 
ever incarcerated for this crime, convicted yes, but did she get 
jail time for it? Does one get thrown into the pokey in Britain 
for accidental homocide?

Mike




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 10:44:13 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:44:13 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj56m4+4e4d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj5vdt+9cb9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179627


> a_svirn:
> I think you sort of confuse being unpopular with being notorious.
>
> Steph:
> I make a distinction between people like Fred and George, who are the
> really cool, popular kids, with Harry, who, while being important and
> appreciated at times for his Quidditch skills and ability to fight off
> Voldemort, doesn't have people knocking down his door to be friends
> with him, at least not until HBP.

a_svirn:
To use a famous quote "I see no difference". Harry's best friend
knocks at his door in PS because he wants to be close with someone
"cool". Harry's popularity in Gryffindor is comparable with that of
the twins. Fred and George also have only one really close friend ?
Lee Jordan. (One less that Harry, actually.)
>
>
> a_svirn:
> In OotP for all his alleged unpopularity a few dozens of people turn
> up in a seedy pub to listen what he has to say. And they recognize him
> a leader from the get-go. Just imagine how many people would turn up
> if Hermione invited them to listen to *her* rather than to Harry. This
> is not what being unpopular means.
>
> Steph:
> This is not popularity. This is a group of smart kids who know that
> there's a huge threat out there and that Harry is the guy who's got
> the experience to get rid of that threat. <snip>

a_svirn:
That's not "unpopularity" either. An unpopular kid could not expect
such turn-out if he wanted to impart some important information.


> a_svirn:
> (Though unlike Ron she did not set out to befriend the famous Harry
> Potter.) - snip, snip, snip - If I want to rub shoulders with famous
> and celebrated it has nothing whatsoever with my desire to get
> important connections? Really? Why would I want to do so, then?
>
> Steph:
> Wow, you really dislike Ron, don't you?

a_svirn:
I don't, actually. I can acknowledge a person's weakness and still like
them, unless it is a particularly unsavoury weakness. Ron is drawn to
the "cool" and famous, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. He
has lots of likable qualities to make up for it.

> Steph:
<snip>You
> are taking a chance meeting on the Hogwarts Express platform as a
> deliberate move on Ron's part to "rub shoulders with the famous and
> celebrated." I've just pulled out my SS. The twins were the first
> ones to realize who Harry was, not Ron,

a_svirn:
Exactly. They helped his with his trunk, told their family that they
had just met *the* Harry Potter, and proceeded to seek Lee Jordan and
his tarantula. *They* did not try to befriend Harry Potter.

> Steph:
who actually didn't know until
> the twins pointed it out to him AFTER Ron was already sitting in the
> carriage with Harry.

a_svirn:
Not at all. they helped Harry to the carriage, then told their family
(Ron included), and then Ron hasted to claim a seat into the same
carriage with Harry under the pretext that everywhere else is full:

The door of the compartment slid open and the youngest redheaded boy
came in.
"Anyone sitting there?" he asked, pointing at the seat opposite
Harry. "Everywhere else is full." And then proceeded to ask questions
"Are you really?" etc.

> a_svirn:
> Didn't matter? When he was obviously consumed with jealousy all the
> time? To the point of succumbing to the Horcrux's influence?
>
> Steph:
> Ron's jealousy toward Harry was specifically about Hermione - look at
> his reactions regarding Krum.

a_svirn:
Not at all. His jealousy was on account of Harry's fame. That's what
Hermione says in GoF:

"Oh Harry, isn't it obvious?" Hermione said despairingly. "He's jealous!"
"Jealous?" Harry said incredulously. "Jealous of what? He wants to
make a prat of himself in front of the whole school, does he?"
"Look," said Hermione patiently, "it's always you who gets all the
attention, you know it is. I know it's not your fault," she added
quickly, seeing Harry open his mouth furiously. "I know you don't ask
for it.. . but - well - you know, Ron's got all those brothers to
compete against at home, and you're his best friend, and you're really
famous - he's always shunted to one side whenever people see you, and
he puts up with it, and he never mentions it, but I suppose this is
just one time too many. . .





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 14:01:37 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:01:37 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj4qho+ei8d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj6b01+9bn0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179628

> Mus:
> Someone on another board has suggested that a problem with the books
> is that whereas fantasy literature uses the fantasy world to tell us
> things about our own world, JKR uses our world to tell us things about
> the WW.  

a_svirn:
Yes, I think it is an interesting point. Sort of escapist fantasy par
excellence ? the world where one can indulge all one's guilty
pleasures without feeling in the least guilty. 

> Mus:
By doing so, she imports much more than she intends to, I
> think.  For example, when she tells us that goblins have different
> ideas about ownership than wizards do, she evokes the notion of many
> native peoples' different ideas of ownership in our world, and once
> she has done so, the reader (or this one at least) thinks "Hang on -
> the goblins have a *point*".  Having raised the idea, though, she just
> blows through it as if there weren't a moral issue there at all, but
> there is, because she evoked it.  Nothing, I think, would have changed
> materially if the goblins had just been (understandably) distrustful
> of wizards and so wanted to keep as many objects as possible, but she
> went to the trouble of showing us a coherent goblin view of ownership
> only to treat it with contempt.  

a_svirn:
I for one was mildly disturbed by this Goblin business. Rowling
obviously drew on the medieval anti-Jewish stereotypes when she
invented her Goblins. I wouldn't mind that exactly, if only I could
see the point of the allusion. But that's just what I can't do! It's
just the same as with elves' slavery business, as you say, she rises
the point (though this time more slyly), and then not only offers no
resolution, but sort of implies that the whole thing is a natural
order of things. Which, in case of Goblins, defies not only ethical
norms, but also those of logic. I mean, who would entrust their
treasure to someone with a vastly different concept of property?
Goblins would have lost all their wizarding custom, if there had been
any truth in those accusations. 




From cottell at dublin.ie  Wed Dec  5 14:35:19 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:35:19 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj6b01+9bn0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj6cv7+fvkq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179629

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> I mean, who would entrust their
> treasure to someone with a vastly different concept of property?
> Goblins would have lost all their wizarding custom, if there had been
> any truth in those accusations.

Mus notes:
Including *all* the money, or at least all the Galleons.  

" 'You see the numerals around the edge of the coins?' Hermione said,
holding one up for examination at the end of their fourth meeting. 
The coin gleamed fat and yellow in the light from the torches.  "On
real Galleons that's just a serial number referring to the goblin who
cast the coin.  On these fake coins, though, the numbers will change
to reflect the time and date of the next meeting.' " [OotP UKhb: 353]

Your goblin fanatic should then regard all the Galleons in circulation
as rightfully belonging to the caster.  Well, it's certainly a novel
view of monetary policy.

Mus




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Dec  5 15:16:24 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 15:16:24 -0000
Subject: School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affect children? )
In-Reply-To: <fj52hc+qlta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj6fc8+fup5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179630

> Steph:
> We're not that far off, I just don't think that Harry became cool
> until he was proven right about Voldie at the end of OotP.  Then he
> did become cool.
> 
> My perceptions of this whole thing are colored by the fact that 
I'm a
> high school teacher and see every day the gradations of students, 
from
> the social outcasts to the kids at the top of the social heap (call
> them cool or popular, to me it's the same thing).  There are kids 
who
> are important and popular, such as the sports kids, drama kids,
> student council, etc., the kids who are important but not popular
> (sometimes the same group, but there's something about them which
> makes them not cool - maybe they're nerdy), the kids who are just 
cool
> (hence popular) even though they're not involved in any particular
> activity, the kids who are just the 'normal' ones - not popular or 
but
> not particularly unpopular, some of whom are important, some not -
> this is the group I'd put Harry in, by the way), the kids who are 
the
> nerdy, kind of unpopular kids, the stoners, the demotes, and the 
total
> social outcasts.  Then there are the gangbangers, which can fit 
into
> any of the above categories.  By the way, I'd put Neville in the
> nerdy, unpopular group rather than the total social outcast group,
> whereas Luna definitely fits in the social outcast group. If I had 
to
> characterize the others aside from Harry, here's where I'd put 
them:
> Ron: normal, but not important
> Hermione: uncool but borderline important because of her academics
> Fred and George: important and cool 
> Ginny: cool, then important when she gets on the Quidditch team
> Dean and Seamus: normal, like Ron; Dean is probably a bit cooler 
than
> Seamus

Magpie:
This is sort of a tangent, but I think it's an interesting thing to 
analyze in the series, because I think the using American high 
school groups to understand Hogwarts is both helpful and not at the 
same time. 

Like, I would also put Neville in the nerdy unpopular group rather 
than the social outcast group if he were at my school...but at 
Hogwarts, there is no nerdy unpopular group. There are few groups at 
all--the only real groups I can think of are the Marauders, who are 
basically the Gryffindor boys, and groups of faceless girls who 
occasionally appear to giggle. Neville doesn't hang out with anyone 
(though if a group like that existed they might accept Luna). The 
school doesn't really break down into all those recognizable cliques 
(I don't know if that's really as much of a British thing anyway). 
The Twins, for however popular they may seem like they should be 
(leaving aside that being practical jokers probably wouldn't 
translate to "cool" in the real world), don't have people clamoring 
to be their friends either. They hang out with each other and are 
friends with Lee Jordan. 

I would agree that Harry is basically normal like Dean, Seamus and 
Ron. He's not in "the cool group"--though he's above any of those 
other boys because he's got ties to older students from the time 
he's a first year--his Quidditch team membership alone puts him on 
another level. But there is no popular group that everyone clamors 
to be friends with. No exclusive parties. It doesn't seem like 
Cedric is in a popular group either. We see people following him 
around in GoF, but if that's proof that he is one then so is Harry 
who also has people following him around at that age. Cedric is 
cooler than Harry because he's older, but probably wouldn't have 
been so intimidating if they were in the same year. By the time 
Harry's in almost the top class, he's at the top, but there's still 
no popular crowd.

The only place the books really get into the idea of the popular 
stereotype is, bizarrely, with the Slytherins. *They* follow 
the "cool group" stereotype even if in some ways they totally 
contradict it. Maybe in the 1950s one would expect the high school 
hero to be part of the "popular crowd" but I think the tide has 
firmly turned away from that now, because "popular crowd," while 
still holding many attractions, has also become synonymous with mean 
and shallow and exclusive. 

That's the Slytherins. They insult other people for their clothes 
and their looks, think they're better than other people, talk about 
being socially connected and cool. When Draco and Pansy need to act 
like the rich villain couple from an American teen movie they can do 
it. Only they don't have the actual advantages the popular crowd 
usually has. Except for Blaise Zabini none of them are described as 
particularly attractive--and we never hear about anybody actually 
interested in Blaise either besides himself. Harry and Ginny seem 
more actually more attractive when at the dating age than any of the 
Slytherins, and more sought after. Harry is the sports star, 
Gryffindor is the star team and the star house. They're more 
glamorous. Nobody wants to be friends with the Slytherins, but they 
seem to live under the delusion they're exclusive when they're 
actually repulsive.

I know I always get into the whole Shadow idea, but it just seems to 
come up so much. If you looked at the "high school superstar" 
stereotype (which requires the kids to be at least old enough to 
carry it off correctly) I think it would split between Harry and 
Draco, with Harry getting the good bits and Draco getting the bad. 
Harry is famous, good-looking, athletically gifted, a leader, 
socially connected, chased after by crowds, inspires jealousy, 
glamorous, rich and dates the most popular girl in school. Draco is 
snobbish, arrogant, mean, exclusive and shallow. The only person who 
talks about Harry as if he's "that guy" is Draco Malfoy.

-m




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec  5 18:46:57 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:46:57 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj4qho+ei8d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj6rn1+6h7l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179631

Mus:
> It helps (for me, at any rate) because it is manifest good sense, and
> it's true in our world.
> 
> But for me, it's simply not true of the Potterverse.  One of the first
> things we learn (and are meant, I think, to admire) about DD is that
> he has powers he's too noble to use (though by the end I was kinda
> wondering what they might be), and this contrasts him with Evil LV.  

Pippin:
Dumbledore blushes when McGonagall says he's too noble to use
his powers. He says he's embarrassed, and we think he's being
modest. But he's ashamed. 

He does have powers he won't use. He won't use the Elder Wand to kill. 
He won't rule  as Minister of Magic, not because he's too noble to want
to but because he doesn't trust himself with such powers. Canon is utterly 
explicit about that. 


And *that* is what makes him different from Tom Riddle. 

Mus:
>  In other words, we're set up initially to expect that there are
> objectively admirable properties in this world, but the rest of the
> series makes it clear that "admirable" can be summed up in one word:
> Gryffindor. 

Pippin:
Then why is Snape,  whose courage never falters and who uses
his cunning only to protect the weak, a Slytherin? Why is  
Dumbledore, who would have sacrificed all that he loves to achieve  
his ends, a Gryffindor? 

Albus Severus will become a Gryffindor, and he'll be very proud,
but if his bratty older brother hasn't made it bloody obvious that
being a Gryffindor isn't all it's cracked up to be, what can Harry
possibly say that would convince him? He'll have to learn it for
himself.  Or not.

And that's okay. Because -- but you can guess the moral.

Can't you?  Wait for it...

Mus:
> I certainly agree that a very interesting story could have been told
> where the Trio (at least) reflected on their moral choices and tried
> to learn from them.  

Pippin:
The characters in a fable do not always learn from their choices.
Sometimes they do, like the lion who was set free by the lowly
mouse. The dog, on the other hand, never reflects on the 
wickedness of hogging the manger, and the fox learns nothing
from his encounter with the grapes. But *we* do. The object
of  morality fiction is the reader, not the characters.

I agree it would be unsatisfying if the Trio had learned nothing
from their choices. They did. But they don't *reflect* on it.
Harry is not a reflective character -- he does not tell us what he's
learned, he shows us. That's what a well-written character is
supposed to do, right?

The epilogue poses  a riddle: what did Harry learn that allowed 
him to  recognize and honor Snape's courage, forgive Dumbledore's 
machinations without becoming a machinator himself, show patience 
with his children and live serenely in a world that is *almost* as 
imperfect as it ever was? 

I think the answer's in the story, and the answer not only speaks 
to achieving tolerance, it's  even heartwarming enough to excuse the 
fluffiness of the epilogue. 

Here it is...

Last chance to guess...<g>

"Nobody has to be perfect."

It fits, it really does. Sure, the world isn't as good a place as we would 
like it to be, but that's okay, because we aren't as good as we would 
like to be either.

I really don't understand how any one can say it's rotten to the core: 
There's  love, there's honor,  and above all there is courage. Few are as 
brave as Snape, but we can all dare to believe that we're braver than 
we think we are. Those who can't see those things probably aren't  
looking in the right places. YMMV.

Mus:
For example, when she tells us that goblins have different
> ideas about ownership than wizards do, she evokes the notion of many
> native peoples' different ideas of ownership in our world, and once
> she has done so, the reader (or this one at least) thinks "Hang on -
> the goblins have a *point*".  

Pippin:
Yeah, they do. But there's a bigger point -- you can't negotiate with a 
fanatic. And to be fair, she made Harry a fanatic too. He didn't  need the 
sword to destroy the cup, he just thought he did. There's no applause
for fanaticism on either side as far as I can see. 

Neville saved goblin as well as wizarding lives by killing Nagini: 
should the world be deprived of a beautiful and useful thing 
because in the minds of a few fanatics it never should have been 
made? And if the sword is so precious because goblins cannot
make another just like it, does that not suggest that wizards 
had a hand in its making too?

Where does a treasure belong?  Per canon, where  it will do the most 
good -- but who says  Goblins won't be  Gryffindors some day? 

As I said, it's naive to suppose there are simple answers to the
problem of good and evil. Freedom is good, but what can you do, 
consistent with that, to force a person who's been trained out 
of wanting freedom to embrace it?

Isn't it  cultural imperialist to say that any situation that invokes
the (false) conditions of American slavery can't refer to anything
else? 

Aren't there  a great many wives in this world who 
have vowed to obey their husbands, think that's the natural order,  
consider themselves happy, and would rather die than break that vow?

You know the etymological derivation of "husband" don't you?
It's supposed to come from Old Norse --  "master of the house."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=husband

Pippin
agrees that baking bread smells good 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 20:01:44 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:01:44 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj566p+bf9p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj7038+rtj3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179632

Steph:
> I make a distinction between people like Fred and George, who are
the really cool, popular kids, with Harry, who, while being important
and appreciated at times for his Quidditch skills and ability to fight
off Voldemort, doesn't have people knocking down his door to be
friends with him, at least not until HBP <snip>
I'm not disputing at all that he's important.  I just disagree that
people want to be buddy-buddy with him, except for the usual suspects.
<snip>

Carol responds:
While I largely agree with you, I do dispute Harry's importance. He's
famous, certainly. People goggle at his scar. But after awhile, they
realize that, except for his abilities as a Quidditch player (which
are a little too much, IMO--a natural at Quidditch from age eleven,
never losing a game unless he's affected by Dementors or whatever) and
his tendency to get into trouble or predicaments (e.g., having his
name put into the Goblet of Fire), he's not that different from other
kids. In fact, it's only his tendency to win or lose points for his
House that makes him "important" in the eyes of the other students, or
his occasional availability as a date to an event that would (the
girls think) increase *their* status by association.

But aside from establishing himself as the next Charlie Weasley and
being given a broom and a position on the Quidditch team thanks to
McGonagall, Harry is quickly shown (with a little help from Snape) to
be no Dark wizard in the making and to have no extraordinary knowledge
or powers other than flying (and, as of CoS, Parseltongue)--nothing
that makes him any better at casting spells or making potions than any
other student. Harry and friends promptly lose fifty points each for
Gryffindor, making them unpopular in their own House until they regain
those points at the end of the year, increasing the tension between
Gryffindor and Slytherin (which would have won the House Cup were it
not for those last-minute points). While DD tells Harry that "the
whole school knows" what happened between him and Professor Quirrell,
that's clearly not the case. All the school knows is that Harry (and
Neville0 won points for bravery, Ron for a chess game, and Hermione
for "the cool use of intellect when others were in peril" (SS/PS    ).
In OoP, we find out that no one really knows what happened with "that
Sorcerous Stone" (sorry, American edition; I don't know the British
equivalent), nor do they appear to realize that Voldemort was in the
back of Quirrell's head. 

In CoS, Harry calls a bit of attention to himself by arriving with Ron
in a flying car, but this incident makes no difference in his status
in his own or any other House. True, Colin Creevey follows him around,
but no one else except Lockhart is treating Harry as a celebrity. The
revelation of his ability to speak Parseltongue makes him *notorious*
(which is not the same as important) and causes other students,
especially Muggle-borns, to shun and fear him and, ironically,
increases Draco's jealousy, but it doesn't make him any more important
in terms of his real power, authority, or influence on their lives.
It's all perception. At the end of the year, he and Ron have again
given Gryffindor House points. No one even knows that Harry has
destroyed Memory!Tom and the diary (which even he doesn't know is a
Horcrux). They don't even know that he's killed a Basilisk with the
Sword of Gryffindor, as Michael Corner reveals in OoP (Am. ed.   ).
All they know is that Harry and Ron together earned four hundred
points for Gryffindor, exams are cancelled, and Lockhart is gone.

In PoA, Harry gets special treatment from the MoM as the intended
victim of Sirius Black, but only Draco seems to know that Black is
supposedly after Harry. Harry *loses* a Quidditch match thanks to the
Dementors, and Draco calls attention to this perceived weakness by
making fun of him, but none of this makes Harry *important* except as
a Quidditch player and a symbol to Slytherin of lost House points.
(Even Harry says, in GoF, IIRC, that Slytherin hates him because he's
beaten them at Quidditch so many times.) So, if star athlete =
"important," he's important. But if "important" means that he has
power and influence, it's a bit odd that DD tells him that his word
and Hermione's ("the word or two thirteen-year-old wizards," despite
the fact that Hermione has been fourteen since September) will make no
difference in the MoM's view of Sirius Black's innocence. And no one,
not even Fudge, finds out that Harry and Hermione have used a Time
Turner to save Black (still a wanted fugitive) and Buckbeak. (harry's
mercy to Wormtail will have genuinely important consequences, but *no
one* (except DD) knows it.

In GoF, Harry starts off as just another student (except to the select
few who know that his scar hurts--and he rather stupidly forgets his
dream). It's only when someone puts his name in the Goblet of Fire
that he becomes notorious (again), this time suspected of lying and
cheating by three quarters of the school. When he gets by the
Horntail, he becomes popular again, in the sense that girls want him
as their date to the Yule Ball and most people realize that he didn't
put his own name in the GoF, but no one follows him around the way
they follow Krum and Cedric (or even Cho, who is popular in the usual
sense without ever having been a TWT champion). (Colin Creevey and his
brother are partial exceptions.) Rita Skeeter, of course, makes a big
deal about Harry, but she's only taking advantage of his youth and
celebrity to create a story. He's no more "important" than Britney
Spears in the WW. He just makes good copy. So Harry's "importance"
still rides on whether he'll win or lose the TWT, which might as well
be the Quidditch Cup or the House Cup for all its importance to the
WW. (It certainly doesn't serve the intended purpose of achieving
"international magical cooperation.") And after Harry comes back from
the graveyard with Cedric's dead body, no one believes either him or
DD that Voldemort is back. Instead, many people shun him.

In OoP, Harry becomes "important" to the MoM not for himself but for
the uses to which DD puts him, and Fudge and Umbridge seek to
discredit him in order to discredit Dumbledore. (Fudge, of course,
doesn't know that Umbridge sent the Dementors after him.) No one at
Hogwarts believes that Voldemort is back; Harry even loses his
never-close friendship with Seamus after insulting Seamus's mother,
who believes that Harry is dangerous (as does half of the WW). But
thinking that Harry is deluded, subject to fits, and possibly violent
again makes him *notorious,* not important. If he were important, he'd
have more influence and be believed. Later, *Hermione* recruits some
two dozen students (not quite a tenth of the student body if we accept
the 280 figure) to attend a meeting, but most of them are motivated to
attend because of Umbridge's inept teaching, not because of Harry's
"importance." They have to be convincec by bits of testimony (he flwe
past dragons, etc.) that he can teach them more than Umbridge can.
(Zacharias Smith, and perhaps others, attends to find out what
happened to Cedric; Harry does not present one iota of evidence that
Voldemort--or Wormtail--murdered Cedric. He refuses to talk about that
subject at all. Marietta, too, remains unconvinced that Voldemort is
back and evidently believes that DD is out to overthrow the MoM.)
True, a few DA members, mostly Weasleys, believe Harry and decide to
call the group Dumbledore's Army, but the group as a whole seems to
see itself as opposing Umbridge and the Ministry rather than opposing
Voldemort. Only Ernie, Neville, and Luna actually ever say that they
believe Harry. And of these people, only Ginny, Luna, Neville (who has
good reasons of his own to oppose Voldemort and the DEs) join HRH in
the supposed rescue mission that turns into the Battle of the DoM.
(The Order and the DEs know that Harry is "important," at least to
Voldemort, but I'm talking about his fellow students.) And until the
end of OoP, not even Harry himself knows that he's the Chosen One who
must (he thinks) either murder Voldemort or be murdered by him.

In HBP, Harry becomes important as a symbol. (Scrimgeour wants him to
act as a kind of mascot, but doesn't really believe that Harry is the
Chosen One. He's only interested, as far as I can tell, in Harry's
propaganda value.) Not Harry himself but the appearance of Voldemort
in the MoM has managed to convince soon to be ex-Minister Fudge that
Voldie is back, but Harry's participation in the battle doesn't seem
to affect people's view of him except that they realize that he's
neither an attention seeker or a liar. Draco, who has himself gone on
to what he thinks is a more important mission, contents himself with
Petrifying Harry and stamping on his face and hand, after which he
largely ignores him until the Sectumsempra confrontation. Slughorn, of
course, wants to "collect" Harry, and membership in the Slug Club
increases his status to the extent that girls want him as a date to
Slughorn's party (a Quidditch victory adds to his status), but no one
at Hogwarts really seems to think of him as the Chosen One or to pay
much attention to Voldemort at all (except for those students whose
family members are murdered, or Draco, who is being directly
threatened. And after Snape "murders" Dumbledore, only a select few
adults, mostly Order members, listens to Harry's version of events.

DH is, of course, another matter altogether. Harry's true mission is
unknown, but everyone (except perhaps those who believe the Ministry
propaganda that Harry killed DD) regards him as the Chosen One, a
symbol of hope. He is at last more than a celebrity, more than the boy
who determines whether or not Gryffindor will win the Quidditch or
House Cup. He is, at last, important in the true sense, becoming "the
one with the power" to defeat Voldemort.

More important, IMO, Harry himself learns to appreciate the
contributions of other people, from Neville to Snape, and to share the
Horcrux destruction with Ron and Hermione. (I won't count Crabbe's
accidental contribution.) In the end, Harry chooses *not* to be
"important," relinquishing the opportunity to gain power and glory by
wielding the Elder Wand, becoming "Just Harry," husband, father, and
Auror. (I'll just ignore the rubbish about Harry's becoming an Auror
at seventeen without even finishing his Hogwarts education or taking
three years of Auror training and becoming head of the Auror office at
twenty-seven. It's not in the books, so it's not canon.)

Carol, who forgot to add Dobby to Harry's fan club, but as his opinion
has no influence even over the House Elves, I don't think it hurts my
argument that Harry's celebrity does not make him *important* except
in terms of gaining or losing points for Gryffindor 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec  5 21:25:34 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:25:34 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj5873+i16l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj750e+2rv4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179633


> > 
> > Pippin:
> > Er, haven't you often defended Hermione's jinx by saying  you 
> > wished Dumbledore had used something like it  to 
> > catch Pettigrew? That doesn't sound like trust to me. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Scratching her head. Would be nice if you quoted the exact sentence.
> I seem to vaguely remember saying that Hermione's ginx may have 
> saved the younger generation from the new Pettigrew in the mix.

Pippin:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160487
> > > Alla,
> > >
> > > who wishes that Marauders had in their mist somebody as ruthless
as Hermione to mark traytor before he did any serious damage.

Pippin:
I realize now you were hoping that Pettigrew had been a traitor in
his school days and he could have been caught then. But since
he wasn't, do you still agree with this?

Alla:
 He would show : a. that he trusts people BUT b. that 
> he also takes extra precautions in case there is a traitor in the mi

Pippin:

But that's what Harry didn't want to do in DH. He didn't want
the order members to start suspecting each other,  looking
over their shoulders, and worrying that they'll be
the suspect, as Harry often was.

Surely you can see that announcing anti-traitor measures is going to 
foster suspicions that there is a traitor to be caught? A real morale-raiser 
that. Sirius and Lupin did as much damage by suspecting each other as
Pettigrew ever did. 

And it's even worse if you act like only *some* people
are under suspicion. Yuck.

There is just no canon that anyone could have found the horcruxes
faster than Harry did. If  Harry had told the Order his theory that
Tom Riddle had located the lost diadem years before he came to
power, secretly brought it back to Hogwarts and hidden it in the RoR,
I'm sure they would have done their best to talk him out of it. 

I'm sure they'd have talked him out of raiding the Ministry of Magic,
too.  And as for a Gringotts vault, we have an Order member's
opinion on that: yer'd have ter be mad ter try it, or words to that
effect.

You've got to admit it's far-fetched. 


> 
> Pippin:
>   I wouldn't trust anyone not to betray 
> > the Order under any circumstances. Everyone has a breaking point 
> > and Voldemort is very good at figuring out what they are. 
> > 
> > It is dangerous to know Voldemort's secrets. He would have killed
> > anyone he suspected of knowing about the horcruxes, and short
> > of blanketing the wizarding world with the information there would
> > have been no way to stop him from trying to do so. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> It is dangerous to fight the war. I think Order members signed up 
> for it - including sharing information from their leader, even if 
> this is dangerous, IMO.
> 

Pippin:
Exactly they signed up for danger. They signed up to fight in a secret
organization because they recognized a need to keep Voldemort
from finding out things that will help him to win the war. 

They did not sign up to be told what those things are. They
know Voldemort may try to kill them, but why give Voldemort 
additional reasons to want to do it? "There are dangers involved
of which you have no idea, any of you." --Lupin, OOP.

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 21:45:03 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:45:03 -0000
Subject: DD and Horcruxes/ Scrimgeour
In-Reply-To: <fj750e+2rv4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj764v+2g5n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179634

> Pippin:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160487
> > > > Alla,
> > > >
> > > > who wishes that Marauders had in their mist somebody as 
ruthless
> as Hermione to mark traytor before he did any serious damage.
> 
> Pippin:
> I realize now you were hoping that Pettigrew had been a traitor in
> his school days and he could have been caught then. But since
> he wasn't, do you still agree with this?

Alla:

Thanks.
Do I still agree that I hope that somebody as ruthless as Hermione 
would have caught Pettigrew? I think I do. But now more than ever I 
just do not see what this has to do with my point of Dumbledore 
trusting his soldiers. I am just not seeing the contradiction between 
being ruthless to potential traitors and trusting people.

 
> Alla:
>  He would show : a. that he trusts people BUT b. that 
> > he also takes extra precautions in case there is a traitor in the 
mi
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> But that's what Harry didn't want to do in DH. He didn't want
> the order members to start suspecting each other,  looking
> over their shoulders, and worrying that they'll be
> the suspect, as Harry often was.
> 
> Surely you can see that announcing anti-traitor measures is going 
to 
> foster suspicions that there is a traitor to be caught? A real 
morale-raiser 
> that. Sirius and Lupin did as much damage by suspecting each other 
as
> Pettigrew ever did. 
> 
> And it's even worse if you act like only *some* people
> are under suspicion. Yuck.

Alla:

BUT you brought the announcing antitraitor measures in the mix, not 
me. As I said above I am just seeing no contradiction here.

To me the **action** of safeguarding against the traitor does not 
mean that Hermione does not trust everybody by the way. I think she 
is just cautious and ready to do anything to defend her friends.

If Dumbledore did not want to announce the spells, whatever. I just 
want him to not keep everything to himself, including horcruzes. I 
find it awfully obnoxious and patronising too.

Pippin:
<SNIP> 
> There is just no canon that anyone could have found the horcruxes
> faster than Harry did. 

Alla:

Eh, that's because nobody got a chance to try IMO.

Pippin:
If  Harry had told the Order his theory that
> Tom Riddle had located the lost diadem years before he came to
> power, secretly brought it back to Hogwarts and hidden it in the 
RoR,
> I'm sure they would have done their best to talk him out of it. 

Alla:

How do you know that? I think I can just as confidently say that they 
would have done their best to help him. That's what Mcgonagall does 
after all when he asks for help and Flitwick and DA and and Arthur 
participates in Ron's plan with ghoul no questions asked. I mean, he 
asked, but when stopped.

Oh and let's not forget Lupin who is eager to help as well. Putting 
his issues with Tonks aside, I think he was quite sincere and would 
have helped as well.

Nope, not buying that they would talked him out of it, I think even 
if they tried, the words Dumbledore wanted me to do it would have 
been enough. IMO.

Pippin:
> I'm sure they'd have talked him out of raiding the Ministry of 
Magic,
> too.  And as for a Gringotts vault, we have an Order member's
> opinion on that: yer'd have ter be mad ter try it, or words to that
> effect.
> 
> You've got to admit it's far-fetched. 

Alla:

See above.

 
> Pippin:
> Exactly they signed up for danger. They signed up to fight in a 
secret
> organization because they recognized a need to keep Voldemort
> from finding out things that will help him to win the war. 
> 
> They did not sign up to be told what those things are. They
> know Voldemort may try to kill them, but why give Voldemort 
> additional reasons to want to do it? "There are dangers involved
> of which you have no idea, any of you." --Lupin, OOP.


Alla:

They signed up for danger and dying without being told what they are 
dying for? I disagree. I think they deserve to know.

And if it helps the mission, I think they would happily take on 
additional reasons for Voldemort to kill them, after all helping the 
Chosen One is what matters the most, does it not?




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 22:34:56 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:34:56 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
Message-ID: <fj792g+pmgi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179635

I'm probably posting prematurely since all I have at the moment is
some half-baked thoughts on the subject. We learn in DH that Albus
Dumbledore learned secrecy at his mother's knee, and we see some of
the results of his failure to trust others with his secrets in DH. But
Harry, too, has a tendency toward secrecy. How many times in every
book does he start to tell someone something and then suppress the
impulse? In PoA, for example, he starts to tell Lupin about the
Grimlike dog that he saw in Magnolia Crescent; in GoF, he decides not
to tell Sirius about his dream of Voldemort and Wormtail (true, he
doesn't remember the details, but he does remember that they're
plotting to kill him! Oh, well; not important. I'll just tell Sirius
that my scar hurts); in GoF again, he neglects to tell Ron that
"Moody" thinks whoever put Harry's name in the goblet wants him dead;
in OoP, he refuses to tell McGonagall or DD about Umbridge's cruel
detentions; in HBP, he decides not to tell Hermione that Ron is acting
as he is because he thinks that Hermione kissed Viktor Krum (not
earth-shaking, but it could have saved some ruffled feathers). Those
are just the examples that pop into my mind at the moment; I'm sure
that there are plenty more.

Dumbledore is falsely suspected of trusting without good reason; the
opposite seems to be true. Even the people he "trusts completely"
(Snape and Harry) turn out to be trusted with some crucial information
not given to anyone else but not with the whole truth. ("Truth is a
beautiful and dangerous thing, Harry.") We've talked about how the
books might have been different if DD had been more trusting (I don't
think, however, that he should have told the entire Order about the
Horcruxes, but if he had told Snape and McGonagall and allowed them to
work together, and if Portrait!DD had told McGonagall that Snape
killed him on his orders, surely a lot of grief would have been
avoided and the tiara Horcrux found a lot more quickly.)

But what if Harry had not learned this lesson the hard way? Don't be
so secretive. Don't suppress key information. What if he had trusted
people (not everyone, but the examples I listed will do for starters)
with his secrets? What if Snape had trusted the Order members with his?

Yeah, I know. It would be a different book altogether. But somehow, I
sense that secrecy is a bad thing in JKR's universe (unless you're
keeping secrets from the enemy). We can see in the epilogue that Harry
is giving his children information that was kept from him, whether
it's that Slytherins can be admirable or that Thestrals are nothing to
fear. If we examine all the suppressed information and distortions of
the truth that shape Harry's perceptions throughout the books, it
seems that a half-truth is as good (or rather, as bad) as a lie, as is
well-intentioned misinformation. Unless, of course, you're Snape
keeping secrets from Voldemort.

Carol, just tossing out this idea to see if anyone thinks it's worth
examining




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec  5 22:43:11 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:43:11 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj6rn1+6h7l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj79hv+u7i5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179636

> Pippin: 
> I think the answer's in the story, and the answer not only speaks 
> to achieving tolerance, it's  even heartwarming enough to excuse 
the 
> fluffiness of the epilogue. 
> 
> Here it is...
> 
> Last chance to guess...<g>
> 
> "Nobody has to be perfect."

a_svirn:
Is that how you understand tolerance? Funny, I always thought it is 
something else altogether. I thought it is about showing patience and 
understanding towards different (!) customs, cultures, religions and 
opinions. In short, something opposite to bigotry. And there is 
nothing in either DH per se, or in the epilogue that suggests that 
this is the moral of the series. Young Al doesn't have to be perfect, 
but if he makes a right choice (as he surely will) he won't be put 
into Slytherin with the cull lumber, but will be sorted together with 
other good guys to Gryffindor. 

But Albus Severus is not the only one with a symbolic name. There is 
Scorpius Malfoy as well, and no one doubts that he is going to be as 
poisonous and traitorous as his name suggests. Slytherin is still a 
house of baddies, and we all know that no child of Harry's is going 
to end up there. Elves are still slaves and that's exactly how 
everyone likes it. Goblins are really as bad as they are painted. 
Tolerance, huh? And speaking of names, why is one of the more morally 
dubious characters actually called Xenophilius?  


> Pippin:
<snip> But there's a bigger point -- you can't negotiate with a 
> fanatic. 

a_svirn:
And what is to be done with a fanatic, though? You can't negotiate, 
you can hardly afford being tolerant
 As per canon there is only one 
way ? to have your own way come hell and high water. Practical? Yes. 
Tolerant? Not particularly. 

> Pippin:
> Neville saved goblin as well as wizarding lives by killing Nagini: 
> should the world be deprived of a beautiful and useful thing 
> because in the minds of a few fanatics it never should have been 
> made? 

a_svirn:
You know, this view on ownership may be just as unorthodox as that of 
the Goblins'. I would have thought that from purely human perspective 
it doesn't matter who saved whom. This is a rather straightforward 
busyness: if the sword is mine it's mine. Nobody can deprive me of it 
simply because they used it to perform a heroic dead. Unless, of 
course, I agree to sell it or to bestow it as a gift. 

Than again, it looks like ownership is not an issue here. It seems 
that like magic wands, the sword has a mind of its own. It simply 
chooses the wizard, and for some reason it has a penchant for male 
Gryffindors. I only hope it is not a dark object -- after all we 
don't know where it keeps its brains. 

> Pippin:
And if the sword is so precious because goblins cannot
> make another just like it, does that not suggest that wizards 
> had a hand in its making too?

a_svirn:
We know from canon that it's goblin made. 




From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Dec  5 21:47:30 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:47:30 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just a thought about how Harry would have
 turned up had he ..
In-Reply-To: <fj5ka7+mi72@eGroups.com>
References: <fj5ka7+mi72@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47571C72.8040204@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179637

bboyminn:
> If Harry hadn't met Ron right away, I suspect they still would
> have been friends because they did share a room for 7 years.
> Further, I don't think it would have taken Harry very long to
> understand Draco, what with Draco's harassment of Neville, 
> general arrogance, and sense of entitlement. All that was
> quickly evident in their first meeting. 
>
> So, I don't see the story as changing that much if the 
> circumstances had been slightly different.
>   
Bart:
Well, as long as we're repeating, I will state my belief that Harry's 
first friends were a little TOO convenient. Note that to get to the 
Sorcerer's Stone, Hagrid, Ron, Hermione and Neville were uniquely placed 
to give a 1st year the ability to get through (I mention Neville, 
because to me, the plant trap was a clue that he was expected to be 
there, too). It would not have taken much for DD to ensure that the 
Weasleys would meet Harry on his way to the train. And I STILL think 
that Hermione knew more than the book let us know.

Bart




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Thu Dec  6 15:54:31 2007
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:54:31 -0000
Subject: MAC*
Message-ID: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179638

*MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER

I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a character 
that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck out 
of you, just ANNOYED?

I admit that those which had originally annoyed me no longer did by 
the end.  

* Colin Creevey, of course, who was written to annoy us as he annoyed 
Harry, I do believe...

* Dobby, who *had* bugged me in the earlier books, but whose death 
moved me much more than I ever would have guessed it could have...

* Luna Lovegood, who seriously annoyed me in OotP but who began to 
grow on me in HBP and on whose side I definitely was by DH...


So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any characters 
who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered you, 
really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :)

Do tell, if you've got one!

Siriusly Snapey Susan





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 16:06:13 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:06:13 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj96ll+e7qt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179639

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" 
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any 
characters 
> who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered 
you, 
> really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :)
> 
> Do tell, if you've got one!
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan
>


Alla:

Oh, oh you mean those that you want to slap silly but not strangle? 
Something like that?

I guess I have to exclude Snape then and Dumbledore as well:)

I actually agree that Dobby did not annoy me in book 7, I cried over 
his death, etc.

Luna did not annoy me in book 7 either, I am not her biggest fan 
either though.

Colin well, still did.

But you know who **annoyed** me the most in book 7 actually? I think 
it was Lupin.

I was SO tired of his **issues**. I never thought he was evil, etc.

But I wanted to shake him and say OMG man, get a grip already. Stop 
running. The whole world is NOT out to get you, even if many people 
are and those who love you CHOSE to do so.

If you love Tonks, be a man and stay with her and if you love 
Sirius ;) be a man as well and break up with Tonks permanently.

So, yes, Remus wins a title of the most annoying one.


And before anybody responds, yes, yes I know all his issues and more.

I wanted him to get a grip already. I am glad he did at the end, if 
he did that ;)

I think he stayed perfectly in character, to be clear, but I found it 
the MOST annoying.

JMO,

Alla




From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 16:06:17 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:06:17 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj96lp+pv46@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179640

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" 
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> 
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a character 
> that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck 
out of you, just ANNOYED?

<<<SNIP>>>

> Siriusly Snapey Susan



***Katie:

There were some that annoyed me in the beginning,m but not by the 
end...some that annoyed me in the end, though not initially...and some 
that annoyed me all the way through. The ones that spring to mind are:

(in no particular order)

The Creevey Brothers: Ugh. So screechy and whiney and much like over-
affectionate poodles. I couldn't stand either of them.

Hagrid: I loved Hagrid up until GOF...his lack of growth and his 
constant blundering began to be annoying instead of endearing. I 
wished he would grow a brain and stop being so over-emotional. He was 
less annoying in DH...but he grates on me. 

Grawp: I found him much funnier and more appealing in the medium-that-
must-not-be-named than I ever did in the books. In the books, I just 
wanted him to go away. I had no interest in him at all.

Dobby and Winky: Dobby definitely grew on me. By DH, I loved him. 
Winky never did, though. Her devotion to Crouch was irritating, and I 
just couldn't stand her drunken self-pity. 

That's all I can think of now. Katie




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 18:19:45 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:19:45 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9eg1+cm4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179641

Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote:
>
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> 
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a character
that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck out
of you, just ANNOYED?
> 
> I admit that those which had originally annoyed me no longer did by
the end.  
> 
> * Colin Creevey, of course, who was written to annoy us as he
annoyed Harry, I do believe...
> 
> * Dobby, who *had* bugged me in the earlier books, but whose death 
moved me much more than I ever would have guessed it could have...
> 
> * Luna Lovegood, who seriously annoyed me in OotP but who began to
grow on me in HBP and on whose side I definitely was by DH...
> 
> So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any characters
who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered you,
really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :) <snip>

Carol responds:

Annoyed as in drove me crazy and made me just want them to go away and
never come back? Made me want, not kill them, shake them, or slap them 
silly but to swat them like a fly because they were a nuisance
interfering with my enjoyment of the story? I'd say that most of the
nonhuman characters fall into that category, possibly because of the
way they speak, with Dobby and Grawp at the top of the list. As for
human characters, probably Lockhart was most annoying in the early
books (well, CoS only), with Ginny as the champion nerve grater in the
last three (mostly OoP and HBP). Wormtail groveling in GoF was rather
annoying, too. In fact, any DE groveling was annoying to me. I'm
trying to remember whether I wanted to swat the Skeeter or enjoyed her
despite her being annoying to the other characters. Probably depended
on my mood. I'm past the point where I feel one thing or another about
her now.

That feeling of annoyance or irritation ("Go away and stop bothering
me! I want to get back to characters I can enjoy reading about!") is
different from moments when I wanted to slap a character, which
occurred with almost everybody: Harry, Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore,
Hagrid, Sirius Black, the Twins, Lupin, James almost every time he
showed up, Snape when he saw no difference in Hermione's teeth, or the
desire to just, well, throttle someone (Umbridge and Fake!Moody, whom
I hated before I knew he was a bad guy). If we want a character I
hate, hate, hate, it's Nagini. Brrrr!

Carol, who, if she has to limit herself to a single *most* annoying
character, would choose Grawp, with Hagrid talking to "Grawpy" as a
close second





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Dec  6 18:19:31 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:19:31 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] MAC*
References: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00f401c83834$8caafc90$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179642

From: "cubfanbudwoman"
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
>
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a character
> that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck out
> of you, just ANNOYED?


Mine was Mundungus Fletcher. I wanted to see him come to a sticky end, for 
robbing Harry's stuff, for using the Order to profit his stolen cauldrons, 
for helping the twins get items that were illegal, and in the end, he just 
"poofed" away- apparated when he should have been the one dying in that 
polyjuiced Harrys scene, instead of Mad Eye Moody. Thus, he annoyed me that 
once again he got off scott-free. It annoyed me that the Order helped him to 
survive, yet he gave nothing of any substantial value back. It annoyed me 
that Umbridge had the Horcrux because he got a little sloppy. It annoyed me 
that he still lives.

Shelley 




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Thu Dec  6 18:23:14 2007
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:23:14 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj96lp+pv46@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9emi+64qt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179643

SSSusan, earlier:
> > *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> > 
> > I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a 
> > character that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, 
> > bugged the heck out of you, just ANNOYED?
> 
> <<<SNIP>>>
 
***Katie:
>  
> There were some that annoyed me in the beginning, but not by the 
> end...some that annoyed me in the end, though not initially...and 
> some that annoyed me all the way through. The ones that spring to 
> mind are:
> 
> (in no particular order)
> 
> The Creevey Brothers: Ugh. So screechy and whiney and much like 
> over-affectionate poodles. I couldn't stand either of them.


SSSusan:
Snort.  What a perfect characterization -- over-affectionate poodles! 


Katie:
> Grawp: I found him much funnier and more appealing in the medium-
> that-must-not-be-named than I ever did in the books. In the books, 
> I just wanted him to go away. I had no interest in him at all.

SSSusan:
How the hell did I forget Grawp in my own list??  I, the one who 
included Grawp in the list of choices for a poll on "Who I Want to 
Die by the End of the Series"?  And I am not a heartless, bloodbath-y 
kind of person most of the time.  (Really!!)  He just was the worst 
character introduction of the whole series, imo.

Siriusly Snapey Susan






From rpertaub at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 19:17:32 2007
From: rpertaub at gmail.com (radha)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:17:32 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <00f401c83834$8caafc90$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fj9hsc+ncba@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179644

I have to say, for me, in DH, one surprising character that annoyed me
was Hermione. I could not flip a page without reading about her tears
falling down her face, or how teary eyed she became, etc. Granted they
were in a big pickle, she was just all so prepared and head on her
shoulders that it did not make sense she would be so teary.
that's me though..

radha



From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 19:59:19 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:59:19 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9kan+cjl1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179645

> Siriusly Snapey Susan:
>
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> 
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a 
> character that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, 
> bugged the heck out of you, just ANNOYED?
> 
> I don't mean disappointed you or angered you, really.
> I mean ANNOYED you. :)

Mike:
Neville. Not that I wasn't sympathic with his plight. And he 
certainly acquited himself by the end. But, from the start of PS/SS 
right up to his chopping off of Nagini's head, he grated on me.

His bumbling wasn't endearing in the least. 'Standing up to your 
friends is much more difficult'? HA! Your friends might Petrificus 
Totalus you, but they won't bloody your nose or turn you into a newt. 
His inability to remember the passwords, his ridiculous obsession 
with Herbology and ONLY Herbology, GAH! Even his broken nosed 
"Stubefy"s in the DoM made me want to say just SHUT UP. 

But the straw that broke the camels back was him running around 
during the Battle of Hogwarts throwing plants. PLANTS! Seven years 
of learning magic and he's throwing plants at the DEs. BTW, did he 
bother to equip the rest of his side with earmuffs before lobbing 
Mandrakes into the fray? I suppose it didn't occur to him. Just like 
his Expelliarmus in the DoM disarmed Harry right along with the DE.

Nope, didn't find Neville at all cuddly or cute or eccentric. 
I found him ANNOYING!

Mike, who will take a young Sirius over a Neville any day. :->




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Thu Dec  6 20:05:49 2007
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:05:49 -0900
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9hsc+ncba@eGroups.com>
References: <fj9hsc+ncba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <532DE4AC-C577-4A44-8AAD-C6A00E00FC14@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179646


On 2007, Dec 06, , at 10:17, radha wrote:

> I have to say, for me, in DH, one surprising character that annoyed me
> was Hermione <snip> she was just all so prepared and head on her
> shoulders that it did not make sense she would be so teary.
> that's me though..
>
> radha

This makes perfect sense to me.  She is a perfectionist and, in this
case, their lives depended on her getting her part right.  I can imagine
the anxiety that caused her - almost unceasingly.  In such a constantly
high state of worry, I can well imagine that the slightest thing would
touch off tears.  I have been in similar circumstances.  I think it  
shows
how it is that Hermione came to be in Gryffindor.  From all other signs,
you might expect her to have been sorted into Ravenclaw.  But the
courage to persist, in spite of her worries is what justifies to me her
sorting into Gryffindor.

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Thu Dec  6 20:40:06 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:40:06 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9mn6+802o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179647

cubfanbudwoman wrote:
> Did you have a character 
> that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck 
out 
> of you, just ANNOYED?

Not right up to the end, but I was quite annoyed with Harry's 
adolescent angst through most of OotP, so much so that it was a very 
slow read.

It seems I am an exception because Hermione and Luna did NOT ever 
annoy me, with the exception of S.P.E.W.  It seemed to me that 
S.P.E.W. went on much longer than it should have, given Hermione's 
intelligence and perception, but I suppose even Hermione can have a 
blind spot when she becomes obsessed. Luna's direct truth telling--as 
she saw it--was refreshing, and often much needed comic relief.

Hagrid's great ineptness with *everything* from cooking to magic was 
annoying, and it seemed unrealistic to me that he would have been so 
continually 'covered' by AD, and a member of the OotP. Yes, he was 
kind and loyal, but to be given so many responsibilities with such a 
long history of mistakes and giving away secrets after drinking to 
excess and apparently never learning from his mistakes--that was 
annoying.

> * Dobby, who *had* bugged me in the earlier books, but whose death 
> moved me much more than I ever would have guessed it could have...

That death still has me angry with the author.

Rita Skeeter annoyed me also, and I kept hoping she would get her 
just deserts at the end of DH, but it never happened.

Pippin Fowler




From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Thu Dec  6 20:50:19 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:50:19 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9eg1+cm4u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9nab+2753@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179648

Carol wrote:
> with Ginny as the champion nerve grater in the
> last three (mostly OoP and HBP).

Pippin Fowler asks:
Carol, could you elaborate on that please? I ask because Ginny never 
bothered me once in any way, and I'm just surprised to see her 
mentioned among the MAC attacks.

Pippin Fowler




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 21:02:36 2007
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:02:36 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9o1d+2a9t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179649

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> 
> So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any characters 
> who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered you, 
> really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :)

I think that for me, the most consistently annoying person was Tonks.

I didn't care for that clumsy act, the "wotcher" catchphrase, or the 
metamorphmagus talent that NEVER GOT USED!

After reading OotP--a story in which she contributed nothing but 
extra verbiage, I couldn't help thinking of her as the "Poochie" of the
HP series.  

(For those outside the Simpson fen, "Poochie" was an animated
dog character added to the Itchy and Scratchy Show in order to 
make it more "hip" and "extreme."  He wore a backwards baseball
cap, rode a skateboard, and had a stupid catchphrase that I 
forget.)

Tonks was even more annoying in HBP when she got depressed
and mousy-haired, and kept dropping by to say incomprehensible,
mopey things.  

She was only slightly less annoying in DH, mainly because she
wasn't around that much.  And, one could while one could 
speculate on whether or not Tonks was pregnant before she
married Lupin while the Trio was busy arguing for the 
umpteenth time about where to look for the next Horcrux.

But, her annoyitude spread to Lupin in DH.  He had been 
sort of interesting when he was bitter and cynical in HBP.   As 
soon as he married Tonks, he went from bitter to whiney.  I 
agree that his "woe is me" act got tiresome.

As for Grawp... yes, he was an annoying character, but I can't 
blame him for that.  He didn't ask to be dragged to England
and tied to a tree for a year and a half.  

Aragog was pretty annoying, too.  

Or maybe it's just Hagrid.  I found myself agreeing with the
girls who liked Professor Grubbly-Plank's lesson better 
than Hagrid's.  That one on bowtruckles was pretty darn 
fun.

Montavilla47




From kat7555 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 21:27:31 2007
From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:27:31 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9pg3+65g6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179650

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
>
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a character
> that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck out
> of you, just ANNOYED?
>
> I admit that those which had originally annoyed me no longer did by
> the end.

I'm going to risk being kicked off the list but, I've never liked Ron
Weasley. IMO he's a slacker who can't pass a driver's test without
cheating. I'd rather live with the Weasleys than the Dursleys any day
of the week. His angst over Harry possibly wanting Hermione as a
girlfriend could have been avoided if he had just told them what he
felt. I wanted to strangle him after he left Harry and Hermione in the
forest. She would have been torn to bits if she had done that.
Kathy Kulesza





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Dec  6 21:36:59 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:36:59 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9nab+2753@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9q1r+5esb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179652

> Carol wrote:
> > with Ginny as the champion nerve grater in the
> > last three (mostly OoP and HBP).
> 
> Pippin Fowler asks:
> Carol, could you elaborate on that please? I ask because Ginny never 
> bothered me once in any way, and I'm just surprised to see her 
> mentioned among the MAC attacks.

Magpie:
Really? She'd certainly be on my list for OotP and HBP--and I know I' 
not alone there. Once she got her new personality every time she 
showed up she was advertised as the best girl ever, so she was always 
being sassy or people were telling us she was great, or she was 
zinging people with one-liners. I thought it was awful in OotP and 
then in HBP she crossed the line into, for me, something even worse. 
Almost every one of her lines was nasty, superior and putting someone 
down--which was a problem since she was obviously being put forth as 
the greatest girl ever ("warm and compassionate" is how JKR described 
her--yikes!). It was not only irritating but for me painfully 
artificial.

In DH she calmed down a bit and became the waiting-at-home-as-a-reward-
when-the-war's-over girlfriend, which was a huge improvement I 
thought. I liked her before her "Look how awesome she's been all the 
time!" revelation, but OotP and HBP Ginny went beyond annoying for me  
into hateful Mary Sue please push her out a window territory. When I 
try to think of her and Harry being married I mostly just imagine all 
the other parents trying to avoid dealing with them. 

-m






From rvink7 at hotmail.com  Thu Dec  6 21:39:02 2007
From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:39:02 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9q5m+3pmo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179653

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> 
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a character 
> that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck out 
> of you, just ANNOYED?
> 
Renee:

#1 Hagrid, from CoS onwards until he carried Harry back to Hogwarts;
his grief had a redeeming quality. But for most of the series, though
he didn't seem to have a bad bone in his body, he was hugely annoying.
Much more so than Grawp.

#2 Tonks, especially when she showed off her wedding-ring to Harry at
the beginning of DH, and also when she looked radiant because of her
pregnancy but apparently remained oblivious to the fact that Lupin
was very unhappy with it. Nothing she did convinced me that Lupin
wasn't dead right when he considered himself too old for her. I'm not
surprised he got more whiny than ever in DH. I doubt it was JKR's
intention to make their relationship dysfunctional, but it was. Dying
was the best thing that could happen to them (though I'm sorry for
Andromeda and Teddy). Had they survived, Lupin's issues would have
resurfaced on a regular base, and I don't think Tonks was capable of
handling them. And the arrival of a baby rarely solves relationship
troubles.

#3 Lily, but this is mainly because of the dissonance between how
Rowling wants us to see her, and how she comes across to me. Flirting
with a bully who humiliates a boy who considers you his friend? Not Done.

#4 Zacharias Smith. But he's meant to be annoying.

Renee





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 21:58:23 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:58:23 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9r9v+sft7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179654

>SSSusan:
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a 
character 
> that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck 
out 
> of you, just ANNOYED?
<snip>
> * Dobby, who *had* bugged me in the earlier books, but whose death 
> moved me much more than I ever would have guessed it could have...

zgirnius:
Oh, me too. I rolled my eyes every time he showed up in the books. 
And it was not a House Elf thing, Dobby himself, the individual, 
annoyed me immensely. Winky was pathetic but not annoying, and 
Kreacher was very entertaining to read about when he was still just 
the evil, nasty house elf of the evil, nasty Blacks, and only 
improved when we learned his (and Regulus') tragic story.

But I love the annoying little being dearly now, and Dobby's was the 
only death I cried for, reading DH. I have not gone back to the 
earlier books, yet, but I wonder if he might not annoy me less when I 
do, now that I know the end.

I must also agree with those annoyed by Hagrid. While I enjoyed his 
introduction in PS/SS, and understood Harry's fondness for him, he 
had started to annoy before the end of that book. He still annoys me. 
Related characters like Aragog and Grawp do not annoy me, probably 
because I blame any annoyance they cause me on Hagrid.

That's it, I would say. I have other characters for whom I harbor 
negative feelings, but I would not say it is because they annoy me.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 22:00:28 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:00:28 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9nab+2753@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9rds+4h15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179655

Carol earlier:
> > with Ginny as the champion nerve grater in the last three (mostly
OoP and HBP).
> 
Pippin Fowler asked:
> Carol, could you elaborate on that please? I ask because Ginny never
bothered me once in any way, and I'm just surprised to see her 
mentioned among the MAC attacks.
> 
Carol responds:

I'll be glad to, though, of course, taste in characters is subjective,
and I'm only giving my personal reaction with no attempt to persuade
anyone to share my feelings about her.

I didn't mind Ginny in CoS (she was almost a nonentity in SS/PS),
aside from "His eyes are as green as a pickled toad," and I had rather
liked her for spunkily standing to Draco in Flourish and Blotts, and I
cut her a lot of slack (youth, inexperience, and Diary!Tom's superior
powers) in the opening of the chamber and siccing the Basilisk on
people. I didn't pay much attention to her in PoA or GoF (at least she
had the grace to be ashamed of herself for accepting Neville as a date
to the Yule Ball only so that she could attend; I suppose she got her
just deserts when Harry never even thought of asking her). But I hated
her brazenly lying to her mother about the dungbombs she was throwing
at the kitchen door, blaming Crookshanks and not even washing her
hands afterwards. (Why Molly didn't put two and two together, I don't
know.) I did like Ginny's telling Harry that she knew how it felt to
be possessed (and calling attention to his obliviousness in not asking
her about it; I wish I could attribute his failure to ask her about it
to tact, but I can't). And in HBP, she criticizes Ron for calling Luna
"Loony" when she's done it herself, and she repeatedly attacks
Zacharias Smith (possibly in OoP as well; I've forgotten) when all
he's done is not to take Harry's word that Voldemort is back even
though Harry refuses to present a shred of evidence or even give a
general account of what happened in the graveyard. Nope: Harry says
he's back, and if you don't believe Harry (or insult Gryffindor in
your Quidditch commentary), you must be Bat-Bogeyed and have the
Quidditch podium knocked over onto you. Shes' supposedly talented and
powerful, but she uses the same hex over and over again rather than
displaying any prowess. IOW, we're told, not shown, that she's
powerful, Bat-Bogey Hes excepted. And suddenly, in HBP, she's Miss
Popularity. We've always known that she was small and red-haired, but
we were given no indication (thanks, I suppose, to Harry's
oblivousness since he's the pov character) that she was pretty, much
less so good-looking that even Blaise Zabini acknowledges it, and
she's supposedly funny, yet her remarks and antics didn't amuse me at
all, not arousing so much as a chuckle or a grin. (I don't always like
Fred and George, either, but at least they sometimes get genuinely
funny lines. "Even "Shut up, Weatherby" made me laugh out loud, I
suppose because it caught me by surprise and really put Percy in his
place). 

Unlike some people, I do buy Ron's explanation that her shyness in the
early books is not her real personality, but I actually prefer her
shyness to the brazen instant Quidditch star we get in HBP (and OoP? I
need to reread that book). And I realize that brother-sister bickering
is normal and that Ron is being hypocritical in criticizing Ginny for
public snogging when he does the same thing himself, but in a school
like Hogwarts that seems to have a double standard, I think her
conduct is unwise at the very least. (The same is true for Lavender,
who is probably earning herself a reputation as "easy." Forgive me,
but it's the WW that still uses the term "scarlet woman," not me.) And
what is with her "hard, blazing" looks? What does that even mean?
Also, she calls Sectumsempra, which it doesn't take a genius to
identify as Dark magic, "something good," and when Hermione criticizes
Harry for using it (and IMO, he was really foolish to try out a spell
markde "for enemies" without even knowing what it did or looking up
the Latin roots to discover that it means "cut always"), Ginny jumps
on the weakest part of Hermione's argument (that using SS keeps him
from playing Quidditch) with a scornful remark about Hermione's
ignorance of Quidditch. Maybe Ginny realizes that she's in the wrong
but won't admit it or maybe she actually believes that Harry's use of
a Dark Curse was justified; either way, she's wrong in my book. Rather
than justifying her own position or answering Hermione's objections
rationally, she hits back with a low blow (an ad hominem, or should
that be ad feminem, attack). In DH, she knows that Harry has broken up
with her, yet she lures him to her room for a birthday snog (I don't
think she was actually seducing him; after all, she's just short of
sixteen, legally and emotionally a child, almost certainly a virgin
since this is ostensibly a kids' book, and not stupid enough to get
herself pregnant or sophisticated enough, I hope, to know any
contraceptive spells), possibly in hopes that he'll want her to come
along with him and his best friends on their secret mission despite
his expressed wish to keep Voldemort from using her against him (and
to keep her safe). She ought to be more grateful and considerate, but,
yes, she's fifteen and those sentiments don't come easy at that age, I
realize. Which doesn't make me like her any better. I'm very glad she
wasn't along to distract Harry from his Horcruxes. 

All in all, I know that I'm supposed to think that Ginny is wonderful,
the perfect future wife for Harry, but she rubs me the wrong way. But.
then, so does Lavender, her brother's first girlfriend. 

Carol, who forgot to include Lav Lav on her list of annoying characters




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 22:14:47 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:14:47 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fj9s8n+jlhp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179656

> Siriusly Snapey Susan:

> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> 
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a 
character 
> that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck 
out 
> of you, just ANNOYED?

a_svirn:
Oh, that's easy. Dumbledore. He's much more than annoying obviously, 
but annoying too, especially in HBP. Vain, obfuscating, striking 
attitudes. And worst of all this ridiculous affectation, his 
minauderie. "This flighty mistress, adventure", "Time makes fools of 
us again" ? grr. 

On the other hand, from at least GoF onwards I've been feeling 
annoyed with Rowling because of her portrayal of Muggles. Not just 
the Dursleys, but also the Prime Minister as well. 

Montavilla47:
Aragog was pretty annoying, too.

a_svirn:
But he sort of made up for it. His funeral was a rather jolly affair. 





From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Dec  7 02:28:06 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 21:28:06 -0500
Subject: Harry good looking?   Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affect children? )
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAtWDJgojqokqCl1gN95t1lgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179657

I think that anyone who says that is influenced by the movies.  Dan R. was,
admittedly, a cute kid, and has grown up to be a rather handsome young man.  But
Harry is described as scrawny and pale, with having hair that won't stay in
place no matter how much he combs and brushes it, with clothing that doesn't
quite fit, and a scar; he's physically awkward (except on a broomstick).  Also,
notice how almost every time we see a boy or young man from Harry's POV if he is
at all handsome, he is stated to be so; IMHO, this is because Harry is aware
that he ISN'T a Cute Boy by any means.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man.  Other forms of
transport grow daily more nightmarish.  Only the bicycle remains pure in
heart."--Iris Murdoch



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Dec  7 03:03:27 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:03:27 -0000
Subject: Harry good looking?   Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affect children? )
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAtWDJgojqokqCl1gN95t1lgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <fjad5v+if9v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179658

Bruce:
> I think that anyone who says that is influenced by the movies.  Dan 
R. was,
> admittedly, a cute kid, and has grown up to be a rather handsome 
young man.  But
> Harry is described as scrawny and pale, with having hair that won't 
stay in
> place no matter how much he combs and brushes it, with clothing 
that doesn't
> quite fit, and a scar; he's physically awkward (except on a 
broomstick).  Also,
> notice how almost every time we see a boy or young man from Harry's 
POV if he is
> at all handsome, he is stated to be so; IMHO, this is because Harry 
is aware
> that he ISN'T a Cute Boy by any means.

Magpie:
I am not influenced by the movies, as I've hardly seen any of them, 
and I'm not thinking of Dan Radcliffe, whom I don't find attractive, 
fwiw. Yes, I think that canonically Harry's a cute boy. He's not 
Sirius or Tom or Cedric who are supposed to be pretty boys, but yes, 
I think he's conventionally attractive.

If Harry is actually supposed to have a problem in the looks 
department--which I don't think he is, since being scrawny and pale 
at 11 is not the last word on Harry at 17, he's chased all over the 
place. He's living the life of an attractive person--and I think he 
is objectively one and not funny looking at all. 

-m




From mnxi_par at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 04:42:38 2007
From: mnxi_par at yahoo.com (mnxi_par)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:42:38 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9q5m+3pmo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjaivu+pjp0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179659

> Renee:
>
> #3 Lily, but this is mainly because of the dissonance between how
> Rowling wants us to see her, and how she comes across to me.
Flirting
> with a bully who humiliates a boy who considers you his friend?
>Not Done.

Being best friend with a person who calls you friends mudblood?? NOT
Done! THAT was the problem *I* had with lily.
And so could not see her the author wanted me to see her.

mnxi_par



From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au  Fri Dec  7 05:25:48 2007
From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 21:25:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Harry good looking? Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affect children? )
Message-ID: <487729.61261.qm@web59113.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179660

Bruce:
<SNIP>
> Harry is described as scrawny and pale, with having hair that 
> won't stay in place no matter how much he combs and brushes 
> it, with clothing that doesn't quite fit, and a scar; he's 
> physically awkward (except on a broomstick).
<SNIP>

Magpie:
<SNIP>I think that canonically Harry's a cute boy. He's not 
Sirius or Tom or Cedric who are supposed to be pretty boys, 
but yes, I think he's conventionally attractive.
<SNIP>

wrappedinharry:
I think Harry must grow up to at least be a reasonably attractive 
young man as Hermione says that he is quite fanciable in HBP after 
he has grown about 5 inches over the summer. Also, I do not think 
girls like Romilda Vane would be quite so interested in him if he 
at least did not have something going for him in the looks department. 

As far as messy hair goes, what's the big deal. Kids deliberately 
make their hair messy these days, and as far as being scrawny goes, 
how many young boys in particular look gangly and skinny and then 
grow into their arms and legs? And where in canon does it imply 
that Harry is quite awkward?



From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca  Fri Dec  7 06:48:27 2007
From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 06:48:27 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9nab+2753@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjaqbr+piis@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179661

> Carol wrote:
> > with Ginny as the champion nerve grater in the
> > last three (mostly OoP and HBP).

Shaunette now:
I have to agree, Ginny was BY FAR the most annoying character
after GoF. I'll leave the details to Carol and simply say that
I couldn't stand a darn thing about her... she was utterly
contrived and action-hero-y and bleeeh.

Shaunette, too annoyed to say more :P



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Dec  7 11:29:57 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 11:29:57 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjbarl+oa9i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179662

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> 
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a character 
> that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged the heck out 
> of you, just ANNOYED?
> 
> I admit that those which had originally annoyed me no longer did by 
> the end.  
> 
> * Colin Creevey, of course, who was written to annoy us as he annoyed 
> Harry, I do believe...
> 
> * Dobby, who *had* bugged me in the earlier books, but whose death 
> moved me much more than I ever would have guessed it could have...
> 
> * Luna Lovegood, who seriously annoyed me in OotP but who began to 
> grow on me in HBP and on whose side I definitely was by DH...
> 
> 
> So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any characters 
> who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered you, 
> really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :)
> 
> Do tell, if you've got one!
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan

Geoff:
Personally, I would name the Weasley women - Molly and Ginny. I 
think I have said previously that I think Ginny exhibits traits which 
she may have picked up from her mother.

I know that Molly is very protective of her family - both natural and 
"adopted" but I do see her as something of a control freak. Arthur 
seems to come across as being seriously henpecked and she tries to 
dominate what the younger family members and people like Harry 
and Hermione do. I am always irritated by the way in which she tries 
to dictate to Harry what he can and cannot know and do - especially 
in OOTP. Here we have the guy who is supposed to be the one to save
 the Wizarding World and who surely has a right to know what is going 
on being shut out from the information which could be vital for him 
and any attempt by others to reveal this information is greeted with 
her opposition.

Speaking personally, I was sorry that JKR put Harry and Ginny together 
in the epilogue; I really don't see them as a match. perhaps I am wrong 
but I have always visualised the potential for them becoming another 
Arthur/Molly combination althoughI think Harry would be more prepared 
to stand his ground than Arthur does. I just see her as a Molly Mark 2, 
prepared to ride roughshod over other people to get her own way.





From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 12:24:35 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 04:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC* - Ginny
In-Reply-To: <fj9q1r+5esb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <368805.75140.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179663

sistermagpie <sistermagpie at earthlink.net> wrote:                               > Carol wrote:
 > > with Ginny as the champion nerve grater in the
 > > last three (mostly OoP and HBP).
 > 
 > Pippin Fowler asks:
 > Carol, could you elaborate on that please? I ask because Ginny never 
 > bothered me once in any way, and I'm just surprised to see her 
 > mentioned among the MAC attacks.
 
 Magpie:
<<<<large snip>>>>
I liked her before her "Look how awesome she's been all the 
 time!" revelation, but OotP and HBP Ginny went beyond annoying for me  
 into hateful Mary Sue please push her out a window territory. When I 
 try to think of her and Harry being married I mostly just imagine all 
 the other parents trying to avoid dealing with them. 

 -m


***Katie: Lol! I also find Ginny annoying...but I did from the first book. I never liked her "I'm so shy around Harry" crap, and then in CoS, I was like, how dumb is this girl? I did not share DD's sympathy for her being hoodwinked by LV...I just thought she was kind of a dope. And her personality was very vanilla to me...I never saw much personality in her at all. She was definitely the least vivid of the major characters, IMO. 

And then her turn-around to being the "best girl ever", as Magpie said, was super-duper annoying. I never saw much in Ginny, to be honest. She wasn't wickedly smart like Hermione, or kind like Molly, or even superficially funny like Tonks...she just bored me. And the constant shoving of her delightfulness down my throat was what got really annoying. She just wasn't delightful! She was kind of nothing - the only remarkable thing about her was that she was apparently beautiful...but I never envisioned her that way. I always saw her as a small Molly...kind of freckley and dumpy. 

 Anyway, that's why I find her annoying.  





       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Dec  7 13:37:18 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 06:37:18 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry good looking?   Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affect children? )
References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAtWDJgojqokqCl1gN95t1lgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <002401c838d6$4a5b3fb0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179664

> Bruce Alan Wilson
>I think that anyone who says that is influenced by the movies.  Dan R. was,
> admittedly, a cute kid, and has grown up to be a rather handsome young 
> man.  But
> Harry is described as scrawny and pale, with having hair that won't stay 
> in
> place no matter how much he combs and brushes it, with clothing that 
> doesn't
> quite fit, and a scar; he's physically awkward (except on a broomstick). 
> Also,
> notice how almost every time we see a boy or young man from Harry's POV if 
> he is
> at all handsome, he is stated to be so; IMHO, this is because Harry is 
> aware
> that he ISN'T a Cute Boy by any means.

Shelley now:
But, isn't cute really in the eye of the beholder? I married a guy who was 
an utter twig when he was in high school- 6'2" tall and weighted only 126 
pounds! He wasn't the best of looking, didn't have girls swooning over him, 
and yet I found him very attractive. It doesn't matter your flaws, if your 
personality is good, people are going to be attracted to you. IMHO, Harry 
had a LOT of things that would attract girls to him, such as being a 
TriWizard champion, no? He had a lot of events that keep bringing him up to 
the forefront of the crowd, a lot of things that would make girls reconsider 
him. Quidditch team Seeker <swoon> -not exactly what people would consider 
to be someone to be ignored. His personality was good- he was sensitive and 
kind. And what you consider as a flaw- hair that won't stay in place no 
matter how much he combs and brushes it- can often be seen by girls as a 
boy's cutest trait.




From salilouisa at googlemail.com  Fri Dec  7 16:20:15 2007
From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (salilouisa)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:20:15 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9o1d+2a9t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjbrrv+m5b8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179665

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47"
<montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23@> wrote:

*MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
 
 So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any characters 
 who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered you, 
 really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :)
 
 Montavilla47:

I think that for me, the most consistently annoying person was Tonks.
 
I didn't care for that clumsy act, the "wotcher" catchphrase, or the 
metamorphmagus talent that NEVER GOT USED!
 
After reading OotP--a story in which she contributed nothing but 
extra verbiage, I couldn't help thinking of her as the "Poochie" of
the HP series.  

Sali:
I have to agree about Tonks. She was just so completely and utterly
superfluous. The only point I can see to her being in existence there
was to give Harry anything remotely resembling a reason for refusing
Lupin's help in DH. And how on earth did someone that clumsy become an
Auror in the first place? Every time she tripped, I cringed. I wanted
a young, adult female remotely near the centre of the plot and I got
Tonks. Teach me to be careful what I wish for.

Sali





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec  7 16:23:09 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:23:09 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjbs1d+8oal@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179666

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:

> 
> So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any characters 
> who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered you, 
> really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :)
> 
> Do tell, if you've got one!
> 

Pippin:
The Chest Monster from HBP. Although thinking about it as a character
rather than a metaphor actually helps, it still seems contrived. It's the
only thing I don't like about H/G.

Pippin




From riyo at verizon.net  Fri Dec  7 16:28:43 2007
From: riyo at verizon.net (tiiana)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:28:43 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC*
Message-ID: <28969834.16098241197044923953.JavaMail.root@vms229.mailsrvcs.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179667

Geoff Bannister Wrote:
>
>I know that Molly is very protective of her family - both natural and 
>"adopted" but I do see her as something of a control freak. <SNIP>
Tiiana replied:

I have to wholeheartedly agree with you. I love Molly dearly. The way she handled herself in the fight with Bellatrix and all that. Very protective of her family indeed. More women should be that way. Not only do I admire her for that, I'm very annoyed of her protectiveness. She doesn't understand the fact that she has to let her babies go. And stop butting into everyone else's affairs. Advice is good, but unwarranted advice is not and she gives a lot of that. A WHOLE lot!


~~~tiiana -<--{@



From fuji_syusuke94 at yahoo.com.my  Fri Dec  7 16:38:18 2007
From: fuji_syusuke94 at yahoo.com.my (fuji_syusuke94)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:38:18 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fjbs1d+8oal@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjbstq+8d2p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179668

I do have a character which annoyed me so much... the character is you
know, Cho Chang because she seems like she's not serious when with
Harry and she's keep talking about Cedric Diggory that she loves so
much... but I do like the part when Harry kiss Ron's sister... it was
sooo sweet and romantic too...

fuji_syusuke94





From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 16:50:47 2007
From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:50:47 -0000
Subject: Harry good looking?   Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affec
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAtWDJgojqokqCl1gN95t1lgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <fjbtl7+j0si@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179669

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson"
<bawilson at ...> wrote:
> But Harry is described as scrawny and pale, with having
> hair that won't stay in place no matter how much he combs
> and brushes it, with clothing that doesn't quite fit, and
> a scar; he's physically awkward (except on a broomstick).


That's to be expected after ten years of living with the
Dursleys. I'm sure he got considerably more attractive when
he went to Hogwarts. Playing sports and eating properly
would have put some weight on him and improved his colouring
and make him less awkward physically.

Coriandra





From fuji_syusuke94 at yahoo.com.my  Fri Dec  7 16:48:00 2007
From: fuji_syusuke94 at yahoo.com.my (fuji_syusuke94)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:48:00 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <28969834.16098241197044923953.JavaMail.root@vms229.mailsrvcs.net>
Message-ID: <fjbtg0+e5f0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179670

<snip>
> Tiiana replied:
> <snip> Very protective of her family indeed. Not only
> do I admire her for that, I'm very annoyed of her
> protectiveness. She doesn't understand the fact that
> she has to let her babies go. And stop butting into
> everyone else's affairs. Advice is good, but unwarranted
> advice is not and she gives a lot of that. A WHOLE lot!


fuji_syusuke94:
She's just trying to protect her family, that's all... I
know sometimes she can be very annoying...





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Dec  7 18:02:32 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:02:32 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC*
References: <fjbs1d+8oal@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002e01c838fb$572db860$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179671

>> So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any characters
>> who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered you,
>> really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :)
>>
>> Do tell, if you've got one!
>>
>
> Pippin:
> The Chest Monster from HBP. Although thinking about it as a character
> rather than a metaphor actually helps, it still seems contrived. It's the
> only thing I don't like about H/G.

Shelley:

YES, YES that chest monster! I know she was trying to keep the book PG and 
all, but please. We all know that "something else" rises to the occasion 
when a boy really thinks about a girl. (I still remember telling a guy that 
I liked him and he immediately excused himself- he ran to the bathroom, 
thinking that everyone could see "it". The guy later became my husband, and 
told me the real story, but at the time he thought he would die of 
embarrassment.) I know a wet dream or two would have probably not been out 
of the ordinary, either. Maybe it was Rowling's way of trying to "keep it 
clean" while getting the point across that Harry was growing up? 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec  7 18:09:43 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:09:43 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fj79hv+u7i5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjc297+47qt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179672


> > Pippin: 

> > 
> > "Nobody has to be perfect."
> 
> a_svirn:
> Is that how you understand tolerance? Funny, I always thought it is 
> something else altogether. I thought it is about showing patience and 
> understanding towards different (!) customs, cultures, religions and 
> opinions. In short, something opposite to bigotry.

Pippin:
I don't disagree. 
But you're talking about the what, I'm talking about the why.

"What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed
of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - 
that is the first law of nature."--Voltaire 

A_svirn
And there is nothing in either DH per se, or in the epilogue that suggests 
that  this is the moral of the series. 

Pippin:
DH is the book in which we must either abandon Harry's and more
especially Dumbledore's characterization as a "good guy" or  else  
alter our perception of what it means to be good in ways that most 
of us would find unacceptable. I think most of us agree that torturing 
a criminal is not good, neither is slavery or treating people as 
puppets or your allies with disdain.  In a perfect world those 
things would not happen, and in a classic fantasy tale,  if the 
good guys engaged in them it would be to their everlasting regret. 

Most authors use the fantasy genre to make comments on the real
world. JKR uses it to make comments on the fantasy genre itself, IMO.
Dividing the world into good guys and bad guys is shown to  make 
good entertainment and bad politics. The way we think about bad
guys is exactly the way we think when we succumb to prejudice
in the real world: They can't ever be as good as Us. 

But right from the beginning, the longing for the perfect is shown to 
be the enemy of the good. "Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, 
Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, 
thank you very much."

 Of course we soon find out things are not perfect at Privet Drive.
The house is an abode of misery even before Harry arrives, because 
in the Dursleys' minds there cannot be a finer boy than Dudley, though 
even a casual observer can tell that Dudley isn't a fine boy at all. 

The Dursleys don't tolerate Dudley's imperfections because as far as
they're concerned he hasn't got any. And, not being able to tolerate
Dudley, of course they can't tolerate a child as different and difficult
as Harry either.  

A_svirn, 
Young Al doesn't have to be perfect, 
but if he makes a right choice (as he surely will) he won't be put 
into Slytherin with the cull lumber, but will be sorted together with 
other good guys to Gryffindor. 

Pippin:

Harry who told the Hat it was wrong to think he would have done well in
Slytherin, tells Albus that Slytherin would make him an excellent wizard.
That's a change. 

How exactly are the Slytherins being culled? They go to the same
school, work for the same bosses, marry into the same gene pool
and wind up in the same afterlife. It's not like no one will play
Quidditch with them. And as they've won the Quidditch cup
seven times in a row, it's not because they're such patsies either.
 

A_svirn:
 Elves are still slaves and that's exactly how 
 everyone likes it.  Goblins are really as bad as they are painted. 

Pippin:

We have no information at all on the status of House Elves in the epilogue.
Goblins deserve their reputation for cruel deeds and double-dealing.
So do wizards. C'est la vie. 

A_svirn:
> Tolerance, huh? And speaking of names, why is one of the more morally 
> dubious characters actually called Xenophilius?  

Pippin:
Xenophilia and tolerance aren't the same thing. The xenophile
can tolerate xenophobia in people of a different culture and be 
completely intolerant of it in his own.

> 
> 
> > Pippin:
> <snip> But there's a bigger point -- you can't negotiate with a 
> > fanatic. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> And what is to be done with a fanatic, though? You can't negotiate, 
> you can hardly afford being tolerant
 As per canon there is only one 
> way ? to have your own way come hell and high water. Practical? Yes. 
> Tolerant? Not particularly. 

Pippin:
I agree Harry did not display tolerance. 

But Harry is not the moral arbiter of the Potterverse and by DH we
are no longer supposed to think he is, IMO. Of course he has his
uncritical admirers, just as Dumbledore did. But  He is not a saint
by his author's own admission and his way is not necessarily the 
right one. Harry did not get his own way in any event -- his
plan to keep the sword did not work. That's significant. 

Harry was showing a very Dumbledore-ian insistence on keeping
to his plan though he knew it was ethically dubious and there
were other choices, such as using the basilisk fangs.

I don't think by the end of the story we're supposed to see that
as a good thing. 


> > Pippin:
> > Neville saved goblin as well as wizarding lives by killing Nagini: 
> > should the world be deprived of a beautiful and useful thing 
> > because in the minds of a few fanatics it never should have been 
> > made? 
> 
> a_svirn:
> You know, this view on ownership may be just as unorthodox as that of 
> the Goblins'. I would have thought that from purely human perspective 
> it doesn't matter who saved whom. This is a rather straightforward 
> busyness: if the sword is mine it's mine. Nobody can deprive me of it 
> simply because they used it to perform a heroic dead. Unless, of 
> course, I agree to sell it or to bestow it as a gift. 

Pippin:
Since when is it  unorthodox that  property can be commandeered in
an emergency?  But I agree that the sword determines who can use it. 

Arthur's comment is a sort of shorthand, I think --the issue is not 
where the brains are kept but that if you can't see where the brains
are kept you probably don't know where they came from either. 
I suppose that the brains in the sword came from Gryffindor, and
unless you are alleging that *they* belong to Goblins, I don't see
how we can call the sword entirely goblin-made.

Pippin




From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 18:50:45 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:50:45 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <002e01c838fb$572db860$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fjc4m5+pug8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179673

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma"
<k12listmomma at ...> wrote:
>
> >> So, I'm just curious for the rest of you.  Were there any characters
> >> who truly annoyed you?  I don't mean disappointed you or angered you,
> >> really.  I mean ANNOYED you. :)
> >>
> >> Do tell, if you've got one!
> >>
> >
> > Pippin:
> > The Chest Monster from HBP. Although thinking about it as a character
> > rather than a metaphor actually helps, it still seems contrived.
It's the
> > only thing I don't like about H/G.
> 
> Shelley:
> 
> YES, YES that chest monster! I know she was trying to keep the book
PG and 
> all, but please. We all know that "something else" rises to the
occasion 
> when a boy really thinks about a girl. (I still remember telling a
guy that 
> I liked him and he immediately excused himself- he ran to the bathroom, 
> thinking that everyone could see "it". The guy later became my
husband, and 
> told me the real story, but at the time he thought he would die of 
> embarrassment.) I know a wet dream or two would have probably not
been out 
> of the ordinary, either. Maybe it was Rowling's way of trying to
"keep it 
> clean" while getting the point across that Harry was growing up?
>


***Katie: 

I could not agree more! I am sure she was trying to keep a PG rating
on that, but it was an awful phrase...somehow it seemed grosser than a
wet dream would have! I also really hated all the awkward desriptions
of Harry's dreams about Ginny...come on. When you're 16 or 17, you are
not dreaming about kissing and that's it! It would have been better to
just leave it out, IMO. 


Or maybe if she's not picked a specific phrase...if she'd just said
something like, "Harry's feelings for Ginny tightened his chest..." I
don't know! But I did cringe every time I read "chest monster". Ick. 


Katie 




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Fri Dec  7 18:57:31 2007
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:57:31 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9mn6+802o@eGroups.com>
References: <fj9mn6+802o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1332202123.20071207105731@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179674

Strange as it may sound, I think my "MAC" is HBP-DH!Tonks.

I loved her in OoP -- She was established as a sassy, fun-loving
young gal in the spirit of Moliere's maids, Jellia Jamb from the Oz
books, and Lexie from "Monarch of the Glen".  She was the one
character Jo provided for male young adult readers to develop a crush
on. :)

But then in HBP and DH Jo decided to make her into this tragic figure
with an obsession with a man who, as Alla pointed out, has so many
"issues" of his own.  Like Molly, I think Bill/Tonks would have worked
out much better.  As it is, her obsession for Lupin caused her to
abandon her baby and get herself killed in the Battle of Hogwarts.
I know some may respond to Tonks' fate by saying "War is hell", or
words to that effect, but I just don't see the point in sacrificing
such an initially lovable character (an 11th-hour decision on Jo's
part apparently), just to create a fleeting contrast between
orphan!Harry and orphan!Teddy.  It annoyed me no end.


Dave


P.S. I've so far only watched the first two seasons of
"Monarch of the Glen", so please don't drop any spoilers, especially
if by some chance Lexie winds up getting "Tonksed".




From blydk at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 17:31:40 2007
From: blydk at yahoo.com (blydk)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:31:40 -0000
Subject: Who is your favorite Character and why?
Message-ID: <fjc01s+svd0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179675

"blydk" <blydk at yahoo.com>:

I love Ginny because at first she is so quiet and reserved, and then
she is really fiery and hot-tempered. And she (SPOILER ALERT!) marries
Harry in the last book's Epilogue, so I love that.




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Dec  7 19:38:26 2007
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:38:26 -0000
Subject: MBC**
Message-ID: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179676

**MOST BELOVED CHARACTER

I've been having fun reading responses to the MAC (Most Annoying 
Character) question and thought I'd toss out the other end of the 
spectrum for comment.  Is there a character you simply adore? one you 
couldn't get enough of, right to the end?  

I find it hard to pin down *most* beloved, myself.  

At risk of being labelled a great big shallow, schmaltzy sap, it's 
tempting to huff on my D'oH shield, polish it up to a glossy sheen, 
and say, "Why, it's HARRY, of course!"  

And while I wished Minerva McGonagall wouldn't have so quickly 
dismissed all the other Slytherin students along with Pansy from the 
Great Hall at the end of DH, I generally adored her throughout the 
series, for her fiestiness, eminent fairness, wicked wit and 
occasional touching moments.  So she's a strong candidate.

I'd almost always sit up straighter every time Fred & George were on 
page, too.  I recognize where they may have crossed a line or two (or 
three hundred), but I loved their creativity and ingenuity, their 
flare and style, and their wonderful, so-often-necessary infusion of 
humor.

So this one is a definitely a tough call.  I'm not sure I can choose 
among those four, though I suspect Harry would probably win out if a 
single choice had to be made.

Others care to play? :)

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 19:45:09 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:45:09 -0000
Subject: Harry good looking? Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affect
In-Reply-To: <487729.61261.qm@web59113.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fjc7s5+iart@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179677

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lesley McKenna
<wrappedinharry at ...> wrote:
>
> Bruce:
> <SNIP>
> > Harry is described as scrawny and pale, with having hair that 
> > won't stay in place no matter how much he combs and brushes 
> > it, with clothing that doesn't quite fit, and a scar; he's 
> > physically awkward (except on a broomstick).
> <SNIP>
> 
> Magpie:
> <SNIP>I think that canonically Harry's a cute boy. He's not 
> Sirius or Tom or Cedric who are supposed to be pretty boys, 
> but yes, I think he's conventionally attractive.
> <SNIP>
> 
> wrappedinharry:
> I think Harry must grow up to at least be a reasonably attractive 
> young man as Hermione says that he is quite fanciable in HBP after 
> he has grown about 5 inches over the summer. Also, I do not think 
> girls like Romilda Vane would be quite so interested in him if he 
> at least did not have something going for him in the looks department. 
> 
> As far as messy hair goes, what's the big deal. Kids deliberately 
> make their hair messy these days, and as far as being scrawny goes, 
> how many young boys in particular look gangly and skinny and then 
> grow into their arms and legs? And where in canon does it imply 
> that Harry is quite awkward?
>
Carol responds:

Viktor Krum is canonically skinny, hook-nosed, and duck-footed, but
the girls follow him around just as they do Cedric. It has nothing to
do with looks; it's only celebrity status. The same is true, IMO, for
Harry, who is still skinny and small for his age even at fourteen,
when he's pursued *as a prestigious date for the Yule Ball.* The
pursuit ceases, IIRC, as soon as the ball is over and doesn't resume
until HBP, when he becomes briefly "fanciable" again as a prospective
date for Slughorn's Christmas party. Only one girl is interested in
Harry, before she ever meets him, again because of his celebrity
status, and that's Ginny, for whom constant exposure to Harry as Ron's
best friend apparently persuades her that he's "fanciable" as a
boyfriend as well (though, on Hermione's advice, she pretends not to
be interested and plays the field). Another girl, Cho, a fellow
Seeker, apparently finds him attractive, but since she's pretty,
popular, and a year older than Harry, I imagine that it's primarily
his athletic ability combined with a famous scar that makes her
interested in him (rather oddly since she's also attracted to, and
dating, Harry's handsome, popular, and personable fellow TWT champion,
Cedric, also a Seeker and Quidditch champion). And neither Ginny nor
Harry ever says that Harry is physically attractive.

I'd say that he's not ugly like Viktor Krum, despite still being
skinny, wearing glasses, and having perennially messy hair, not to
mention a scar that, while being a perpetual reminder of his "victory"
over Voldemort, cannot in itself improve his looks. OTOH, he doesn't
have bad teeth like so many other characters, or a bad complexion (is
Eloise Midgen the only teenage witch/wizard who suffers from
non-Hermione-imposed acne?), or a large nose like teen Severus or
Viktor. So he's just ordinary in the looks department, and rather
small for his age throughout most of the series, perhaps a late
bloomer in terms of adolescence and growth spurts. (Fleur calls him a
"leetle boy" in GoF, and he doesn't seem to need a shave until he's
seventeen.) His only really attractive feature seems to be his eyes,
and even they are referred to as "Lily's eyes" rather than "beautiful
eyes." (Maybe their effect is somewhat diminished by his presumably
state-issued glasses, probably not exactly stylish or flattering.)

Not once does any character refer to him as handsome, in contrast to
Cedric. Granted, he's never referred to as ugly, either (nless we
count Polyjuiced Fleur's "I'm 'ideous"). I think that, like Ron, he's
rather ordinary in the looks department, "a midget in glasses," as Ron
teasingly calls him when Trelawney refers to his "mean stature").
True, he doesn't have red hair and freckles and isn't tall and gangly
(no doubt it's an advantage to have pajamas and robes that actually
fit you--I can identify with Ron here), and perhaps he's outgrown his
"knobbly knees," which are mentioned only in SS/PS, but even in DH,
he's still a "specky, scrawny git," as Fred teasingly calls him (DH
Am. ed. 49) and still shorter than the Twins (51), who are shorter
(and stockier) than Ron.

IMO, Harry's glasses, skinny body, "mean stature," and essential
ordinariness (with the exception of the scar and the green eyes) in
the looks department are intended to help young readers identify with
him. On the one hand, he's "just like me"; on the other, he's a
hero--or, at least, he's involved in a lot of scrapes and predicaments
which he survives with a lot of luck and the help of more talented
friends (and the ability to cast an exceptional Patronus, thanks to a
Dementor Boggart and special help from Lupin, not to mention being
exceptionally good on a broom. I'm not sure that he really qualifies
as a hero, despite courage and the perils he survives, until DH, when
he finally destroys Lord Voldemort, but that's neither here nor there
in a thread about Harry's looks.)

Harry is famous, a celebrity whose popularity waxes and wanes
according to events he's involved in and/or the publicity he receives.
No one seeks him out for his good looks. Only a few actually make
overtures of friendship, and those who do so are not hoping for his
friendship because of his looks. (Harry himself never seeks out a
friend, IIRC. He just falls in with certain people and maintains the
friendship if he likes them.)

Carol, noting that Harry's own assessment of himself is GoF is surely
accurate--no one would be seeking him out as a date for the Yule Ball
if he weren't a TWT champion--and a similar rationale applies in HBP
for Slughorn's party




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec  7 19:52:52 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:52:52 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjc8ak+7e6r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179678


> **MOST BELOVED CHARACTER

Pippin:
Snape! Snape! 

Mind you, he's not the character I would most like to *be*. I'd like to
be Hermione with that fabulous brain, or Dumbledore and
have the coolest magic. Harry has the coolest friends.

But for reading about, it's Snape. Of course.

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 20:00:56 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:00:56 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjc8po+5iq6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179679

SSSusan:
I've been having fun reading responses to the MAC (Most Annoying
Character) question and thought I'd toss out the other end of the
spectrum for comment. Is there a character you simply adore? one you
couldn't get enough of, right to the end?

I find it hard to pin down *most* beloved, myself.

At risk of being labeled a great big shallow, schmaltzy sap, it's
tempting to huff on my D'oH shield, polish it up to a glossy sheen,
and say, "Why, it's HARRY, of course!"  <SNIP>

Alla:

Yeah, baby.   You and me together. Of course Harry. I adored this kid 
since the moment he appeared on the page. First I wanted to hug him 
and make it all better for him at Dursleys, and then I cheered for 
him when he managed to escape in the new magical world and then my 
heart ached for him when he discovered the darkness of that world and 
the maniacal Voldy after him.

I was so happy when he found real friends and even happier when it 
looked that he may have a family with Sirius and all the more upset 
that it did not work out. OMG, I so desperately wished that he would 
survive and get a family at the end. YAY.

Second one is for sure Sirius ? for being able to love after twelve 
years of Azkaban, for suffering those twelve years that he was not 
supposed to, for bravery, for loyalty, for his flaws too. Definitely 
Sirius.


Then it gets harder and harder to choose. I just realized that I 
still love SO MANY characters. Love Ron for his loyalty and bravery 
and humor and with all his insecurities. Love Hermione. Absolutely 
adore Arthur and all Weasley boys.

Like Ginny for the most part, like Molly more often than not 
(although certainly want to slap her as well).

Love Neville a lot, I think he was developed very nicely through 
series, even though I do tend to agree with Mike ? I did not find 
standing up to your friends' part to be very impressive, LOL. It is 
not like they were going to kill him or anything. Big deal if you ask 
me . Now standing up to Malfoy part ? oh yes, you are worth many 
Malfoys to me Neville. Neville growing up in one of the leaders of 
the resistance ? supercool, loved very much.

I did like Moody a lot, found the mentioning of him bringing his 
enemies alive when he could to be one of the most impressive 
shorthand's characterizations ever.

I absolutely adore Fleur, and so so many others.



SSSusan:
<SNIP>
So this one is a definitely a tough call. I'm not sure I can choose
among those four, though I suspect Harry would probably win out if a
single choice had to be made.

Others care to play? :)

Alla:

Yeah, Harry and Sirius for me, but tough call indeed.





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 20:06:16 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:06:16 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjc93o+fln3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179680

> >>SSSusan:
> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> 
> I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have a         
> character that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, bugged 
> the heck out of you, just ANNOYED?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, fun question!  Okay, from almost start to finish (not PS/SS when 
my love was pretty pure and I wasn't reading too critically, but 
certainly from CoS on) Hagrid.  The "funny" drunk bit was annoying, 
and I connect him with the worst sort of "animal lover".  The kind 
that just *love* big cats and so buy a lion on the blackmarket to 
keep in their flat and then blubber and scream when the poor half-mad 
beast takes down a child and has to be put down.  Blech.  On top of 
that, he would. not. die!  Seriously, the blood-bath in DH was huge, 
and Hagrid always seemed about ready to buy it, and then JKR would 
bring him on back.  (I suspect a serious cruel streak there.  How 
else to explain that useless chapter in HBP? <g>)

But the character who *became* annoying as I read through DH... brace 
yourselves... Harry "I keep my brain in my *other* pants" Potter.  My 
God, the stupidity was just... awesome.  And frankly, it makes a good 
argument for kids being allowed to watch TV.  Even a casual watcher 
of the worst sort of drek (example: "The A-Team") could have come up 
with better plans then Harry "oh, I had a thought, no wait, wait, 
yeah, it's gone" Potter.

Betsy Hp (hanging out in a hotel lobby)




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 20:08:12 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:08:12 -0000
Subject: MAC* Ginny
In-Reply-To: <fj9nab+2753@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjc97c+89fr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179681

---  "Pippin" <1kf.lists at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol wrote:
> > with Ginny as the champion nerve grater in the last three
>> (mostly OoP and HBP).
> 
> Pippin Fowler asks:
> Carol, could you elaborate...? I ask because Ginny never 
> bothered me once in any way, and I'm just surprised to see
> her mentioned among the MAC attacks.
> 
> Pippin Fowler
>

bboyminn:

Some will ask, how can Ginny be so annoying, and I will 
respond, how can she not, look at her family, look at her
brothers.

She seems to fit into that family perfectly. I see her as a
blend of Fred, George, Percy (yes) and Ron (yes). Certainly
you can't expect her to remain the shy innocent girl of 10
years that Harry first met. 

I think what we are seeing is the transition that all young
people make as the move from being an extension of their
parents, to being their own person. 

Plus there is the whole background/foreground aspect. Back
when I was out and about on the bar/party scene, I would 
frequently see someone and become completely infatuated 
with them. But the infatuation was so overpowering that I
couldn't bring myself to comfortably talk to them. Eventually,
the infatuation and frustration would start driving me nuts,
and I would just give up, and totally write this person off
as a prospective partner. Usually the weekend after I gave
up on them, I would talk to them and we would become good
friend, or perhaps, just good friends for a night.

My point is, I understand Ginny's action very well because
I've experienced the same thing. While Ginny was obsessed
with Harry, he was impossible to talk to. As soon as she
gave up on him and moved on with her life, they started to
become closer. 

I do think Ginny is the perfect match for Harry because of
what Harry has been through, and likely what he has been
through is going to continue to affect him the rest of his
life. He needs a strong partner. He need someone whose not
going to cut him any slack and someone who is going to say
what needs to be said when it needs to be said. Though
hopefully, now that she and Harry are an item, with a little
sensitivity and compassion. 

Now, notice I never said Ginny wasn't annoying, but as a
Weasley, I see her as annoying in the way the Fred, George,
Percy, and Ron are each annoying in their own way. When
Ginny's true personality comes out, it seems to me to be
'a Weasley girl through and through'.

steve/bboyminn




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Dec  7 20:13:39 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:13:39 -0000
Subject: Harry good looking? Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affect
In-Reply-To: <fjc7s5+iart@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjc9hj+959v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179682

Carol: 
> I'd say that he's not ugly like Viktor Krum, despite still being
> skinny, wearing glasses, and having perennially messy hair, not to
> mention a scar that, while being a perpetual reminder of 
his "victory"
> over Voldemort, cannot in itself improve his looks. OTOH, he 
doesn't
> have bad teeth like so many other characters, or a bad complexion 
(is
> Eloise Midgen the only teenage witch/wizard who suffers from
> non-Hermione-imposed acne?), or a large nose like teen Severus or
> Viktor. So he's just ordinary in the looks department, and rather
> small for his age throughout most of the series, perhaps a late
> bloomer in terms of adolescence and growth spurts. 

Magpie:
Exactly. His looks are fine. Which I think can easily make him a 
cute boy--especially since we're told he looks exactly like his 
father, who was also attractive (and knew his hair helped out with 
that), only with his mother's dreamy green eyes--she was 
exceptionally attractive. James, too, wasn't as handsome as Sirius 
but he was attractive and he knew it. He's not primarily about his 
looks, but he's not disadvantaged in them either. I can't imagine 
Cho or Ginny would have reason to actually say to his face they 
thought he was dreamy, but I think they in DH they're both finding 
him physically attractive--Ginny does focus on those green eyes 
early on, at least.

Carol:
> IMO, Harry's glasses, skinny body, "mean stature," and essential
> ordinariness (with the exception of the scar and the green eyes) in
> the looks department are intended to help young readers identify 
with
> him. 

Magpie:
Me too. He's more attractive to the reader if he's not "too 
attractive." But I think JKR also thinks he's absolutely handsome. 
We know already she gave him looks based on her own personal tastes 
for handsome, don't we? That's why she married a guy who looks just 
like him. I don't think there's anything that JKR would consider it 
really embarassing to lack that Harry lacks. He doesn't have to be a 
pretty boy like Tom or Sirius, but when it comes time to be sexually 
available I don't think she'd let him be unattractive any more than 
she can bring herself to let him lose at Quidditch. No one seeks him 
out for his good looks, but nobody's got a problem with them either. 
So by HBP he is, like Cedric, the dishiest boy in school, despite 
whatever modeling contract he'd lose in favor of Blaise Zabini. He's 
not, imo, an ugly boy getting dates because he's famous, he's a 
basically good-looking boy who's famous, and that makes him more 
attractive than Blaise, who might be immediately more physically 
arresting, and also still more attractive than young Severus Snape.

-m




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 20:20:23 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:20:23 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjc9u7+h4n2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179683

> >>SSSusan:
> **MOST BELOVED CHARACTER
> 
> I've been having fun reading responses to the MAC (Most Annoying 
> Character) question and thought I'd toss out the other end of the 
> spectrum for comment.  Is there a character you simply adore? one   
> you couldn't get enough of, right to the end?  
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
This one is, in one way, harder, because there were few characters I 
cared at all about by the end.  However... in a sense it's easier 
because there was a small, tiny fraction of characters that I wanted 
to rescue from that dark and brutal world the wizards had created: 
The Malfoys.  They were, of course, as shallow and as lame as only 
Slytherins can be, and Draco crossed the line from high-strung right 
into biggest wuss in the history of wusses, but it's hard for me to 
completely throw-out the promise shown in scenes from other books.  
His grit and determination, etc.  Plus, the love that family has for 
each other was actually made cannon, oddly enough.  So I feel like 
there's still some core there to be worked with.  Sort of.  If I 
squint. <g>

Snape, unfortunately...  God, he was so horribly abused, and my heart 
aches for him suffering under Dumbledore for so long.  But I kind of 
feel like he'd be harder to rescue in that I don't think he *wanted* 
to be rescued.  I think his death *was* his rescue as far as he was 
concerned.  Which is incredibly sad, but there it is. ::sigh::

Betsy Hp (still in the lobby)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 20:26:11 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:26:11 -0000
Subject: Etymology of Xenophilius (Was: Philosophy of Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <fjc297+47qt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjca93+dn4v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179684

A_svirn wrote:
> > <snip> And speaking of names, why is one of the more morally 
dubious characters actually called Xenophilius? <snip> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Xenophilia and tolerance aren't the same thing. The xenophile can
tolerate xenophobia in people of a different culture and be 
completely intolerant of it in his own. <snip>
> 
Carol responds:

"Xeno" can mean "strange" as well as "foreign." (To the ancient
Greeks, they were essentially the same concept.) We see no evidence of
Xenophilius loving (or hating) foreign customs or people;
consequently, his name seems to have no connection with xenophilia. He
does, however, have a very marked love of the strange, in the sense of
odd or unusual or eccentric. (His most evident characteristic, before
we even meet him, is belief in what most other wizards reject, a trait
that he passes on to his daughter.) I don't think that Xenophilius's
"dubious morality" (he's faced with a choice between his daughter's
life and Harry Potter's, a quandary most of us wouldn't want to be in)
has anything to do with his name. OTOH, his belief in Crumple-Horned
Snorkacks and the benefits of Gnome bites and his strange idea of how
Rowena Ravenclaw's tiara must have looked mark him as very much a
lover of the strange. 

Similarly, Luna's name links her with lunacy (as well as it's supposed
cause, the moon). However, Luna, despite her strangeness, is
indisputably a good character, unlike her more ambiguous father, who
seems to be a basically good but weak man whose love for his daughter
is stronger than his principles (and with whose predicament the Trio
sympathize, despite the danger he placed them in). "Lovegood" may or
may not be ironic in Xeno's case, but I think we can take it literally
in Luna's. And we meet her before we meet him, so maybe the last name,
which alliterates with her first like that of so many other
characters, was chosen with her in mind--a loony but good character.
But Xenophilius, that eccentric believer in the weird and improbable,
is summed up by his first name: lover of the strange.

Carol, who expected Hermione's skepticism about some oddity to be
overturned by Luna and instead got Xeno being closer to right than
Hermione about the Hallows






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec  7 20:53:38 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:53:38 -0000
Subject: Luna's critters was Re: Etymology of Xenophilius (Was: Philosophy of Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <fjca93+dn4v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjcbsi+slr9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179685

> Carol, who expected Hermione's skepticism about some oddity to be
> overturned by Luna <snip>
>

Pippin:
I think this happened, although Luna and Hermione may never know:

"What are heliopaths?" asked Neville, looking blank.
"They're spirits of fire," said Luna, her protuberant eyes widening so
that she looked madder than ever. "Great tall flaming creatures that
gallop across the ground burning everything in front of--"

"They don't exist, Neville," said Hermione tartly.

"Oh yes they do!" said Luna angrily.

"I'm sorry, but where's the *proof* of that?" snapped Hermione 
(emphasis canon.)

"There are plenty of eye-witness accounts, just because you're so
narrow-minded you need to have everything shoved under your nose
before you--" --OOP ch 16

Compare DH:

"As they turned the corner the flames chased them as though they 
were alive, sentient, intent on killing them. Now the fire was mutating, 
forming a gigantic pack of fiery beasts:
Flaming serpents, chimaeras, and dragons rose and fell and rose
again, and the detritus of centuries on which they were feeding
was thrown up in the air into their fanged mouths, tossed high on
clawed feet, before being consumed by the inferno. " --DH ch 31

Pippin
who always had a sneaking suspicion that heliopaths would turn
up before the end




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Fri Dec  7 22:26:07 2007
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:26:07 -0000
Subject: FILK: Silver Doe
Message-ID: <fjch9v+4ie2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179686

Silver Doe (DH, Chap. 19)

To the tune of Silver Bells

THE SCENE: The Forest of Dean. SNAPE'S Patronus to the rescue!

HARRY:
It's a snorefest in the forest
Way out here in the wilds 
Not so much as 
A creature is stirring

Then a bright glow, such a light show
Oh so gentle and mild 
By this oddly familiar deer 

Silver doe, silver doe,
Though it's unknown whose Patronus 
See the deer disappear  
But shows me Gryffindor's Sword 

SNAPE:
Though he is dead,
Dumbledore said, 
"Under valor and need
Is how Gryffindor's Sword 
Must be taken." 

In the pond drop
Just as Ron stops 
By to do his good deed 
And to help end Lord Voldy's career.

Silver doe, silver doe,
Once the Patronus of Lily.
Though it's weak, I'm a geek 
When it comes to Lily E.

   -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm
A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Dec  7 22:42:10 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:42:10 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjci82+3ms9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179687

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> **MOST BELOVED CHARACTER

> I find it hard to pin down *most* beloved, myself.  
> 
> At risk of being labelled a great big shallow, schmaltzy sap, it's 
> tempting to huff on my D'oH shield, polish it up to a glossy sheen, 
> and say, "Why, it's HARRY, of course!"  
> Others care to play? :)
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan

Geoff:
Throw me another duster, Susan, and I'll help you with your polishing.
:-)

Beloved is perhaps not quite the right word - people might start 
misinterpreting my motives(!). But Harry is a person with whom I 
identify so much. Putting it politely, I was in the slim category in 
my teens. I'm still considered reasonably shapely for my advanced 
years, having no middle-aged spread and having kept the same 
weight since I was seventeen. I probably had the same sort of worries 
as Harry; my hair - when I had more - was also untameable and I 
had a similar experience to Harry's in GOF in taking a young lady 
to a ball when I was a bit old than he was. But I recognise the feeling 
of impeding doom that he had at that event.

Secondly, although I don't often agree with Betsy, I do have a sneaking
liking for Draco. I would so much have liked some sort of rapprochement 
between them at the end. I know the enmity was needed for dramatic 
tension but I felt that they both lost out because of that darned refused 
handshake in PS. If it had come to pass, there have been some interesting 
stories written over the years about friends who find themselves on the 
opposite sides of such a situation such as we have in the HP books.

Geoff
I'm quite discombobulated by the MBC title. To me it means Minehead 
Baptist Church, where I am a member....




From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 23:10:07 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:10:07 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjcjsf+rfku@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179688

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> **MOST BELOVED CHARACTER
> 
> I've been having fun reading responses to the MAC (Most Annoying 
> Character) question and thought I'd toss out the other end of the 
> spectrum for comment.  Is there a character you simply adore? one you 
> couldn't get enough of, right to the end?  


<<big snip>>


***Katie:

Well, I know she's not the most popular chick around here these
days...but Hermione was my soul-sister right up until the end. I
always felt such a kinship with her. I know the pain of enjoying
school, liking being intelligent, and still wanting to be normal,
break rules, and have fun. I spent a lot of high school killing myself
with work during the week and then being...ahem...less than rule
abiding on the weekends.


Hermione just was me. I sympathized with her liberal (if bossy and
uninformed) political views, and I appreciated her loyalty to her
friends and her (usually) reasonable behavior in the face of Harry and
Ron's often unhinged behavior. I loved her burning love for Ron, which
she herself didn't really understand, and I enjoyed watching her
friendship with Harry grow and deepen over the years.


I just always felt Hermione would have been one of my best friends. 


I also always enjoyed Neville. Unlike Hagrid, whose bumbling got on my
nerves, I always found Neville endearing. He always had a quiet,
simmering bravery, even from SS/PS. Watching Neville's confidence grow
and his bravery and heroism blossom, I felt really proud of him. His
moment in DH with Nagini is bar none my favorite moment in that book.
I sobbed like a baby reading it, because I felt I had just seen
Neville truly grow into himself as an adult. I never had a bad moment
with Neville. His scenes are always among my favorites in each book. 


It's hard to narrow it down, but Hermione and Neville definitely top
the list. Katie 




From s.hayes at qut.edu.au  Fri Dec  7 23:45:56 2007
From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 09:45:56 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjci82+3ms9@eGroups.com>
References: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>,<fjci82+3ms9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED242@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 179689

Seriously Snapey Susan:
> I find it hard to pin down *most* beloved, myself.
>
> At risk of being labelled a great big shallow, schmaltzy sap, it's
> tempting to huff on my D'oH shield, polish it up to a glossy sheen,
> and say, "Why, it's HARRY, of course!"
> Others care to play? :)


Geoff:
Throw me another duster, Susan, and I'll help you with your polishing.
:-)

Beloved is perhaps not quite the right word - people might start
misinterpreting my motives(!). But Harry is a person with whom I
identify so much. <SNIP>

Sharon:
Harry is my favourite as well, although I find him a bit dim at times! I love his angst in the later books, as well as his courage. I don't identofy with him though - - for me he is more like the kind of guy I would adore if I were his age :-)  Kind of nerdy and gawky, but brave and honest and angsty and human, and with loads of potential ;-)

Geoff:
Secondly, although I don't often agree with Betsy, I do have a sneaking
liking for Draco. I would so much have liked some sort of rapprochement
between them at the end. I know the enmity was needed for dramatic
tension but I felt that they both lost out because of that darned refused
handshake in PS. If it had come to pass, there have been some interesting
stories written over the years about friends who find themselves on the
opposite sides of such a situation such as we have in the HP books.

Sharon:
Ah yes, Draco is the character I adore the most.  He is so snarky and mean,  but is just trying to cover his insecurities. I also wish Harry would have taken his hand in PS.  He didn't need to ignore Ron to shake that hand, he could have shaken it and then still said, well it's nice to meet you but I don't want to take sides this early in the piece.  Mind you, he was just 11, and what 11 year-old boy would have the maturity to have that kind of attitude?  Oh well, we can only wish. Draco is quite a complex character, he has a lot of bravado but is quite weak in some aspects, such as physical pain-- He's such a baby when Buckbeak scratches him, for example.  He's also nasty becuase he doesn't know how else to be. After all, he learned from the best. Having Lucious as a father, he never really had a chance at being a nice normal kid.  But I think his character really started to come out in HBP, when he really started to show his weaknesses, his fear and apprehension.  His inability to kill DD shows some strength of character, even though others might perceive it as weakness. I believe that shows he has a heart quite different from his father's, but he can't quite bring himself to take up DD's offer. How could he? Snape interrupts and drags him off to Morty after he kills DD.  Again, Draco never stood a chance of crossing to the good side or reconciling with Harry.

I think Harry understands Draco's pain in DH. He knows that Draco is being forced to torture people and that it's very hard from him. Draco also tries to not identify Harry at the mansion, and doesn't try to hex him in the RoR later.  I do wish they'd had some post-Morty-being-offed contact in the Great Hall. Some acknowledgement, or something.  We do get that in the Epilogue though, and that was almost good enough for me. So Draco is really my favourite, I feel his pain, and like to think that he turned out alright in the end.

Sharon,  who also adores Snape, and thinks that maybe deep down she identifies with the mean characters because they are so misunderstood.



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 00:16:03 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:16:03 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjcno3+3sr2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179690

SSSusan:
>
> **MOST BELOVED CHARACTER
> 
> I've been having fun reading responses to the MAC (Most Annoying 
> Character) question and thought I'd toss out the other end of the 
> spectrum for comment.  Is there a character you simply adore? one you 
> couldn't get enough of, right to the end?  

zgirnius:
Sure. Easy one for me, as I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn: 
Severus Snape. 

I always enjoyed his forbidding, sarcastic persona as a demanding and 
harsh teacher. And when we started getting hints of a dark past and 
involvement in spying...sigh. Definitely a character I could not get 
enough of, with a compelling mystery about him which ended in, to me, a 
a satisfying resolution in Book 7.

Honorable mention goes to Hermione Granger. Nerdy, insecure, and most 
loyal friend of Harry, with a touching,m if not always well-directed, 
concern for the underdog. I always found her sympathetic, even when she 
wasn't being all that nice (attacking Ron in HBP, e. g.).






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 01:32:08 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:32:08 -0000
Subject: Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)
In-Reply-To: <fjc297+47qt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjcs6o+jpih@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179691

> > a_svirn:
> > Is that how you understand tolerance? Funny, I always thought it 
is 
> > something else altogether. I thought it is about showing patience 
and 
> > understanding towards different (!) customs, cultures, religions 
and 
> > opinions. In short, something opposite to bigotry.
> 
> Pippin:
> I don't disagree. 
> But you're talking about the what, I'm talking about the why.

a_svirn:
Not really. Your take is that tolerance is about having patience with 
those who aren't perfect. (And who is? It is either you are tolerant, 
or you can only keep your own company. Always assuming that you 
yourself are perfect.) My take is that tolerance is about having 
patience with someone(s) who isn't like yourself. Who is different. 

> Pippin:
> Most authors use the fantasy genre to make comments on the real
> world. JKR uses it to make comments on the fantasy genre itself, 
IMO.
> Dividing the world into good guys and bad guys is shown to  make 
> good entertainment and bad politics. The way we think about bad
> guys is exactly the way we think when we succumb to prejudice
> in the real world: They can't ever be as good as Us. 

a_svirn:
And again you are talking about tolerating frailties and 
imperfections, rather than otherness. 

> Pippin:
> But right from the beginning, the longing for the perfect is shown 
to 
> be the enemy of the good. "Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, 
> Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, 
> thank you very much."

a_svirn:
Exactly. Right from the beginning we are told that Mr and Mrs. 
Dursley are bigots. Which is a bad thing, and suggests, naturally, 
that the books are very anti-bigot in their outlook. But the more we 
read, the more we see that even the best of the good guys are just as 
bigoted when it comes to Muggles, as the Dursleys when it comes to 
wizards. With the only exception of Arthur Weasley whom even his own 
family think extremely eccentric. 

> Pippin:
 > The Dursleys don't tolerate Dudley's imperfections because as far 
as
> they're concerned he hasn't got any. And, not being able to tolerate
> Dudley, of course they can't tolerate a child as different and 
difficult
> as Harry either.  

a_svirn:
You've lost me there. The Dursleys are able to tolerate just about 
anything about Dudley. As for Harry, they are unable tolerate him 
because he is *different*. Perfection doesn't come into it. 


> Pippin:
> 
> Harry who told the Hat it was wrong to think he would have done 
well in
> Slytherin, tells Albus that Slytherin would make him an excellent 
wizard.
> That's a change. 

a_svirn:
No. He says that Slytherin would get an excellent wizard. Because 
Albus Severus Potter is already a good person, and cannot really be 
anything but a good wizard. And we know, and Harry knows, and Al is 
reassured, that because he's good and, (and also because he's a 
Potter), he won't end up in Slytherin. 

> Pippin:
> How exactly are the Slytherins being culled? They go to the same
> school, work for the same bosses, marry into the same gene pool
> and wind up in the same afterlife. It's not like no one will play
> Quidditch with them. And as they've won the Quidditch cup
> seven times in a row, it's not because they're such patsies either.

a_svirn:
They look much worse for wear than Griffindors in the same afterlife, 
though. And they do not marry into the same gene-pool: they 
intermarry between themselves. Which, of course, serves them right. 
Also, throughout the series they have worked for a very different 
boss. Now that he's gone they will have to find some other situation, 
apparently, but they aren't happy about it. Very tolerant from all 
the other wizards to allow Slytherins into the same school. Then 
again, what else is to be done with them? Send eleven-year-olds to 
Azkaban? That would be genocide, not just intolerance. 
 
> Pippin:
> 
> We have no information at all on the status of House Elves in the 
epilogue.

a_svirn:
Oh, come now. If there had been any changes, they would have been 
mentioned. 

> Pippin:
> Goblins deserve their reputation for cruel deeds and double-dealing.
> So do wizards. C'est la vie. 

a_svirn:
Yeah, that's life alright. It seems that Voltaire got it wrong when 
he named tolerance the first law of nature. 

> Pippin:
> Xenophilia and tolerance aren't the same thing. The xenophile
> can tolerate xenophobia in people of a different culture and be 
> completely intolerant of it in his own.

a_svirn:
A xenophile is someone who is fond of "otherness". Therefore someone 
opposite to a bigot. It would appear, however, that from Rowling's 
point of view a complete lack of bigotry is not much better than the 
surfeit of it. 

> Pippin:
> I agree Harry did not display tolerance. 
> 
> But Harry is not the moral arbiter of the Potterverse and by DH we
> are no longer supposed to think he is, IMO. Of course he has his
> uncritical admirers, just as Dumbledore did. But  He is not a saint
> by his author's own admission and his way is not necessarily the 
> right one. Harry did not get his own way in any event -- his
> plan to keep the sword did not work. That's significant. 

a_svirn:
And in the end the sword found its way to a worthy Gryffindor. That's 
also significant. And there is another thing of no small 
significance: the sword is the only heirloom that has survived. Both 
the Hat and the sword belonged to Gryffindor, all the other houses' 
artefacts have not survived. That says us something about the 
symbolic hierarchy in Hogwarts. 

> Pippin:
> Since when is it  unorthodox that  property can be commandeered in
> an emergency?  

a_svirn:
Oh, so that's what the Gryffindors have been doing throughout the 
centuries? Commandeered it in emergences? Naturally only ignorant and 
fanatical Golblins can't tell the difference 
between `stealing', `seizing' or `pinching' and `commandeering'. Any 
sensitive reader would know that a Gryffindor doesn't steal. 
Therefore he commandeers. 

> Pippin:
But I agree that the sword determines who can use it. 
> 
> Arthur's comment is a sort of shorthand, I think --the issue is not 
> where the brains are kept but that if you can't see where the brains
> are kept you probably don't know where they came from either. 
> I suppose that the brains in the sword came from Gryffindor, and
> unless you are alleging that *they* belong to Goblins, I don't see
> how we can call the sword entirely goblin-made.

a_svirn:
I don't allege anything. That's what it's said in canon. The sword 
was forged by Goblins ? that's how we know that it got straightened 
with the Basilisk's venom. And why do you think that the brains come 
from Gryffindor? Gryffindors can be irresistible for non-Gryffindors 
as well. 




From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Sat Dec  8 01:16:44 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 01:16:44 -0000
Subject: Harry good-looking?
In-Reply-To: <fjc7s5+iart@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjcr9s+qlmd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179692

What I remember most throughout the series, with regard to Harry's 
appearance, is that several people said Harry looked very much like 
his father, James, except that Harry had Lily's eyes.

"Harry stopped in front of the desk and gazed down at his fifteen-
year-old father.
"Excitement exploded in the pit of his stomach: It was as tough he 
was looking at himself but with deliberate mistakes. James's eyes 
were hazel, his nose was slightly longer than Harry's, and there was 
no scar on his forehead, but they had the same thin face, same mouth, 
same eyebrows. James's hair stuck up at the back exactly as Harry's 
did, his hands could have been Harry's, and Harry could tell that 
when James stood up, they would be within an inch of each other's 
heights."

"It was one of the girls from the lake edge. She had thick, dark red 
hair that fell to her shoulders and startlingly green almond-shaped 
eyes--Harry's eyes."

(OotP Snape's Worst Memory)

I have the impression that Harry becomes as good-looking as his 
parents, but that it doesn't come across in canon because the remarks 
come from Harry's own point of view. His social comfort and 
appearance were severely marked by the Dursleys, and it took years at 
Hogwarts for Harry to develop any self-esteem about potential 
attractiveness to women.

And, though it's not from canon, there is this quote attributed to 
JKR at http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-bostonglobe-
loer.html --

Do you know what Harry's parents look like?

"Yes. I've even drawn a picture of how they look. Harry has his 
father and mother's good looks. But he has his mother's eyes and 
that's very important in a future book."

Pippin Fowler




From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Sat Dec  8 03:06:15 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:06:15 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDC5ED242@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>
Message-ID: <fjd1n7+bfke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179693

My Most Beloved Character is Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, 
for all the reasons Draco Malfoy couldn't kill him, and for all the 
reasons Severus Snape could.

Pippin Fowler




From AllieS426 at aol.com  Sat Dec  8 03:57:01 2007
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:57:01 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fjbrrv+m5b8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjd4md+c7go@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179694

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salilouisa" <salilouisa at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  Montavilla47:
> 
> I think that for me, the most consistently annoying person was 
Tonks.
>  
> I didn't care for that clumsy act, the "wotcher" catchphrase, or 
the 
> metamorphmagus talent that NEVER GOT USED!

> Sali:
> I have to agree about Tonks. She was just so completely and utterly
> superfluous. The only point I can see to her being in existence 
there
> was to give Harry anything remotely resembling a reason for 
refusing
> Lupin's help in DH. And how on earth did someone that clumsy 
become an
> Auror in the first place? Every time she tripped, I cringed. I 
wanted
> a young, adult female remotely near the centre of the plot and I 
got
> Tonks. Teach me to be careful what I wish for.


Allie:

I third this one!!  Add the fact that she had no idea that her 
husband was completely miserable.  Add the fact that she abandoned 
her baby to go running after her completely miserable husband.  Add 
the fact that as soon as Harry told her where he'd seen Lupin last 
during the battle of Hogwarts, she abandoned everything else and ran 
off the find him.  Annoying!!!! 






From gatesreaver at comcast.net  Sat Dec  8 02:29:12 2007
From: gatesreaver at comcast.net (thetrojanvabbit)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:29:12 -0000
Subject: a trivial insertion
In-Reply-To: <fj26ls+evr9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjcvho+abaa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179695

Pippin Fowler <1kf.lists at ...> wrote:
> [raising hand with attitude of Hermione]
> If Harry Potter is HP, why isn't Albus Dumbledore AD rather
> than DD in this forum?

thetrojanvabbit:

"AD" could be Aberforth, but everyone knows who you're talking
about when you say "DD".  Although most people tend to refer to
him as "'Forth", or "Goat Boy".

thetrojanvabbit



From bartl at sprynet.com  Sat Dec  8 04:45:25 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:45:25 -0500
Subject: Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <fjc7s5+iart@eGroups.com>
References: <fjc7s5+iart@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <475A2165.2090702@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179696

Carol wrote:
> Viktor Krum is canonically skinny, hook-nosed, and duck-footed, but
> the girls follow him around just as they do Cedric. It has nothing to
> do with looks; it's only celebrity status. 

Bart:
	Actually, Viktor Krum seemed like a pretty nice guy, but I never did 
take a shine to him; he just seemed a bit on the slow side for someone 
who was supposed to be champion of a school.

	So, everybody, is there any character from the books who you WANTED to 
like, but, for some reason, just couldn't?

	Bart



From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 04:46:43 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:46:43 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjd7jj+9clt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179697

> Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote:
>
> **MOST BELOVED CHARACTER
> 
> Is there a character you simply adore? one you 
> couldn't get enough of, right to the end? 

Mike:
At the risk of being called an Alla clone, my two favorites are 
the same as hers, Harry and Sirius. Harry is the guy I cared about.
He's why I read the series. I wanted him to succeed, I wanted him
to get the girl (as awkward as he was and as JKR wrote it), and most 
of all, I wanted him to live. I cared about Harry more than I cared 
about all the other characters combined.

But "beloved", I save that for Sirius (no, not in that way <g>). I 
loved that he was slightly arrogant but fiercely loyal. That he 
would rather die than sell out his friends. I even loved his cocky, 
devil-may-care attitude as a youth. And I don't care what the *real* 
reason was that he broke out of Azkaban, he didn't belong in there 
in the first place. Just the fact that he did it was amazing enough. 
And if he was slightly off kilter after 12 years around those 
horrors, I forgive him his excesses. That he could still care about 
Harry, try his damnedest to protect Harry and be the best friend and 
Godfather to Harry that he could be, spoke volumes to me.

When Sirius went througth the veil I felt exactly like Harry did. I 
wanted Harry to kill Bella right then and there, with an AK if he 
could muster the strength. I was enraged that she got away. (OK, I 
got that one off my chest).

One last point in my defense of Sirius:
I agree with his assessment of Snape regarding the werewolf 
prank, "served him right". It seems quite obvious to me that Sev 
knew Lupin was a werewolf and that Sev also knew that Lupin's 
condition was known by the staff, since he had seen the school nurse 
take Lupin out to the WW. And since Snape was keeping track of full 
moon nights, whose fault was it that dearest Sev decided to pick one 
of those nights to try to confirm his suspicions? 

Besides, Snape doesn't like the Marauders getting away with their 
nighttime escapades, so he breaks those same rules himself to try to 
catch them. The only thing Sirius contributed AFAIK is how to get 
past the WW. But in doing that Sev was breaking the same rules that 
he was trying to catch the Marauders doing. All so he could gather 
proof of what "Potter and his mates get up to" for Lily. So yeah, 
Snape's not on some moral high ground here, imo. He did deserve it!



> SSSusan:
> I'd almost always sit up straighter every time Fred & George 
> were on page, too.  I recognize where they may have crossed a 
> line or two (or three hundred), but I loved their creativity 
> and ingenuity, their flare and style, and their wonderful, 
> so-often-necessary infusion of humor.

Mike:
I always enjoyed the twins. I admit the ton-tongue taffy trick on 
Dudley had me worried, but other than that, I loved their humor. 
Who will ever forget "Give her hell from us, Peaves" or "Shut up, 
Weatherby"? Like you said, Susan, much needed humor, especially in 
the dark times of OotP. They just don't rise to the level of beloved,
for me.





From yvaine28 at gmail.com  Sat Dec  8 04:57:43 2007
From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:57:43 +0800
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
Message-ID: <5d7223330712072057l36172756t933a0fc71410b725@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179698

 J.K. Rowling updated her website and posted some interesting tidbits about
*Deathly Hallows*.

- The core of the Elder Wand is the tail hair of a thestral, a substance
that can be mastered only by someone capable of facing death.

- What exactly happened when Voldemort used the Avada Kedavra on Harry in
the forest?
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=122

- What was the mutilated baby-like creature Harry saw in the "King's Cross"
chapter?
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=121

- Dudley did not have any wizard offspring, but he and Harry remained on
"Christmas Card terms" with each other.
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=26

Ms. Rowling also announced that the documentary "J.K. Rowling: A Year in the
Life", which has footage of her working on Deathly Hallows and during her
US/Canada tour, will air December 30 on ITV in the U.K.

---*Meann


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au  Sat Dec  8 06:59:06 2007
From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 22:59:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC*
Message-ID: <801478.61864.qm@web59108.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179699

> Montavilla47:
 
> I think that for me, the most consistently annoying person was 
> Tonks.

> I didn't care for that clumsy act, the "wotcher" catchphrase, 
> or the metamorphmagus talent that NEVER GOT USED!

> Sali:
> I have to agree about Tonks. She was just so completely and 
> utterly superfluous. The only point I can see to her being 
> in existence there was to give Harry anything remotely 
> resembling a reason for refusing Lupin's help in DH. 
<SNIP>

Allie:
I third this one!! Add the fact that she had no idea that 
her husband was completely miserable. Add the fact that she 
abandoned her baby to go running after her completely miserable 
husband. Add the fact that as soon as Harry told her where he'd 
seen Lupin last during the battle of Hogwarts, she abandoned 
everything else and ran off the find him. Annoying!!!! 

Lesley:
Sorry, but I like Tonks. She was worried about her husband and 
wanted to help him. She was not concerned for her baby at the 
time because she knew he was in good hands. Of course, she would 
not have been thinking about dying, just being with her husband.
The character that really annoyed me at times was Hermione. Don't 
get me wrong, I love her character and my admiration for her 
loyalty to Harry is wonderful. I love their relationship and 
I am glad Harry told Ron that he loved her as a sister because 
that is what I have always thought their relationship most 
resembled. Brother and sister.

But saying all that, it annoys me that she does not learn from 
her mistakes. She was so certain that Harry had to be wrong 
about Malfoy being a DE in HBP. It turned out she was So wrong.
So, after that mistake, she is convinced that Harry is wrong 
about the Elder Wand in DH, and once again she is wrong. She 
cannot conceive that Harry can ever be right. Even DD says to 
trust Harry, his instincts are good, but Hermione does not 
think Harry can ever be right.

And I do know that on most occasions, as far as Ron and Harry 
go, she is right. I know without her, they would both be lost. 
But both Harry and Ron have their place in the makeup of the 
trio too.

It also irritates me when she goes on like a fishwife when 
Harry begins to get his visions again. I know she was scared 
but screaming at him like a shrew was not the way to go. 

And so saying all of that, I do love Hermione in general and 
I love the H/R pairing. I thought that was in the works since 
about POA.



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 15:18:14 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:18:14 -0000
Subject: Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <475A2165.2090702@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <fjecjm+9nfj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179700

> Bart:
> 	Actually, Viktor Krum seemed like a pretty nice guy, but I 
never did 
> take a shine to him; he just seemed a bit on the slow side for 
someone 
> who was supposed to be champion of a school.
> 
> 	So, everybody, is there any character from the books who you 
WANTED to 
> like, but, for some reason, just couldn't?
> 


Alla:

Hmmm, the character I wanted to like but could not like **at all**? 
If it is so, then funnily I do not think such characters exist. I 
mean, if I want to like character, that means I find in them 
something likable already and will like that quality at least, if 
not the whole character, you know?


Now, if what you are asking is whether there is a character that I 
wanted to like **more** than I did, then sure such characters exist.


First one is Hagrid, I think. I never hated him or anything, I 
thought he was very nice guy, Harry's first friend, etc, but he 
always seemed a little blah to me. I thought author wanted me to 
like him more, but I just could not.

Second one is Lupin. I liked him fine, but I always wanted to like 
him as much as I like Sirius and James, but I just could not. I 
could not like him more because he never bothered to visit Harry 
(Sirius was in Azkaban, what excuse did HE have?), I could not like 
him more because he just took Snape's abuse in PoA and did nothing 
to hit back, I wanted him to be stronger. And again, yes I know why 
he could not, know all his issues and more, but at the same time it 
prevented me from liking him more than I wanted to.

Hmmmm, on the first glance that is it.

But again I realise that I may be not answering your question 
correctly, since I do not have characters that I wanted to like and 
could not like **at all**, I only have characters that I wanted to 
like **more** than I did.

Alla




From gatesreaver at comcast.net  Sat Dec  8 13:35:13 2007
From: gatesreaver at comcast.net (thetrojanvabbit)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 13:35:13 -0000
Subject: Help! Quotes
In-Reply-To: <fiuk0h+qlve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fje6ih+7qd0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179701

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jelly92784" <jelly92784 at ...> wrote:

I wanted a quote that epitomized Fred
> and George too!
>
> Any ideas?!

Mischief Managed.

gatesreaver



From rvink7 at hotmail.com  Sat Dec  8 15:50:51 2007
From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 15:50:51 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjeegr+a7vh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179702

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> **MOST BELOVED CHARACTER
> 
> I've been having fun reading responses to the MAC (Most Annoying 
> Character) question and thought I'd toss out the other end of the 
> spectrum for comment.  Is there a character you simply adore? one you 
> couldn't get enough of, right to the end?  
> 

Renee:
I love seriously flawed characters (merely calling them flawed isn't
enough, as very few characters in the HP series are flawless). Lupin's
one of them, as is Regulus Black, but they're both eclipsed by Snape
and DH Dumbledore. If I have to choose between these two (not that I
really want to), my vote would go to Dumbledore.
  




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sat Dec  8 15:44:35 2007
From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:44:35 EST
Subject: MAC
Message-ID: <cb8.1f45e5db.348c15e3@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179703

> > Carol wrote:
> > > with Ginny as the champion  nerve  grater in the
> > > last three (mostly OoP and  HBP).
>  >
> > Pippin Fowler asks:
> > Carol,  could you elaborate on  that please? I ask
because  Ginny
never
> > bothered me once in any  way, and I'm  just
surprised to see her
> > mentioned among the MAC   attacks.
>
> Magpie:
> Really? She'd certainly be on my  list  for OotP and
HBP--and I know
I'
> not alone there.  SNIP

> In DH she calmed down a bit and became the  
waiting-at-home-as-a-
reward-
> when-the-war's-over girlfriend,  which  was a huge
improvement I
> thought. I liked her before her  "Look how  awesome
she's been all
the
> time!" revelation, but  OotP and HBP Ginny  went
beyond annoying for
me
> into hateful 
 
SNIP
I
> try to think of her and Harry being  married I
mostly  just imagine
all
> the other parents trying to avoid  dealing  with
them.
>
> -m
>

Huh...

How   interesting....
I liked Ginny a lot. How can you characterize her  as
the  "waiting at
home girlfriend" when she organized resistance  at
Hogwarts,  showed up
at Hogwarts for the final battle, resisted  being shut
up in the  Room
of Requirement, and then is dueling  Bellatrix
Lestrange? She  also
ends up on a professional Quidditch  team -- and Harry
is an  Auror?
I'd love to hang out with   them....

Susan












From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Sat Dec  8 16:10:36 2007
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:10:36 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fj792g+pmgi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjefls+tikj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179704

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:

<massive snip> 
> Yeah, I know. It would be a different book altogether. But 
somehow, I
> sense that secrecy is a bad thing in JKR's universe (unless you're
> keeping secrets from the enemy). We can see in the epilogue that 
Harry
> is giving his children information that was kept from him, whether
> it's that Slytherins can be admirable or that Thestrals are 
nothing to
> fear. If we examine all the suppressed information and distortions 
of
> the truth that shape Harry's perceptions throughout the books, it
> seems that a half-truth is as good (or rather, as bad) as a lie, 
as is
> well-intentioned misinformation. Unless, of course, you're Snape
> keeping secrets from Voldemort.


Marianne:

I think you're on to something. Secrecy does seem to be something of 
a negative thing. Or, at least, it can lead to negative results. 

I'll add a few more to Carol's list.  MWPP never tell DD about being 
Animagi. Granted, they'd have been admitting to breaking the law, 
but rule bending of all sorts takes place throughout the series, and 
the good guys seem to be excused more often than not of that 
behavior.  Would DD have made use of WPP's abilities somehow in the 
first fight against Vmort?  And, staying with these guys, how 
different would it have been had the Secret Keeper switch been 
shared with one or two more people?  

I still have the feeling that DD being secretive about things (or 
selective about what he tells and who he tells it to) is also 
excused. Granted, part of that is crucial to how JKR has structured 
her plot, but sometimes I wanted to smack DD upside the head.

Marianne







From Schlobin at aol.com  Sat Dec  8 15:46:12 2007
From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:46:12 EST
Subject: MAC
Message-ID: <c2f.23ed11c9.348c1644@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179705

Shelley:
> > YES, YES that chest monster! I know  she  was
trying to keep the
book
> PG and
> > all, but   please. We all know that "something
else" rises to the
>  occasion
> > when a boy really thinks about a girl. (I  still
remember telling
a
> guy that

SNIP
 
. Maybe it was Rowling's
way of trying  to
> "keep it
>  > clean" while getting the point across that  Harry
was growing  up?
> >
>
>
> ***Katie:
>
> I could not  agree more! I am sure she was trying to
keep a PG
rating
> on that,  but it was an awful phrase...somehow it
seemed  grosser
than  a
> wet dream would have! I also really hated all the  
awkward
desriptions
> of Harry's dreams about Ginny...come on. When  
you're 16 or 17, you
are
> not dreaming about kissing and that's  it!  It would
have been better
to
> just leave it out,  IMO.
>
>
> Or maybe if she's not picked a specific  phrase...if
she'd just  said
> something like, "Harry's feelings  for Ginny
tightened his  chest..."
I
> don't know! But I did  cringe every time I read
"chest   monster".
Ick.
>
>
> Katie
>

Well, I   think it depends on your experience. There
was a time when
explicit  sexual  information was not available...and
dreams tended to
be about  what one knew  about...so I don't think that
dreaming just
about  kissing is  unrealistic....particularly in JKR's
world, which is
not  ours...

MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER...

Unquestionably, the most  annoying  character would
have to be Ron
Weasley.

With Lav Lav  coming in a  close second.

He has no manners. Look at the way he  behaves at the
Yule  Ball. EVERY
SINGLE TIME we watch the movie, I  remind my children
NEVER to  behave
as Ron (and Harry) did at the  Yule Ball. One must
ALWAYS be polite
and dance with one's date. (Ychhh).  He is so totally
and completely
whiny and self-centered.
The whole  thing in the Goblet of Fire is  disgusting.
He abandons
Harry and  totally gives way to jealousy. He acts  like
a ten year old
in the  Deathly Hallows.
Why Hermione EVER gave him a  second glance is  TOTALLY
beyond me...

Definitely Grawp is stupid, and   irrelevant.....and
found the
Hagrid/Grawp subplot  stupid.

Susan









From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Sat Dec  8 16:36:35 2007
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:36:35 -0000
Subject: Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <475A2165.2090702@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <fjeh6j+qj5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179706

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol wrote:
> > Viktor Krum is canonically skinny, hook-nosed, and duck-footed, 
but
> > the girls follow him around just as they do Cedric. It has 
nothing to
> > do with looks; it's only celebrity status. 
> 
> Bart:
> 	Actually, Viktor Krum seemed like a pretty nice guy, but I 
never did 
> take a shine to him; he just seemed a bit on the slow side for 
someone 
> who was supposed to be champion of a school.
> 
> 	So, everybody, is there any character from the books who you 
WANTED to 
> like, but, for some reason, just couldn't?


Marianne:

Maybe it's more of a "I liked them at times and wished I could have 
liked them consistently but they do things that make me crazy!"

That would be Molly and Hermione.  Molly was obviously a very 
capable witch and loved her family to pieces.  Her hug of Harry at 
the end of GoF was a wonderful moment.  But, woe be to anyone who 
tries to undermine her mother routine, be it Sirius in OoP who 
thought his godson deserved not to be kept in the dark, or Hermione, 
who Molly was so quick to think ill of in GoF after the Skeeter 
article. 

Her fears for her family were poignantly described with the boggart 
in OoP.  I felt very much for her - how she certainly must have 
thought that the replay of Voldemort's return would bring loss to 
her, just as it did in the first war.  And, then she's rude to 
Fleur, picks at Arthur, denigrates the twins' choices, etc. So, on 
average, every time she did something I found wonderful, she'd 
undermine it with being the most annoying mother on earth.

Same for Hermione. I could identify with her as a bookish person. 
I'm sure she had a certain level of insecurity in trying to fit into 
this new world she had become part of.  I found her rational 
thoughts in the interactions with Ron and Harry to be a good balance 
to their more emotional/seat-of-their-pants ways of dealing with 
things. But, too often she seemed to be there soley to provide the 
answer the boys would never have come up with themselves. It got old 
for me.

And, I hated her being used as the voice of interpretation of other 
characters, especially given her age and experience. In HBP, her 
explanation for Tonks' general weirdness was "survivor guilt." In 
OoP, her explanation for Sirius's mood when Harry was about to leave 
for Hogwarts was that he was being both selfish and lonely. In 
neither case was she completely right, but she seemed to be self-
satisfied with her explanation, so no more thought was necessary. In 
a way it was very teenager-ly, thinking she knew it all.  But, she 
completely missed nuances in character and behavior. So, while 
sometimes I liked her, at other times she grated on me.

Marianne





From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Sat Dec  8 17:35:51 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:35:51 -0000
Subject: a trivial insertion
In-Reply-To: <fjcvho+abaa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjekln+ciub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179707

> thetrojanvabbit:
> 
> "AD" could be Aberforth, but everyone knows who you're talking
> about when you say "DD".

Pippin Fowler:

"DD" could also be Aberforth or any other Dumbledore, if one is 
thinking Dumble-Dore, which I can't seem to get my brain to do.

I continue to think "Dudley Dursley" whenever I see "DD" until a short 
struggle with the context makes the meaning clear.

Perhaps I'll start using AlD and AbD for the Dumbledore brothers.

Pippin Fowler




From graynavarre at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 17:37:57 2007
From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (graynavarre)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 17:37:57 -0000
Subject: Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <fjecjm+9nfj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjekpl+lvq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179708

>
> Alla:
>
> Hmmm, the character I wanted to like but could not like **at all**?
> If it is so, then funnily I do not think such characters exist. I
> mean, if I want to like character, that means I find in them
> something likable already and will like that quality at least, if
> not the whole character, you know?
>


I wanted to like Ron. I really did. But the character, to me, came off
as jealous and petty.

Barbara




From YasminOaks at aol.com  Sat Dec  8 15:30:00 2007
From: YasminOaks at aol.com (YasminOaks at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:30:00 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Character you wanted to like, but didn't
Message-ID: <cee.23c9eee9.348c1278@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179709

Bart:
Actually, Viktor Krum seemed like a pretty nice guy, but I never  did 
take a shine to him; he just seemed a bit on the slow side for someone  
who was supposed to be champion of a school.

So, everybody, is  there any character from the books who you WANTED to 
like, but, for some  reason, just couldn't?

Cathy:
I honestly feel that I almost knew all of the characters through JKR's  
wonderful writing. I really liked all of them with maybe the exception of  Dolores 
Umbridge. There was one character that I thought all along I would just  love, 
but after reading DH I found I didn't like her much at all. That character  
is Lily. I always felt that she would be someone I would just adore. She was  
always described as being so kind and talented. I just couldn't wait to learn  
more about her. 
 
This is just my opinion and I really wish that some of you could change it  
for me as I want so much to really like her. I found her to be a bit of a  
spoiled brat from Snape's memories in DH. It could just be that my expectations  
were so high of her. I didn't like how she acted. She seemed kind of whiny  
around her sister and well just a bit of a spoiled brat. I was disappointed with  
what I learned of her. I really felt she was going to be, well more like a 
saint  I guess. 
 
I really wish I could like her as much as I had really thought I would. I  
expected Lily to be one of my favorite characters and instead she was one of my  
least.
 
Cathy, wishing she could learn even more about Lily.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 20:23:02 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:23:02 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <5d7223330712072057l36172756t933a0fc71410b725@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fjeuf6+v56q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179710

"meann ortiz" wrote:
>
>  J.K. Rowling updated her website and posted some interesting
tidbits about *Deathly Hallows*.
> 
> - The core of the Elder Wand is the tail hair of a thestral, a
substance that can be mastered only by someone capable of facing death.
<snip>

Carol responds:

Does anyone besides me find this information less than helpful, even
possibly annoying? It isn'e in the books (we don't even know that the
wand *has* a core), and it seems to me that a number of people became
the master of the Elder Wand by seizing it or killing the previous
master without necessarily being capable of facing death. (That's what
"master of death" seems to be about, as well.) How could Draco, who
seems to be afraid (like most people) of dying have been the
(unwitting) master of the wand, and why did it work perfectly for
Voldemort (who killed loads of his own DEs with it and used it to
create Nagini's bubble) when he was more afraid of death than anyone
in the WW? I found his statement to Snape that it wasn't performing
exceptional magic for him bewildering, in any case.  If you want
someone dead and they die, isn't that sufficient? How do you perform
an exceptional AK? And what, exactly, was inadequate about Nagini's
bubble?

Carol, who prefers to believe that the Elder Wand was coreless and
that mastery of it has nothing to do with overcoming the fear of death
(if that were the case, it should have gone to Snape!)




From fuji_syusuke94 at yahoo.com.my  Sat Dec  8 16:15:16 2007
From: fuji_syusuke94 at yahoo.com.my (fuji_syusuke94)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:15:16 -0000
Subject: Harry good looking? Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affect
In-Reply-To: <487729.61261.qm@web59113.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fjefuk+n5ug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179711

Harry sure is handsome... even I think that I had fallen in love with
him... He sure is a good looking guy... I want to know more about
him... Does anyone would like to tell me about him??? Please...

fuji_syusuke94



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 20:56:26 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:56:26 -0000
Subject: Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <cee.23c9eee9.348c1278@aol.com>
Message-ID: <fjf0dq+1g0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179712

Cathy (YasminOaks) wrote:
> <snip> There was one character that I thought all along I would just
 love, but after reading DH I found I didn't like her much at all.
That character is Lily. <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree with you. I'm not sure what I expected of Lily, but from the
moment she called Severus "Snivellus" and told him to wash his
underwear, I found it difficult to like her. Admittedly, she was
provoked by his "filthy little Mudblood" remark, but surely she could
see that her attempt to help him when, in a fair fight, he'd be
perfectly able to defend himself, was humiliating to him, not to
mention that it was obvious she was flirting with James. And
Slughorn's references to her as "cheeky" didn't help. (What sort of
teacher *awards points* for cheek?) And even in the Prince's Tale, I
din't like her all that much, especially refusing to forgive Severus
when he abjectly apologized and even waited outside the Gryffindor
common room, apparently intending to sleep on the landing, until she
came out. 

Of course, I'm not being objective here because I'm a Snape fan, but I
just can't like her any more than I can like Sirius Black, who refuses
to be sorry, even in his mid-thirties, for trying to get Severus
killed. (*He* was an Animagus and perfectly safe in a werewolf's
presence, but Severus didn't know that little secret.) And Snape's
adoration of her, even though it led to his redemption, is not based
on the real Lily, as far as I can tell.

I don't think it's *just* the Snape factor. I expected something from
Lily, exactly what, I'm not sure, that I just didn't get. (Calling her
sister "Tuney" grated on my nerves, too.) Purely subjective, I realize.

I didn't answer the "most beloved character" question because anyone
who has read my posts knows the answer. (S*N*A*P*E! Severus, Severus,
Severus! Yea!)

Carol, tempted to defend Ron but resisting because this thread is
about feelings and subjective reactions, which can't be altered by
rational arguments, and one person's reactions are as valid as another's




From cottell at dublin.ie  Sat Dec  8 21:01:59 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:01:59 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjeuf6+v56q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjf0o7+e04h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179713

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Does anyone besides me find this information less than helpful, even
> possibly annoying?

Yes, I do, but not half as annoying as: "A couple of people have told
me that they hoped to see Dudley at King's Cross in the Epilogue,
accompanying a wizarding child. I must admit that it did occur to me
to do that very thing, but a short period of reflection convinced me
that any latent wizarding genes would never survive contact with Uncle
Vernon's DNA, so I didn't do it".

Please, JKR, please stop being flip like this, because it just comes
across as meanminded.  Please stop making jokes about DNA when you
don't seem to know what you're talking about.  In fact, just please stop.

And when you talk about LV's soul being a stunted, maimed baby, can't
you see that you're creating an image that's likely to trigger pity? 
"Unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath" - that's what
he always was, from the beginning, and that's how you chose to end
him.  Sauron was at least a grown-up.

Mus.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Dec  8 21:05:24 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:05:24 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjeuf6+v56q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjf0uk+rcmm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179714

> Carol responds: 

 How could Draco, who
> seems to be afraid (like most people) of dying have been the
> (unwitting) master of the wand, and why did it work perfectly for
> Voldemort (who killed loads of his own DEs with it and used it to
> create Nagini's bubble) when he was more afraid of death than anyone
> in the WW? 

Pippin:
 As JKR says elsewhere, this sort of deep magic is not 'scientific' -- 
intent and moral purpose matter. Despite Dumbledore's offer of 
sanctuary, which after all did not look very promising, Draco was 
choosing to face death when he lowered the wand. I don't know
how the wand "knows" these things. It's magic!

I couldn't find the thestral question directly from Jo's site. Here's
a link if anyone else is having that problem.

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=25

Carol:
I found his statement to Snape that it wasn't performing
> exceptional magic for him bewildering, in any case.  If you want
> someone dead and they die, isn't that sufficient? How do you perform
> an exceptional AK? And what, exactly, was inadequate about Nagini's
> bubble?

Pippin:
I've been wondering if the bubble spell would have defeated an AK.
I doubt it. I think that's what Voldemort was talking about. He would
have tested it, not on Nagini obviously. 

This has implications for Harry's decision that he won't be the one
to  kill Nagini. I think having learned that he could enjoy torture
well enough to perform the cruciatus curse, Harry was unwilling to 
find out whether he could do an AK.

Snape might have become the master of the EW if he had
decided to fight Voldemort, IMO. He does raise his wand, but
IMO chooses death rather than blow his cover, with the
risk that Voldemort will find a way to break through Snape's
occlumency once he's sure it's being used against him. 

Pippin




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 21:08:32 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:08:32 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <5d7223330712072057l36172756t933a0fc71410b725@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fjf14g+snaq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179715

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meann ortiz" <yvaine28 at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  J.K. Rowling updated her website and posted some interesting 
tidbits about
> *Deathly Hallows*.
> 
> - The core of the Elder Wand is the tail hair of a thestral, a 
substance
> that can be mastered only by someone capable of facing death.

lizzyben:

And JKR states the real theme of the series for us again: Death, 
Death, Death! Everyone's gonna die! This helps clear up the 
confusion some people have about the good/evil split in this series. 
The morality is actually not confused at all - the good guys are the 
ones who accept death, the bad guys are the ones who do not. Thus, 
Dumbledore is a good guy, no matter how many people he hurts, 
because he was capable of facing death. He actually *chose* his 
death, showing his bravery & courage (effects on Snape, Harry, 
Hogwarts aren't important). DD repeatedly says that death is just 
the next great adventure, & he might even help other people make 
that trip (Flamel, Harry, etc.) This casual treatment of life shows 
that DD is capable of facing or even embracing Death. When Harry 
faces, & even embraces, Death, this proves that he is a worthy hero, 
courageous and Good.

In contrast, Voldemort fears death so much that he creates seven 
horcruxes to avoid it. He seeks the Sorcerer's Stone, which gives 
immortal life. It is his fear of death that makes him a bad guy, 
much more than his cruelty or violence. Because fear of death is 
cowardly, unheroic and Evil. This is why Gryffindors are praised for 
recklessly rushing into danger - in doing this, they have shown that 
they are ready to face death, and thereby proved their courage & 
goodness. And this is why Slytherins are Evil - in seeking to 
achieve their own ends & cowardly running from battle, they have 
shown that they are afraid of death.

Fear of death/acceptance of death is the real split between good and 
evil in this universe. So, that's the message here - accept death. 
In JKR's interviews, she repeatedly talks about how much she thinks 
about death (daily). I simply do not get this focus. Don't most 
people accept that they're eventually going to die? Why is that the 
ultimate sign of Goodness in the Potterverse?



lizzyben


 








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 21:09:54 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:09:54 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjf0o7+e04h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjf172+nnep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179716

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" <cottell at ...> 
wrote:
><SNIP>
>> Yes, I do, but not half as annoying as: "A couple of people have 
told
> me that they hoped to see Dudley at King's Cross in the Epilogue,
> accompanying a wizarding child. I must admit that it did occur to 
me
> to do that very thing, but a short period of reflection convinced 
me
> that any latent wizarding genes would never survive contact with 
Uncle
> Vernon's DNA, so I didn't do it".
>><SNIP>

Alla:

Personally I loved this part the most. I took it as explanation of 
writing process, of why she chose to make this decision, chose this 
plot development and not another. I want to know more things like 
this.

Like why she added Hallows to the mix, what triggered it in her 
mind, etc, etc.

And whether she studied genetics or not, I found this joke to be 
very funny and spot on, even if it was scientifically completely 
wrong. Which I cannot say one way or another, since I certainly did 
not studied genetics, except very briefly during high school biology 
course and I do not remember much of it to my shame.

But any collision with uncle Veron indeed seems to harmful for 
wizarding child, so yes, I liked it a lot.

JMO,

Alla




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Dec  8 21:28:41 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:28:41 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjeuf6+v56q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjf2a9+hdkh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179717

> "meann ortiz" wrote:
> >
> >  J.K. Rowling updated her website and posted some interesting
> tidbits about *Deathly Hallows*.
> > 
> > - The core of the Elder Wand is the tail hair of a thestral, a
> substance that can be mastered only by someone capable of facing 
death.
> <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Does anyone besides me find this information less than helpful, even
> possibly annoying? It isn'e in the books (we don't even know that 
the
> wand *has* a core), and it seems to me that a number of people 
became
> the master of the Elder Wand by seizing it or killing the previous
> master without necessarily being capable of facing death. (That's 
what
> "master of death" seems to be about, as well.) How could Draco, who
> seems to be afraid (like most people) of dying have been the
> (unwitting) master of the wand, and why did it work perfectly for
> Voldemort (who killed loads of his own DEs with it and used it to
> create Nagini's bubble) when he was more afraid of death than anyone
> in the WW? 

Magpie:
That was my response--well, actually my response was kind of the 
opposite. I mean, I can't believe that JKR would say that Draco was 
the kind of wizard who was "capable of facing death," since that 
seems to be a sign of someone exceptionally heroic and I can't 
imagine Draco's heroic in JKR's view. (Though of course he has faced 
death more than once in the series.) Yet at the same time, as you 
say, he also was the master of the wand. 

I've got no problem myself describing him as capable of facing death, 
but that's because imo EVERYBODY is capable of facing death because 
we will all do it whether we choose to or not. You don't need to be 
any kind of person for it any more than you do to be born. Every 
human faces death. It's part of our condition, not a character trait. 

But then, I just don't get what the real issue is with facing death. 
This answer brings up again how obviously this subject is important, 
the idea of "facing death" with bravado or acceptance and never 
cowering of somebody's coming at you with an axe or whatever, but it 
doesn't add up to anything meaningful that I can see. Death's not 
scary, it's like falling asleep, you can see happy ghosts waiting for 
you and you've got a lot of proof of the afterlife (unlike humans 
do)...but also it's this big important thing that only Masters of 
Death are capable of facing. (Except for Merope, who lacked the 
courage to live.) Harry's been doing it since he was 11--he could 
have performed his part in the forest just as well then.

I think the core raises questions as well--it makes it seem like 
somebody made it like a regular wand.

As for the "it's not scientific so it works on faith"--that's 
definitely standard--only if it doesn't "click" then there's a 
problem with the metaphor. Most if not all of the magic in HP canon 
is obviously not thought through in great detail. Pensieves don't 
really hold up to basic logic questions any more than this stuff 
does, but that isn't a problem. There's a bit more of one, imo, when 
things need to be based on deep ancient "rules" of magic when we've 
no idea how those kinds of rules could exist since the nature of 
magic is so mundane in this world. And then there's the slight 
problem of her slipping into stuff like "genes" and "DNA" which *is* 
scientific. 

-m




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 21:37:03 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:37:03 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fjc93o+fln3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjf2pv+eh6d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179718

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>SSSusan:
> > *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER
> > 
> > I'm curious what you all think about this.  Did you have 
a         
> > character that, right up to the end, grated on your nerves, 
bugged 
> > the heck out of you, just ANNOYED?
<snip>


lizzyben:

I'm going to have to go with Ron. He started out as my favorite 
character, but wore out his welcome by about GOF. The endless 
insecurity about Harry's fame, or his own lack of Quidditch skills, 
rudeness, getting jealous about Hermione kissing Krum two years ago, 
etc. And I agree w/Luna that his humor is often cruel (especially 
towards ghosts!) He did mature quite a bit in DH & got a lot of 
points - but then he lost most of those points in the epilogue. Not 
that I think Ron's really a bad person - he's basically a typical 
teenager & they tend to be annoying! Honorable mention to Tonks. 
Just... why? Why is she even there? 

Most adored character: Neville. I loved watching him grow up & 
overcome his timidity to become a leader at Hogwarts. I really loved 
Neville's entrance to DH - he was just so, almost, thrilled to have 
the chance to finally stand up to the Carrows. I'd really loved to 
have read a book about Neville & the Hogwarts underground movement. 
Throughout the series, even if I stopped caring about the plot or 
the other characters, I always cared about Neville. To me, he and 
Luna were the saving graces of DH.


lizzyben




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 21:44:31 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:44:31 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjf0o7+e04h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjf37v+gmnl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179719

Mus:
> Please, JKR, please stop being flip like this, because it just comes
> across as meanminded.  Please stop making jokes about DNA when you
> don't seem to know what you're talking about.  In fact, just please 
stop.


lizzyben:

Seconded. It makes her sound like Aunt Marge.

> And when you talk about LV's soul being a stunted, maimed baby, can't
> you see that you're creating an image that's likely to trigger pity? 
> "Unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath" - that's what
> he always was, from the beginning, and that's how you chose to end
> him.  Sauron was at least a grown-up.
> 
> Mus.

lizzyben:

Yes, she said that she gets asked that question *a lot*. I wonder if 
she realizes why people were so bothered by that?





From clyomuseofhistory at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 20:36:22 2007
From: clyomuseofhistory at yahoo.com (Leslie Brooks)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:36:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <fjekpl+lvq8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <513956.78750.qm@web59008.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179720

> Barbara:

> I wanted to like Ron. I really did. But the character, to me, came
> off as jealous and petty.


I actually agree.  I liked the Weasley's as a whole and even liked Ron until book 7.  Then he just rubbed me the wrong way.  
   
  Ginny fans will probably hurl things at me but I don't like Ginny.  She, to me, is perfect in every possible way.  She did one wrong thing (which everybody does) but then seemed to become so perfect.  It irritates me.
   
  Leslie



From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Dec  8 23:11:24 2007
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:11:24 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <475A2165.2090702@sprynet.com>
References: <fjc7s5+iart@eGroups.com> <475A2165.2090702@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40712081511v5572d621gb51d28b8073340a0@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179721

>  Bart:
>  So, everybody, is there any character from the books who you WANTED to
>  like, but, for some reason, just couldn't?

Kemper now:
I wanted to like Sirius.  No bond develops between Harry and Sirius on
page.  They barely see each other in the entire series.  I yawned when
he fell through the veil.

Lily, too, left me feeling empty.  Well... less full anyway.  But I
absolutely adore Lily when compared to Sirius.

Kemper



From clyomuseofhistory at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 20:50:12 2007
From: clyomuseofhistory at yahoo.com (Leslie Brooks)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 12:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Who is your favorite Character and why?
In-Reply-To: <fjc01s+svd0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <251010.31598.qm@web59014.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179722

My favorite character is Minerva McGonagall.  First and foremost, in my opinion, she's awesome.  She's strict but clearly loves her students.  Stands up for what she believes in.  It's really cool.
   
  Leslie



From sherriola at gmail.com  Sat Dec  8 23:29:30 2007
From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 15:29:30 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <fjf0dq+1g0m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <475b28de.02578c0a.1a4e.ffff96d8@mx.google.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179723

Cathy (YasminOaks) wrote:
> <snip> There was one character that I thought all along I would just
 love, but after reading DH I found I didn't like her much at all.
That character is Lily. <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree with you. I'm not sure what I expected of Lily, but from the moment
she called Severus "Snivellus" and told him to wash his underwear, I found
it difficult to like her. Admittedly, she was provoked by his "filthy little
Mudblood" remark, but surely she could see that her attempt to help him
when, in a fair fight, he'd be perfectly able to defend himself, was
humiliating to him, not to mention that it was obvious she was flirting with
James. And Slughorn's references to her as "cheeky" didn't help. (What sort
of teacher *awards points* for cheek?) And even in the Prince's Tale, I
din't like her all that much, especially refusing to forgive Severus when he
abjectly apologized and even waited outside the Gryffindor common room,
apparently intending to sleep on the landing, until she came out. 



Sherry:

Oh my gosh!  Something you and I agree on, Carol!  I didn't like lily
either, not necessarily for the same reasons.  I didn't like her before DH,
but that was unfair.  I didn't like her because she was built up to be so
perfect--the "Sainted lily" was how I referred to her.  But I expected JKR
to do something to make me like her, and that didn't happen.  This example
of noble self sacrificing motherhood turned out to be almost a non character
to me in the end.  By the way, I never did like her calling Snape that name,
because two wrongs didn't make it right.  But I can understand her refusing
to forgive him later, because I don't know that I could forgive someone who
put me down for my disabilities, particularly someone I considered a friend.
Yet, Lily knew he called other muggle borns "mudblood", and she didn't put
an end to the so-called friendship, until he turned it on her.  She doesn't
seemed even to have tried to stop him or make him think about how insulting
others was also insulting her.  It wasn't happening to her, so it didn't
matter, that's how I read it.  I just came away not respecting Lily any more
than I had before and liking her even less.  Previously, it was because I,
who was raised by my father, resented the oh so perfect mother being raised
up to practical sainthood and all the fathers being torn apart--except
Arthur.  But seeing what we do of lily in DH made me just think she wasn't
necessarily all that likable, even before she became the perfect image of
motherhood.  not being a Snape fan, I felt sorry for him over the whole lily
thing.  I'm not sure she deserved the devotion of either James or Snape.

Sherry, who doesn't even think of lily as character enough even to be an
annoying character!




From klewellen at shellworld.net  Sat Dec  8 22:06:42 2007
From: klewellen at shellworld.net (Karen Lewellen)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:06:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjeuf6+v56q@eGroups.com>
References: <fjeuf6+v56q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.64.0712081705240.599@server2.shellworld.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179724

Mind if I ask where this is on JKR's site?

Just had a look and could not find the core information, likely 
under the one section I did not check, grin.

Karen




From elanor.isolda at googlemail.com  Mon Dec  3 01:24:36 2007
From: elanor.isolda at googlemail.com (Elanor Isolda)
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 01:24:36 +0000
Subject: Announcing Sectus 2009 at Bodelwyddan Castle
Message-ID: <6493bc80712021724k2a79c054h1bb721aaf99d2f6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179725


Following on the success of Sectus 2007 in London, we are pleased to present Sectus 2009, a four-day Harry Potter convention for adults. Set in a magnificent Grade II listed castle in Britain, this will be a unique event, combining a formal conference with a celebration of one of the best-loved fantasy series of all time.

Sectus 2009 will take place at Bodelwyddan Castle from June 26-29, 2009. Bodelwyddan Castle is a fully-equipped, restored castle with purpose-built rooms that feature all the modern amenities in an historic setting. In addition to having several magnificent period drawing and meeting rooms, Bodelwyddan Castle is home to the National Portrait Gallery's Victorian collection. Sectus 2009 will host a variety of on-site informal programming, including archery, scavenger hunts and evening entertainment, taking full advantage of Bodelwyddan Castle's spacious grounds and multiple on-site bars and meeting rooms.

Sectus 2009 will feature the same variety of programming that made the first event so popular - a mix of academic presentations and informal discussions of canon and fandom-related topics. At Sectus we're open to any kind of programming our attendees are interested in covering, whether it be fanfiction, shipping, character development or the series' real world applications. Let us know what you'd like to see at Sectus 2009 when you register - we want the programming to reflect what our attendees are interested in!

Sectus is an unofficial Harry Potter convention that is entirely
not-for-profit. After a very successful partnership with Book Aid
International, all proceeds of Sectus 2009 will go towards SOS Children's Villages UK, a branch of the world's largest orphans' charity, which helps homeless children, in particular those with HIV/AIDS.

Space at Sectus 2009 is limited, so register now to guarantee yourself a spot! As a special offer, those who book before the New Year will be appropriated the best rooms at the venue. Registration for Sectus is subject to terms and conditions which are available on our website.

The cost starts at ?290, which includes registration and room and board for three nights, breakfast and evening meal for each day inclusive. Rates rise to ?300 on November 1st, 2008 and then to ?310 on February 1st, 2009. Room upgrades are available ? see our website for details.

Please visit our website, http://www.sectus.org for more information on the event, registering and advertising with us. You can also drop us a line at info at sectus.org or contact me directly.

We hope to see you there!

Regards

Elanor Isolda
Conference Chair
Sectus Ltd

--
Sectus events are not endorsed, sanctioned or in any way supported, directly or indirectly, by Warner Bros. Entertainment, the Harry Potter book publishers or J.K. Rowling and her representatives.

Sectus is a trading name of Sectus Ltd, registered in England and Wales.
Registration number: 6130297
Registered Office: 11 Murray Street, London NW1 9RE



From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 01:40:02 2007
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 01:40:02 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjeuf6+v56q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjfh1i+anje@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179726

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> "meann ortiz" wrote:
> >
> >  J.K. Rowling updated her website and posted some interesting
> tidbits about *Deathly Hallows*.
> > 
> > - The core of the Elder Wand is the tail hair of a thestral, a
> substance that can be mastered only by someone capable of facing 
death.
> <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Does anyone besides me find this information less than helpful, even
> possibly annoying? It isn'e in the books (we don't even know that 
the
> wand *has* a core), and it seems to me that a number of people 
became
> the master of the Elder Wand by seizing it or killing the previous
> master without necessarily being capable of facing death.

Annemehr:

Well, now, I read this differently: I believe what JKR meant was that 
working with thestral tail hair *itself* could only be done well by 
someone "capable of facint death."  I.e. it would apply to a 
wandmaker who might use thestral tail-hair, but not necessarily to 
the wand-owner.  (I'd say it would also apply to anyone using it in a 
potion as well.)

I feel even more confident of this interpretation because it meshes 
with the fact that LV seems to have been very well bonded with his 
phoenix-feather wand, even though he has nothing in common with 
Fawkes and could never, say, call him to himself through loyalty to 
Dumbledore or the like.

If LV can master a Fawkes-feather wand, then he could have mastered 
the Elder wand as well, if he had actually ever won it from its owner.


> Carol, who prefers to believe that the Elder Wand was coreless and
> that mastery of it has nothing to do with overcoming the fear of 
death
> (if that were the case, it should have gone to Snape!)
>

Annemehr:

Coreless, huh?  The possibility never occurred to me; in fact, I was 
irritated that DH never said what the Elder core was.  I'm glad JKR 
finally said, but I wish she'd have put it in the book.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 02:13:57 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:13:57 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjfh1i+anje@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjfj15+gct5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179727

Carol earlier:
> > 
> > Does anyone besides me find this information less than helpful,
even possibly annoying? It isn't in the books (we don't even know that
the wand *has* a core), and it seems to me that a number of people 
became the master of the Elder Wand by seizing it or killing the
previous master without necessarily being capable of facing death.
> 
> Annemehr:
> 
> Well, now, I read this differently: I believe what JKR meant was
that working with thestral tail hair *itself* could only be done well
by someone "capable of facint death."  I.e. it would apply to a 
wandmaker who might use thestral tail-hair, but not necessarily to 
the wand-owner.  (I'd say it would also apply to anyone using it in a>
potion as well.)
<snip>
 
Carol again:

Okay, that makes sense. At any rate, the wandmaker would certainly
have to have *seen* death (and, per JKR with regard to Harry's not
seeing Thestrals at the end of GoF) processed or understood the
witnessed death to be able even to see the Thestrals, much less obtain
a tail hair and place it in a wand. So if it's the wandmaker the
eldest Peverell brother) rather than the master of the wand who's
"capable of facing death," I guess a Thestral hair core makes sense,
and yet, the brother who created the wand wanted it to be undefeatable
(in the legend, he was trying to *defeat* death by making himself
unkillable, which he certainly failed to do).
 
> > Carol, who prefers to believe that the Elder Wand was coreless <snip>
 
> Annemehr:
> 
> Coreless, huh?  The possibility never occurred to me; in fact, I was 
> irritated that DH never said what the Elder core was.  I'm glad JKR 
> finally said, but I wish she'd have put it in the book.

Carol:

Aside from the fact that the wood is mentioned but the core I not
specified, even by Ollivander, I thought of it as coreless because in
the legend, it's fashioned directly from the branch of an Elder tree,
no core involved. I realize, of course, that "The Tale of the three
Brothers" and the manufacture of the Hallows by the three Peverell
brothers are two different things, one legend and the other the
half-forgotten history of the objects. As in RL, the farther back an
incident occurs, the harder it is to distinguish one from the other.

Carol, suspecting that JKR never thought about the question until it
was asked and came up with an answer after the fact





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec  9 02:44:51 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:44:51 -0000
Subject: Utilitarian Dumbledore
Message-ID: <fjfkr4+7scv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179728

Pippin Foxmoth wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179496>:

<< I don't think Dumbledore is a Utilitarian. The statement
"Dumbledore would have been happier than anybody to think there was a
little more love in the world" (HBP ch 29) gives the game away.
Apparenly, that's Situational Ethics in a nutshell. (snip) Situational
ethics differs from Utilitarianism in that it recognizes Agape,
absolute unconditional unchanging love for all peoples, as the only
law. >>

I've never read up on Situational Ethics. Your description sounds like
"Love, and then do as you will", which I think was written by
Augustine of Hippo. That maxim has been called a form of
antinomianism, but it *doesn't* mean 'do whatever you want, because
you're guaranteed to be saved anyway'. It means, if you love (God, our
fellow humans, a higher good) enough, then your heart will naturally
automatically want to do good things and be repulsed by bad things. 

(By the way, how did Dumbledore become famous for pronouncements that
Love is more powerful than Dark Magic -- how did he come to believe
that Love is so powerful -- when it seems he himself barely ever felt
love before he met Harry? An infatuation with Grindelwald (whether
romantic or purely intellectual). Putting up with Doge, maybe even
showing him a bit of affection from time to time. It was Aberforth,
not Albus, who went on about what a sweet kid Arianna had been, so
just because Albus felt guilty over being the indirect and possibly
direct cause of her death isn't proof that he loved his little sister.)

But Utilitarianism was proposed by Jeremy Bentham saying that the most
ethical course of action is that which results in the greatest good
for the greatest number. As opposed to all 'absolutist' (to borrow a
word from the thread on Existentialism) systems in which one must
always follow a rule regardless of the horrible consequences, such as
Never tell a lie, even if a would-be armed murderer asks you where his
intended victim is hiding. 

[Interrupting my response to Pippin to respond to what Sharon wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179533>:

<< A deontological ethic is all about duties, rights and obligations,
and universal moral principles. >>

That's what I called 'absolutist' above. 'Deontological' is the
correct technical term but I don't understand it as a word. "Ontology"
is the area of philosophy that discusses what it means to 'be' or to
'exist', so is 'De-ontology' the study of how to stop existing?

<< For example, Immanuel Kant, famous German philosopher, claimed that
universal moral principles were "categorical imperatives" -- meaning
they apply to everyone all the time -- and the fist categorical
imperative is that we should only act as if it would be OK for
everyone to act as we are. In other words, if you can't honestly say
that it would be OK for everyone to do what you are about to do, then
you shouldn't do it because it would be unethical/immoral. >>

And I used the same example, above, that everyone uses: if it is ever
not-okay to lie, does that mean it's not okay to lie to the Gestapo
agent who asks you where Anne Frank is hiding?

[[Pippin Foxmoth offered in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179607> a version
of Hillel's statement, saying << But in theory, evil is doing to our
fellow beings that which is hateful to us, and good is learning not to
do it. >>

I find that totally non-deontological. It's not based on a set of
rules like don't hit people and always offer to share your food. It's
based on how people feel ('hateful' is a word about feelings) about
what is done to them. How people feel is a result, not a rule.
'Minimize how much you make people suffer' is not that far from
'Maximize how much you make people happy'. ]]

Back to Sharon:
<< Gryffindors are supposed to be deontological--that is, bound by
their duty to others, hence the displays of courage etc in the face of
difficult situations. (snip) So a Gryffindor, such as Harry, should
understand that there are guiding principles for his conduct, which
tell him what he should do in any particular ethical dilemma. (snip)
Now Harry doesn't always abide by this Gryffindor-ish morality. in
fact, he often takes it upon himself to break the rules for a higher
cause >>

I don't believe that 'follow the rules' is a universal moral
principle. Look at the rules instituted by the Carrows, like
practising the Cruciatis Curse on students who were in detention. 

I'm a little torn between wanting to say that 'the greatest good for
the greatest number' IS a universal moral principle, and listing
examples of what some people have said are universal moral principles:
Don't lie. Don't kill. Kill the murderers. Forgive those that harm
you. Take revenge on those that harm you. Protect people who are in
danger from people stronger than them. Help the police catch fugitives.

I'm not all convinced that Gryffindors are supposed to be
deontological, with the possible exception of 'always show courage,
even if being cautious would protect many people besides yourself,
even if running away would lead your enemy into a trap'. The rest of
'Gryffindor chivalry' (which I think was best shown by a RAVENCLAW,
Michael Corner, who rescued a first-year who was chained up by the
carrows) seems to me more a matter of taking action to achieve
chivalrous results rather than a list of rules of what actions to take. 

<< Harry (snip) often takes it upon himself to break the rules for a
higher cause, which is utilitarian thinking. (snip) Slytherins are a
paradigm of utilitarian thinking -- they do what they have to do to
achieve their ends. >>

Breaking a rule to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number
IS Utilitarian thinking (see my above comment to Pippin). Doing
something -- anything -- to achieve an end which produces more harm
(even spread among many people) than good is NOT Utilitarian thinking.
Especially if the good achieved is only good for oneself and one's
favorite few people, because self-interest (shout out to Betsy Hp!) is
one of the greatest opponents to ethical behavior. In fact, I think I
could argue that self-interest, rage, and stupidity are the *only*
opponents to ethical behavior.]

Back to my response to Pippin Foxmoth's
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179496>:

I think Lizzyben may have been *exactly* right in calling Dumbledore's
motives Utilitarian. Back in OoP, he indicated that his desire to
vanquish Voldemort was for the sake of multitudes of unspecified
people whom Voldemort would harm if able to do so, and in order to
meet that goal, he *should* be quite willing to sacrifice Harry (and,
as it happens, himself and members of the Order and even innocent
bystanders). The Life and Freedom of many people outweighing the Life
and Freedom of a few people, as well as outweighing absolutist rules
against lying to your allies and setting up an ambush of your allies.

There's nothing non-Utilitarian about saying that Remus should take on
a little extra unhappiness (an unwanted marriage) in order to give a
lot of happiness to Tonks and a little happiness to many people,
TOnks's friends who want to see her happy. My objection is not to
increasing Remus's unhappiness, but to the prediction that marrying
someone who doesn't want to marry you will result in long-term happiness.

The Bentham theory has always made sense to me, altho' I'm aware that
there are many philosophical and practical difficulties with it. One
set of difficulties is whether one person getting 150 points of
benefit really outweighs 100 people each losing 1 point of benefit --
is that really fair to those harmed? 

The question leads to the obvious practical difficulty of measuring
benefit and harm so they can be compared. Both, there are all kinds of
different benefits and harms, and also the same benefit or harm is not
worth exactly the same to each person. Which leads back to the
philosophical difficulty of *defining* benefit and harm. Which harms
you more: stating verbally that you worship Jupiter and Juno and
Minerva and Mars and the Emperor as gods, or being killed for refusing
to say it?

And when one is trying to decide what action to take, one doesn't
actually *know* what the consequences will *be*, never mind classing
them as benefit or harm and trying to measure them.

All of us take some actions because of the expected results. Most of
us set alarm clocks in the expectation that they will go off at the
set time, and we will then get up. All of us avoid stepping in a
doggy-mess that we see on the sidewalk in the expectation that
stepping into it will cause some to stick to the shoe (or foot). Many
of us take care (or even write and read a budget) to make sure that we
don't spend so much on diamonds or antique harmonicas that we don't
have enough to pay next month's rent.

But we all know that our expectations could be wrong.

Weeks and weeks ago, there were some posts asserting that Dumbledore's
moral/ethical failure was that he tried to act to achieve future
results instead of acting only on the values of the present moment,
because it is very arrogant for a human to think that he can predict
the results of an action. I think that was the first time that I heard
that offered as a philosophical rather than a practical problem with
Utilitarianism.

My own value system views looking toward the future as a duty (more
than merely a virture), not as a sin. Budgets and diets and planting a
garden are all done looking toward a likely tho' not certain future
outcome. So I certainly don't agree that looking toward future
outcomes is a reason not to try to achieve good outcomes.




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec  9 03:42:27 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:42:27 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
Message-ID: <fjfo74+9j6i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179729

Lizzyben wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179530>:

<< And honestly, I'm trying to remember what was so awful about
Scrimgeour. >>

He died bravely, and I'm sure his intentions were good. I want to
believe that Percy married Penelope and they named their children
Rufus and Amelia.

Montims wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179551>:

<< and of course, as we learn in HBP when Bill is attacked, there is
NO remedy for a werewolf bite...  >>

I'm sure what the class learned about was bites from werewolves in
wolf form, not from werewolves in human form, as happened to Bill. It
is a given that there is no way to prevent a person bitten by a
werewolf in wolf form from becoming a werewolf him/her/self, and,
judging from Bill, no way to prevent the wound from leaving scars.
However, it seems there are ways to prevent the wound from bleeding to
death, from remaining an open wound forever, and from getting infected
with gangrene or other bacteria, and maybe there are other avoidable
unpleasant side effects because it's magic. 

For all I know other than that half-sentence about the DADA class, the
way to prevent this bad stuff is to leave it to the wizard's body's
own immune system and other self-healing, or to use normal first-aid
like any Muggle wound. That bit suggests that there is something more
to it, maybe a special potion to put on the wound instead of Rite-Aid
Triple Antibiotic Cream.

Lizzyben wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179574>:

<< And hmmm, where else have we heard of a powerful wizard using
Legimancy to "extract" hidden memories? Voldemort did exactly that
to Bertha Jorkins. >>

I don't recall anything in canon that SAYS that Voldemort used
Legilimency on Bertha Jorkins. 

He said "with a little persuasion" and  (as you quote) "the means I
used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I had
extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were both
damaged beyond repair." Many listies thought this meant that he used
torture and that sufficient pain will break a Memory Charm. I always
thought he used a specialized Memory Charm Breaker with major side
effects, rather than torture. It could be, as you say, that he used
Legilimency and use of Legilimency to break a Memory Charm has those
side effects.

It could be that LV and DD used the same method, whatever it was, of
breaking Memory Charms at the cost of the patient's death, as you
said. It also could be that LV and DD used different methods to break
through Memory Charms, LV using the quickest one despite the side
effects, and DD using a slower but less harmful one. I feel sure that
Rowling intended the latter, or else she would have had DD confess in
the 'King's Cross' scene.

Zara wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179576>:

<< Adding a McGonagall or a Snape or a Neville to the list of people
one thinks should have known is not a criticism of the principle of
secrecy under which Dumbledore operated, it is a tactical disagreement
about which small subset of humanity should be told. >>

Tim's tape is now at the scene where Harry has found the DA in the ROR
while flooded with LV's discovery that his hidden Horcruxes have been
discovered. And Harry is refusing to tell the DA that he's seeking
LV's Horcruxes because Dumbledore said to keep it secret. And I am
yelling at him to tell them, Not only are they trustworthy, but LV
already knows the secret! No harm will be done to the good guys if a
spy tells him that Harry is seeking his Horcruxes. 

(At first I wrote 'no harm will be done' and then I reflected that LV
might well harm the spy. The tape just read the scene where he killed
the goblin messenger and all the DEs within reach. That is one hell of
a bad way to get accurate information, keep your followers loyal, and
build a large army of followers. Stupid LV.)

Carol replied to Zara in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179606>:

<< And McGonagall is not exactly the type to invite confidences,
especially the revelation of past misdeeds or indiscretions. >>

Maybe McGonagall appears somewhat warmer and more forgiving with
people her own age. I gather that she's friends with Neville's Gran,
Augusta, despite knowing that Augusta failed her Charms OWL.

Pippin Fowler wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179584>:

<< What makes magic dark? It causes pain (Cruciatus), it controls
someone else's mind (Imperius), or it kills (AK). >>

Confundus and Obliviate and Love Potions also control someone else's
mind and are not considered Dark. Other spells can kill people; canon
speaks of Stunning someone on a broomstick so they fall to their death.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179606>:

<< I think [Umbridge]'s still at the Ministry because neither
Scrimgeour nor Fudge knows about the quill or that Umbridge sent the
Dementors after Harry. >>

At first I was going to write to disagree with you -- they must have
known she sent the Dementors, as Harry's trial had revealed that
someone sent them, and it would be prudent to find out who, lest that
person set Dementors on someone more valuable next time. Then I
remembered that Fudge was in a complete state of denial and didn't
believe there had been any Dementors (did he believe it after he saw
that Voldemort had indeed returned?). Still. Amelia Bones believed it
and she was Head of Dept of Magical Law Enforcment, which I think
means Azkaban was under her responsibility, so it was part of her
*job* to find out who was interfering with Azkaban Dementors. She
could ask the Dementors, check records, see who had made a day trip to
Azkaban (surely arranged by her department) recently ... but I suppose
she reported up to Fudge, who would have destroyed the memo and tried
to punish Amelia for being part of the conspiracy against him and dear
Delores...

A_svirn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179609>:

<< Ron's appointment is nothing if not blatant favoritism ? he would
have never been made a prefect if he hadn't been Harry's friend. >>

There had to be one of the Gryffindor fifth-year boys chosen as
prefect. Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean, Seamus. I kind of expected Neville
to be appointed (a DD scheme to force him to develop his self-
confidence and leadership -- that was before I knew that DD didn't
care about any student but Harry) and Molly to be quite angry at Ron
for being found less worthy than *Neville*. Which of those five boys
deserves to a prefect -- has good enough grades if that's the
selection criterion, or has shown leadership or whatever other
criteria might be?

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfrGrownups/message/179624>:

<< If Harry hadn't met Ron right away, I suspect they still would have
been friends because they did share a room for 7 years. Further, I
don't think it would have taken Harry very long to understand Draco,
what with Draco's harassment of Neville, general arrogance, and sense
of entitlement. All that was quickly evident in their first meeting. >>

Suppose, as a hypothetical, that no one had come to share that
compartment with first-year Harry, until Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle came
there because Draco had found out that he was the famous Harry Potter.
Draco wouldn't have insulted Ron because Ron wasn't there. So Harry
would have shaken Draco's hand and allowed them to sit in his
compartment. Then Draco, trying to win the celebrity's allegiance,
would have tried to make a good impression on Harry. Perhaps he would
have refrained from saying anything rude about Muggleborns because of
knowing that Harry's mother was one. Then Harry might have taken his
offer to introduce him to the wizarding world as kindly. Then Harry
might wanted to be Sorted into Slytherin to be with his new friend.
Then Harry and Ron wouldn't have been in the same dorm.

Pippin Foxmoth wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179631>: 

<< He won't rule as Minister of Magic, not because he's too noble to
want to but because he doesn't trust himself with such powers. >>

Was it a lack of Gryffindor courage that made him too scared to accept
the job and try to resist the temptation to abuse it? If he had stayed
Headmaster of Hogwarts because he thought that raising the next
generation was the most important thing he could do, that's one thing.
If he stayed Headmaster of Hogwarts just because he was scared how
much damage he might do as Minister of Magic, that's another. I'm not
sure it's fair to Hogwarts, and I am sure it deprived the wizards of
whatever good he could have done as Minister of Magic. He should have
taken the job and hired a sharp-tongued, good-hearted assistant
(Molly's tongue and Arthur's heart -- maybe Augusta would do, or maybe
she hero-worshipped DD as much as Elphias did) to nag him whenever he
started to abuse his power.

Was it pride of his abstinence from that job that made him completely
thoughtless of how he used (and of did he mis-use) his power as
Headmaster of Hogwarts, as leader of the Order of the Phoenix, and as
Harry's puppet-master? DD confessing in 'King's Cross' seemed to have
quite enjoyed using loyal, honorable people as chess pieces, every bit
as much as he wanted to eliminate the Voldemort danger.

A_svirn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179636>:

<< There is Scorpius Malfoy as well, and no one doubts that he is
going to be as poisonous and traitorous as his name suggests. >>

I expect him to grow up to be one of the good guys, Allie Sevvie's
best mate. Scorpius is an ASTRONOMICAL name, per Black family
tradition. It's the astrological sign Scorpio, under which I was born.
It's an excellent sign.

Pippin Fowler wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179647>:

<< I was quite annoyed with Harry's adolescent angst through most of
OotP >>

I always thought that was supposed to be Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder from Cedric's death and the whole Graveyard scene. It appears
to me just like the descriptions I've read of PTSD. Some listies have
stated that it is leakage of Voldemort's chronic grouchiness into
Harry through the scar link. That may have been what ROwling intended,
as OoP was the book about the scar link.





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 04:28:51 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 04:28:51 -0000
Subject: Help! Quotes
In-Reply-To: <fje6ih+7qd0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjfqu3+rl5t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179730

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thetrojanvabbit" 
<gatesreaver at ...> wrote:
>
> jelly92784:
> 
> I wanted a quote that epitomized Fred
> > and George too!
> >
> > Any ideas?!
> 
> gatesreaver
> 
> Mischief Managed.

Mike:
Or it's compliment: "I solomnly swear that I'm up to no good"

I liked: "Give her hell from us, Peeves."






From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Dec  9 02:03:14 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 21:03:14 -0500
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAACStx1n9r5kKmhsBaqluWEAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179731

Mus.:

"And when you talk about LV's soul being a stunted, maimed baby, 
can't you see that you're creating an image that's likely to 
trigger pity? "Unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for 
breath" - that's what he always was, from the beginning, and 
that's how you chose to end him. Sauron was at least a grown-up."

That's what he chose to be. Yes, he had a raw deal from 
childhood, but he made his choices and must live--or not--
with the consequences.  At any time he could have turned 
back from the road on which he started, but he wouldn't. 
Even at the very end, Harry extended the hand of 
econciliation, but he refused to take it. He made 
his bed--let him lie down on it.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other 
forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle 
remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 07:47:00 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 07:47:00 -0000
Subject: Harry, Draco, and House - (was:Re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/Secrecy..
In-Reply-To: <fjfo74+9j6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjg6hk+lgop@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179732

--- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>

> Steve bboyminn wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfrGrownups/message/179624>:
> 
> << If Harry hadn't met Ron right away, I suspect they still 
> would have been friends because they did share a room for 7
> years. Further, I don't think it would have taken Harry very
> long to understand Draco, what with Draco's harassment of 
> Neville, general arrogance, and sense of entitlement. All that
> was quickly evident in their first meeting. >>
> 

> Catlady:
>
> Suppose, as a hypothetical, that no one had come to share 
> that compartment with first-year Harry, until Draco, Crabbe,
> and Goyle came there .... Draco wouldn't have insulted Ron 
> because Ron wasn't there. So Harry would have shaken Draco's
> hand and allowed them to sit in his compartment. Then Draco,
> trying to... make a good impression on Harry. Perhaps he 
> would have refrained from saying anything rude about 
> Muggleborns ... Then Harry might have taken his offer to 
> introduce him to the wizarding world as kindly. Then Harry
> might wanted to be Sorted into Slytherin to be with his new
> friend. Then Harry and Ron wouldn't have been in the same 
> dorm.
> 

bboyminn:

It's going to take a lot more supposition than that to make
this  scenario work. First off, Harry has already met Draco,
and he wasn't favorably impressed. It would also require
Harry to not meet Hagrid, and hear Hagrid's favorable 
impression of Gryffindor, and it would have required the 
same of Hermione, to not meet and to not hear her impression. 
Though I can't specifically remember it, Hagrid may have
told Harry before the Sorting that his own parents were
Gryffindors. 

Then it would have required an arrogant self-centered git 
like Draco to restrain his true feelings, which he had
previously reveal, for many many consecutive hours. A tall
task indeed. 

I think more likely Harry would have politely accepted Draco's
offer of a hand, and may have even politely tolerated Draco's
company of the train ride, but I don't see him feeling real
comfortable with it.

Lastly, in my view, the Sorting Hat only pushed for Slytherin
because Harry rejected it. It was the Sorting Hat's way of
probing deeper into Harry's motivations and inclinations. 
We don't really know if the Sorting Hat truly wanted to put
Harry in Slytherin, or if Harry and the Hat were merely 
evaluating the options. 

Even if we eliminate Hagrid, Hermione, and Ron's influence
from the equation, and just left it to Harry and the Sorting
Hat, I don't see Harry in Slytherin because I don't see him as
being comfortable in that environment. He understands being 
the underdog, and is therefore bravely determined to stand up
for any underdog he might meets which explains his friendship 
with Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Luna. 

No, I see Harry in Gryffindor regardless of the events leading
up to the Sorting.

Just one man's opinion.

steve/bboyminn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 16:25:44 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:25:44 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjfo74+9j6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjh4u8+7n3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179733

> A_svirn wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179636>:
> 
> << There is Scorpius Malfoy as well, and no one doubts that he is
> going to be as poisonous and traitorous as his name suggests. >>
> 
> Catlady:
> I expect him to grow up to be one of the good guys, Allie Sevvie's
> best mate. Scorpius is an ASTRONOMICAL name, per Black family
> tradition. 

a_svirn:
I know it's astronomical. Sirius's name was astronomical as well. Yet 
it also reflected his inner nature, didn't it? He was named after the 
Dog-star and he *was* a big black dog, fierce and loyal. I expect that 
little Scorpius, named after Scorpio "dearly loves to bite" 
accordingly, and I doubt very much that any child of Harry's could be 
best mates with a Malfoy




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Dec  9 17:24:43 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:24:43 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjf0o7+e04h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjh8cr+a2pl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179734

Mus:
> And when you talk about LV's soul being a stunted, maimed baby, can't
> you see that you're creating an image that's likely to trigger pity? 
> "Unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath" - that's what
> he always was, from the beginning, and that's how you chose to end
> him.  Sauron was at least a grown-up.
> 

Pippin:
But Gollum was not. His speech and appearance are childlike:"There
lay the famished skeleton of some child of Men" if memory serves.

Gollum is the creation of Sauron, but psychologically it works the other
way: The Shadow can be seen as a vastly enlarged and distorted 
projection of Gollum's childish desires for satiation and revenge.

LOTR Spoilers below:
If there's anyone who
cares to read LOTR
and hasn't yet,
why are you
reading this instead?

Honestly I don't see a problem here. The reader of LOTR feels sorry
for Gollum even though in the end nothing more can be made of
him, but we don't think Gandalf and Frodo are heartless when they
leave the sorrows of Middle Earth behind. It's no longer their
task to set things to right nor to help folk to do so. 

Why should it be different for Harry and Dumbledore?

Pippin




From cottell at dublin.ie  Sun Dec  9 17:59:06 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:59:06 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjh8cr+a2pl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhada+qva3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179735

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> But Gollum was not. His speech and appearance are childlike:"There
> lay the famished skeleton of some child of Men" if memory serves.

Precisely.  Gollum did elicit pity, and Tolkien did it deliberately. 
But he knew better than to make our hearts break for Sauron, to be
moved by his tormented humanity, and that's what JKR risks doing when
she gives us a LV who is a tortured child.  A child that age lacks the
ability to inflict pain, especially on itself, so the idea that his
state is the result of his choices makes no sense (to me, at least). 
The most evil wizard in a hundred years never grew beyond flayed
babyhood.  He was a child, and so he cannot be judged as an adult.

For me, this has the effect of diminishing the entire storyline. 
Harry never had a worthy opponent at all, and the fact that his enemy
is infantilised reduces him, and means that the series isn't about
coming of age at all.  Harry didn't need to become an adult to defeat
a *baby*.  He just needed the right props.

For this reader, the returned LV in the graveyard was deeply scary,
for the reasons that elkins laid out here ages ago.  He was grown up.
 He was clever.  He was numinous.  He was transgressive.  He was the
worthy opponent of the boy who would save the world.  The last two
books, for me, undermine him to the extent that I really didn't care
much in the Great Hall at the end.  Having your Noble,
Elder-Wand-Equipped Hero fight a skinned baby isn't much of a contest.

Mus, who's about to embark on some more bread making.




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 20:09:23 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:09:23 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjfo74+9j6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhi1j+t0vj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179736

> Lizzyben wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179574>:
> 
> << And hmmm, where else have we heard of a powerful wizard using
> Legimancy to "extract" hidden memories? Voldemort did exactly that
> to Bertha Jorkins. >>
> 
> I don't recall anything in canon that SAYS that Voldemort used
> Legilimency on Bertha Jorkins. 
> 
> He said "with a little persuasion" and  (as you quote) "the means I
> used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I 
had
> extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were 
both
> damaged beyond repair." Many listies thought this meant that he 
used
> torture and that sufficient pain will break a Memory Charm. I 
always
> thought he used a specialized Memory Charm Breaker with major side
> effects, rather than torture. It could be, as you say, that he used
> Legilimency and use of Legilimency to break a Memory Charm has 
those
> side effects.

lizzyben:

LV says "with a little persuasion," DD says he "coaxed it out of 
him", LV & DD both say that they used magic to "extract" a modified 
memory, & both say that it was difficult process. 

Crouch Jr. is the only independent eyewitness to the breaking of a 
Memory Charm, and he calls it torture. ("He tortured her until he 
broke through the Memory Charm my father had placed on her." HP 
Lexicon concludes that memory charms can be broken, just not through 
humane means.) I think they're all just different names for the same 
process - it just depends how euphemistic you want to be. 

It's also interesting that DD never shows Harry the memory of his 
own interrogation of Hokey and Morfin, while he does show Harry his 
own memories of questioning Burke & Riddle. Why? I think it's 
because DD's actual interrogation method w/Hokey & Morfin was 
something that he wouldn't want Harry (or anyone else) to see. He 
extracted these memories through less than human means. He tortured 
them, just as LV had tortured Bertha Jorkins. It's just that DD is 
more inclined to use euphemisms, so we hear about how he 
used "skilled Legimency", & extracted the memories with "extreme 
difficulty," etc. This could just be speculation, but the proof is 
in the fact that both prisoners died right after DD's questioning. 

And also, I think the chapter has a double meaning. In HP, many 
chapters have a double meaning that only becomes apparant on the re-
read. (i.e. "The half-blood prince" chapter contains the HBP diary & 
Harry's class with Snape). This chapter is called "A Sluggish 
Memory," yet Slughorn's memory is only mentioned at the end. The 
chapter itself is all about Morfin's lost memory of Riddle's visit - 
the memory that Voldemort erased, and Dumbledore later extracted. 
Morfin himself no longer has any memory of that meeting, yet DD & 
Harry watch his extracted memory in the Penseive. How did DD get an 
erased memory? He had to break through the memory charm/oblivation 
that LV had placed on Morfin. Morfin's memory is the real "sluggish 
memory," and it took quite a bit of prying for DD to obtain it. 

Catlady:
> It could be that LV and DD used the same method, whatever it was, 
of
> breaking Memory Charms at the cost of the patient's death, as you
> said. It also could be that LV and DD used different methods to 
break
> through Memory Charms, LV using the quickest one despite the side
> effects, and DD using a slower but less harmful one. <snip>

lizzyben:

Well, IMO it was the exact same process. LV doesn't say that the 
memory extraction process killed her, just that it damaged her mind 
& body beyond repair - then he killed her instantly with an AK. If 
DD used the same process, and didn't instantly kill the subjects, 
they'd likely die more slowly as a result of the actual extraction 
process. 

Catlady:
I feel sure that Rowling intended the latter, or else she would have 
had DD confess in the 'King's Cross' scene.

lizzyben: 

Oh, but he does confess:

"Master of Death, Harry, master of Death! Was I better, ultimately, 
than Voldemort?"
"Of course you were," said Harry. "You never killed if you could 
avoid it!"
"True, true," said Dumbledore, and he was like a child seeking 
reassurance. (DH)

I think that's as close to a confession as we'll ever get from 
Dumbledore for anything. Harry's ringing endorsement (you only 
killed people when you had to!) actually *reassures* Dumbledore. 
When he says, "true, true", he's admitting that he's killed people 
in the past, & accepting Harry's reassurance that it was all done 
for the greater good. That's a whole lot more than Ariana; DD's been 
responsible for the deaths of many people & he knows it. I think 
Morfin & Hokey are among that number - charitably, DD may have felt 
that he could not avoid their deaths, because it was essential to  
obtain their hidden memories in order to find the Horcruxes. JKR has 
stated that DD has been pulling many strings thoughout the entire 
story & IMO this is one example of that. 


lizzyben, who never thought she'd see a connection between Harry 
Potter & the CIA interrogation scandal, but does now!







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 20:47:39 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:47:39 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhi1j+t0vj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhk9b+3ke8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179737

> Catlady:
<SNIP>
> I feel sure that Rowling intended the latter, or else she would 
have 
> had DD confess in the 'King's Cross' scene.
> 
> lizzyben: 
> 
> Oh, but he does confess:
> 
> "Master of Death, Harry, master of Death! Was I better, 
ultimately, 
> than Voldemort?"
> "Of course you were," said Harry. "You never killed if you could 
> avoid it!"
> "True, true," said Dumbledore, and he was like a child seeking 
> reassurance. (DH)
> 
> I think that's as close to a confession as we'll ever get from 
> Dumbledore for anything. Harry's ringing endorsement (you only 
> killed people when you had to!) actually *reassures* Dumbledore. 
> When he says, "true, true", he's admitting that he's killed people 
> in the past, & accepting Harry's reassurance that it was all done 
> for the greater good. <SNIP>

Alla:

You never killed if you could avoid it can also mean that he never 
killed, period, no? As in you never killed, because you could avoid 
it?

And Harry's endorsement can also mean that Dumbledore never killed, 
no?

This is how I read it anyways.

Lizzyben:
<SNIP>
 That's a whole lot more than Ariana; DD's been 
> responsible for the deaths of many people & he knows it. I think 
> Morfin & Hokey are among that number - charitably, DD may have 
felt 
> that he could not avoid their deaths, because it was essential to  
> obtain their hidden memories in order to find the Horcruxes. JKR 
has 
> stated that DD has been pulling many strings thoughout the entire 
> story & IMO this is one example of that. <SNIP>

Alla:

Dumbledore tortured and killed many people? Since you put Morfin and 
Hokey among that number, I guess that means that he killed many 
other people? Not that I agree that he killed Morfin and Hokey, but 
I certainly want to ask whom else he tortured and killed?






From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Sun Dec  9 21:00:21 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:00:21 -0000
Subject: HP 'star wars' was Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/et al.
In-Reply-To: <fjh4u8+7n3k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhl15+glj3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179738

> a_svirn:
> I know it's astronomical. Sirius's name was astronomical as well. Yet 
> it also reflected his inner nature, didn't it? He was named after the 
> Dog-star and he *was* a big black dog, fierce and loyal. I expect 
that 
> little Scorpius, named after Scorpio "dearly loves to bite" 
> accordingly, and I doubt very much that any child of Harry's could be 
> best mates with a Malfoy


Pippin Fowler:
In Greek mythology, Sirius became the dog of Orion, the hunter. 
Scorpius was sent to kill Orion. Let's see. Who would the hunter be in 
the story of Harry Potter?  ;-)

Pippin Fowler




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Dec  9 21:04:48 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:04:48 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhk9b+3ke8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhl9g+hsre@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179739

> Alla:
> 
> You never killed if you could avoid it can also mean that he never 
> killed, period, no? As in you never killed, because you could avoid 
> it?
> 
> And Harry's endorsement can also mean that Dumbledore never killed, 
> no?
> 
> This is how I read it anyways.


Magpie:
I don't know what Dumbledore's killing record is, but Harry's 
statement and Dumbledore's answer implies pretty explicitly that they 
both agree he has indeed killed. I can't imagine any person would 
have that exchange otherwise. That would be like me saying, "But you 
never beat your children unless they misbehaved!" and the other 
person saying, "True, true," if what we really meant is that the guy 
had never beat his children period. I wouldn't bring up that "if" if 
the guy never beat his children at all, and he would respond, "I 
never beat them, period," if he had never beat them at all. Both 
Harry and Dumbledore are agreeing to the same exception when it comes 
to killing--that Dumbledore did kill when it couldn't be avoided. 
Harry did just accuse Dumbledore of killing and Dumbledore agreed to 
it and apparently wanted exactly this reassurance, that the fact that 
he only killed "if he could avoid it" makes all the difference.

-m






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Dec  9 21:11:55 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:11:55 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjh4u8+7n3k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhlmr+a6kg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179740

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:

Catlady:
> > I expect him to grow up to be one of the good guys, Allie Sevvie's
> > best mate. Scorpius is an ASTRONOMICAL name, per Black family
> > tradition. 
 
a_svirn:
> I know it's astronomical. Sirius's name was astronomical as well. Yet 
> it also reflected his inner nature, didn't it? He was named after the 
> Dog-star and he *was* a big black dog, fierce and loyal. I expect that 
> little Scorpius, named after Scorpio "dearly loves to bite" 
> accordingly, and I doubt very much that any child of Harry's could be 
> best mates with a Malfoy
 
Geoff:
Tsk, tsk, why on earth not? Let's hope that Draco's curt nod indicated 
the possibility that the Slytherin-Gryfindor feud is long past, despite Ron's 
silly comment to Rosie about beating him which, fortunately, Hermione 
takes him up on.






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 21:17:33 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:17:33 -0000
Subject: HP 'star wars' was Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/et al.
In-Reply-To: <fjhl15+glj3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhm1d+3rnn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179741

> Pippin Fowler:
> In Greek mythology, Sirius became the dog of Orion, the hunter. 
> Scorpius was sent to kill Orion. Let's see. Who would the hunter be 
in 
> the story of Harry Potter?  ;-)

zgirnius:
By a_svirn's reasoning, we need give this no thought. Orion Black, the 
father of Sirius and Regulus.

Amazing how loyal his dog was to him. <g>





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 21:21:59 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:21:59 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhl9g+hsre@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhm9n+ib8u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179742

> Magpie:
> I don't know what Dumbledore's killing record is, but Harry's 
> statement and Dumbledore's answer implies pretty explicitly that 
they 
> both agree he has indeed killed. I can't imagine any person would 
> have that exchange otherwise. That would be like me saying, "But 
you 
> never beat your children unless they misbehaved!" and the other 
> person saying, "True, true," if what we really meant is that the 
guy 
> had never beat his children period. I wouldn't bring up that "if" 
if 
> the guy never beat his children at all, and he would respond, "I 
> never beat them, period," if he had never beat them at all. Both 
> Harry and Dumbledore are agreeing to the same exception when it 
comes 
> to killing--that Dumbledore did kill when it couldn't be avoided. 
> Harry did just accuse Dumbledore of killing and Dumbledore agreed 
to 
> it and apparently wanted exactly this reassurance, that the fact 
that 
> he only killed "if he could avoid it" makes all the difference.
> 
>

Alla:

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. To me it may mean 
the IF that Dumbledore indeed always tried to avoid it, but found it 
very hard to do so ( but did so in any event)


It is like if somebody would tell me - you never smoke if you could 
avoid it. I would find it perfectly reasonable to respond with true, 
true.

For the record, I never smoked, BUT sometimes I find it incredibly 
hard to avoid second hand smoke as in I may feel awkward to tell 
somebody not to smoke in presence or something.

Same way here, I think it is reasonable to say if Dumbledore never 
killed that he never killed if he could avoid it, because it was 
hard for him to do so. Like he knew he was tempted to kill, but 
never did, etc.

And if he did kill, we have how many mentions of him doing so? Um, 
Arianna, maybe.

As I said, I do not count Morfin and Hockey, although I accept it as 
interpretation, but surely you would agree that it is nothing 
**more** but interpretation?

And I agree with Carol that not dying in Azkaban and from old age as 
well would be strange for me. IMO of course.

Alla.




From cottell at dublin.ie  Sun Dec  9 21:22:22 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:22:22 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhk9b+3ke8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhmae+fks7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179743

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
> 
> You never killed if you could avoid it can also mean that he never 
> killed, period, no? As in you never killed, because you could avoid 
> it?
> 
> And Harry's endorsement can also mean that Dumbledore never killed, 
> no?

In the literal sense, this is true, but it's not how conversation
works.  If you have four brothers, it's still true for you to say "I
have two brothers", because having four logically entails having two.
 But when someone says "I have two brothers", the statement is
interpreted as saying 'two and no more', and it's interpreted that way
because of a set of conventions governing conversation.  

The philosopher and linguist Paul Grice has described these unspoken
rules that regulate human communication in a set of principles known
as maxims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gricean_maxims  In particular,
the maxim of quantity states 'do not make your contribution more
informative than required' - if a speaker does so, hir interlocutor
will 'correct' the conversation.  

In other words, the fact that DD accepts Harry's "You never killed if
you could avoid it!" without contradicting the "if you could avoid it"
part means that he has no objection to the implication that he has
killed.  Otherwise the appropriate response would be to correct that
implication, which exists because Harry doesn't make the more general
statement "You never killed".

Yes, it's true that the maxims can be played with to literary effect -
the fact that no-one says in PoA that Black was Harry's godfather, or
the fact that the note is signed "R.A.B" rather than "Regulus Black",
 is JKR playing with them.  But on the railway platform, we're no
longer being fed a mystery.  We're getting the Truth About Albus, and
the very fact that "if you could avoid it" is included and confirmed
by DD means that we're intended to understand that he had killed.

"If" in this context simply can't mean "because" or "since".




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Dec  9 21:45:46 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:45:46 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhm9n+ib8u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhnma+l0tm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179744

> Alla:
> 
> I understand what you are saying but I disagree. To me it may mean 
> the IF that Dumbledore indeed always tried to avoid it, but found 
it 
> very hard to do so ( but did so in any event)
> 
> 
> It is like if somebody would tell me - you never smoke if you could 
> avoid it. I would find it perfectly reasonable to respond with 
true, 
> true.
> 
> For the record, I never smoked, BUT sometimes I find it incredibly 
> hard to avoid second hand smoke as in I may feel awkward to tell 
> somebody not to smoke in presence or something.


Magpie:
This is an important conversation and there's nothing to be gained by 
them talking in torturous loopholes. If somebody asks you if you 
smoke and you say "Only when I can't avoid it" referring to second 
hand smoke, they get that you're referring to second hand smoke and 
your dislike of it. You're actually telling them that you don't smoke 
but people smoke near you. (If they didn't get that you were 
expressing your opinion on second hand smoke they would probably ask 
what you meant by being unable to avoid smoking). With smoking you're 
talking about the act of breathing in smoke; killing requires a bit 
more than that. There's no equivalent of that here. Harry's supposed 
to be reassuring Dumbledore that he's not the same as Voldemort so 
obviously he's going to make him as least like Voldemort as he can.

Apparently, he can't just say "you've never killed anyone" because 
Dumbledore has been responsible for deaths, they both feel. I see no 
believable reason whatsover for either the characters or the author 
to choose to have them say that Dumbledore did kill if they mean he 
avoided the temptation to kill (Harry would be the first to defend 
Dumbledore if that were the case). Not only is that intentionally 
saying something other than the characters or the author mean, but it 
is imo not how any normal human being would talk. 

If Dumbledore tried "really hard" to avoid it but still did it, 
that's exactly what they just said. The trying to avoid it is already 
part of what they're saying. And if he succeeded in avoiding it 
that's something to emphasize. Obviously they both believe that he 
caused the deaths of others, or else there is no reason for either of 
them to bring up that exception to his "no kill" record. We know they 
both agree that Dumbledore caused the deaths of others even if they 
don't go over exactly what deaths they're counting as caused by 
Dumbledore and what deaths they aren't counting. 

Alla:
> Same way here, I think it is reasonable to say if Dumbledore never 
> killed that he never killed if he could avoid it, because it was 
> hard for him to do so. Like he knew he was tempted to kill, but 
> never did, etc.

> interpretation, but surely you would agree that it is nothing 
> **more** but interpretation?

Magpie:
No, I don't really get it. Sure I get how you can easily find a 
loophole in the phrase "if you could avoid it." If you had never read 
the series and were asking about Dumbledore's philosophy and I 
said, "Dumbledore doesn't believe in killing if he can avoid it" that 
wouldn't mean that Dumbledore actually killed anybody, just his views 
on killing. But in a scene where people are talking about one 
person's past behavior, which is known to both of them, if they say 
somebody never did something and added an exception to that rule, 
they do it to pre-emptively head-off the obvious objection to saying 
he "never did it" at all.

Imagine if Harry had been sorely tempted to have sex with Hermione 
when they were alone in the woods but didn't. Ron comes back all 
insecure about Hermione liking him. Harry's hardly going to reassure 
him by sticking in an exception to his claim that he never got 
together with her like: "We never fooled around if we could avoid 
it!" Of course not, because he just told Ron that he did fool around 
with her. In this situation it would be even weirder, since being 
tempted to kill isn't really any more part of Dumbledore's character 
than wanting to sleep with Hermione is part of Harry's.

-m




From cottell at dublin.ie  Sun Dec  9 22:05:02 2007
From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:05:02 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhm9n+ib8u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhoqe+6v4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179745

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Same way here, I think it is reasonable to say if Dumbledore never 
> killed that he never killed if he could avoid it, because it was 
> hard for him to do so. Like he knew he was tempted to kill, but 
> never did, etc.

Mus responds:

By the same token, are we allowed to assume that Snape did not kill,
on the grounds that when he said "Only those I could not save", he
meant that he had been able to save all the potential victims.  In
that case, the only death that can be attributed to him is DD's
subsequent assisted dying.

No, that doesn't work either, does it?




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Dec  9 22:10:01 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:10:01 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjhi1j+t0vj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhp3p+ib83@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179746

> lizzyben: 
> 
> Oh, but he does confess:
> 
> "Master of Death, Harry, master of Death! Was I better, ultimately, 
> than Voldemort?"
> "Of course you were," said Harry. "You never killed if you could 
> avoid it!"
> "True, true," said Dumbledore, and he was like a child seeking 
> reassurance. (DH)
> 
> I think that's as close to a confession as we'll ever get from 
> Dumbledore for anything. Harry's ringing endorsement (you only 
> killed people when you had to!) actually *reassures* Dumbledore. 
> When he says, "true, true", he's admitting that he's killed people 
> in the past, & accepting Harry's reassurance that it was all done 
> for the greater good. That's a whole lot more than Ariana

Pippin:

Dumbledore has not yet spoken of his guilt and shame for 
Ariana's death when he says this...we're supposed to be unsure of
what Harry is talking about. We've already heard Harry's theory
that Dumbledore felt responsible for Ariana's death but we don't
know yet whether it's correct. 

As it turns out, the mere thought that he might learn for certain that he 
was guilty of Ariana's death  almost paralyzed Dumbledore, and yet you 
claim he knows he's killed loads of other people too? I don't buy it. 

One could just  as well claim that when Lupin said he was too dangerous 
for Tonks he was confessing to murdering Sirius Black. 

Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 22:11:17 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:11:17 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhnma+l0tm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhp65+67sk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179747

> Magpie:
> This is an important conversation and there's nothing to be gained 
by 
> them talking in torturous loopholes.

Alla:

Sorry. It is how I read it at the first read. It feels as torturous 
loophole to you, but it was how I understood that conversation from 
the get go. I did not have to try hard to understand it that way.

Magpie:
<SNIP>
 I see 
no 
> believable reason whatsover for either the characters or the 
author 
> to choose to have them say that Dumbledore did kill if they mean 
he 
> avoided the temptation to kill (Harry would be the first to defend 
> Dumbledore if that were the case)<SNIP>. 

Alla:

Well, we differ, that's all. To me if you could avoid it was brought 
up specifically to show that he struggled with it.



Magpie: 
> If Dumbledore tried "really hard" to avoid it but still did it, 
> that's exactly what they just said.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I meant that Dumbledore tried really hard and did NOT do it, sorry.

> Alla:
> > Same way here, I think it is reasonable to say if Dumbledore 
never 
> > killed that he never killed if he could avoid it, because it was 
> > hard for him to do so. Like he knew he was tempted to kill, but 
> > never did, etc.
> 
> > interpretation, but surely you would agree that it is nothing 
> > **more** but interpretation?
> 
> Magpie:
> No, I don't really get it. Sure I get how you can easily find a 
> loophole in the phrase "if you could avoid it." If you had never 
read 
> the series and were asking about Dumbledore's philosophy and I 
> said, "Dumbledore doesn't believe in killing if he can avoid it" 
that 
> wouldn't mean that Dumbledore actually killed anybody, just his 
views 
> on killing. But in a scene where people are talking about one 
> person's past behavior, which is known to both of them, if they 
say 
> somebody never did something and added an exception to that rule, 
> they do it to pre-emptively head-off the obvious objection to 
saying 
> he "never did it" at all.

Alla:

What? You do not see that Dumbledore killing Morphin and Hockey is 
nothing more but intepretation?

Where is the quote Dumbledore kills them? Not the inference about 
them dying because Dumbledore extracted memories from them. But 
clear canon which says that Dumbledore killed them, I do not 
remember such exists, but I am glad to be proven wrong.

Actually, where is the canon that taking memories from the people 
means that they will die? Not Voldemort, who **murdered** Bertha 
afterwards of course. I mean, I would be surprised had Morphin NOT 
died in Azkaban, after all Sirius' keeping some of his sanity seemed 
to be a surprise
And it would be really helpful if you could specify what past 
behaviour of Dumbledore is known to Harry. As in whom did he kill 
that Harry knows?. Surely Ariana would not count as one he tried to 
avoid to but could not?


Mus responds:

By the same token, are we allowed to assume that Snape did not kill,
on the grounds that when he said "Only those I could not save", he
meant that he had been able to save all the potential victims. In
that case, the only death that can be attributed to him is DD's
subsequent assisted dying.

No, that doesn't work either, does it?


Alla:

It does not work for me because we KNOW IMO that there are people 
whom Snape could not save ( Charity for example), but most 
definitely after he comes back I do not think he killed anybody. I 
certainly think that there are people he could not save from killing.

Of course I am not willing to say that he did not kill anybody back 
in his DE days, that to me is a different game.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 22:21:18 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:21:18 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjf0o7+e04h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhpou+87tq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179748

---  "muscatel1988" <cottell at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > 
> > Does anyone besides me find this information less than 
> > helpful, even possibly annoying?

> Mus.:
> 
> ...
> 
> And when you talk about LV's soul being a stunted, maimed 
> baby, can't you see that you're creating an image that's 
> likely to trigger pity? "Unwanted, stuffed out of sight, 
> struggling for breath" - that's what he always was, from 
> the beginning, and that's how you chose to end him.  
> Sauron was at least a grown-up.
> 
> Mus.
>

bboyminn:

I'm not really clear on what your objections is here. Is
it to Voldemort being portrayed as a 'baby', because I
don't think most people read that as truly a baby, only
that he had a baby-like body or form. I think the image
in Goblet of Fire in the Graveyard scene, both in the books
and in the movies, closely represents what JKR is trying to
portray. Voldemort has a stunted and diminished baby-like
form which indicates how much Voldemort has hurt himself.

He can create a normal full sized human body, but his true
self both physical and spiritual is incredibly stunted.

As far as making Voldemort sympathetic. I think most people
view him as so. Those who choose the path of evil are to 
be pitied not scorned. The Dalai Lama, Christ, Ender Wiggin,
and JKR taught me that I must love my enemy even while I
do not forgive their sins and transgressions. So, yes, I
feel sympathy and regret for Voldemort and the choices he
made. Yet, at the same time, I hold him fully accountable
for his choices and actions. 

But this 'stunted self' is NOT how Tom always was. At one
time he was a handsome healthy boy with all the potential
in the world. He could have been Minister of Magic, he
could have been a wealthy and powerful businessman with
international influence, he could have been anything, but
he let petty emotions and fears rule him, and he paid dearly
for that choice.

As far as Sauron being a grown-up, regardless of Voldemort's
physical form, he has lived many years, roughly 70 or more,
and he is a grown-up in every way except he can't let go of
his irrational fears. Irrational fears that drive him to 
control everyone and everything around him and to do so
without a shred of mercy or compassion. He is certainly
not a 'baby' in the truest sense of the word.

Yes, many circumstances came into play, but Voldemort is 
what he chose to be, just as Harry is what he chose. In our
modern world we frequently confuse explanation with 
forgiveness. You might be able to explain why some 16 year
old entered his school with a gun and started shooting, you
might even feel some compassion knowing the circumstances
that drove him to it, yet, we do and we must hold him
accountable for the choices he made. Just as, irregardless
of his circumstance, we must hold Voldemort accountable.

Not sure if that addresses your objection at all, but there
it is.

Steve/bboyminn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 22:22:27 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:22:27 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhm9n+ib8u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhpr3+83s1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179749

> Alla:
 To me it may mean 
> the IF that Dumbledore indeed always tried to avoid it, but found 
it 
> very hard to do so ( but did so in any event)
> 
> 
> It is like if somebody would tell me - you never smoke if you could 
> avoid it. I would find it perfectly reasonable to respond with 
true, 
> true.

a_svirn:
Then you'd mislead that somebody with you answer, because they would 
think that you do smoke under certain circumstances, when it is 
really impossible to avoid it. And if you wouldn't elaborate it would 
be up to their imagination to imagine those circumstances.  

> Alla:
> Same way here, I think it is reasonable to say if Dumbledore never 
> killed that he never killed if he could avoid it, because it was 
> hard for him to do so. Like he knew he was tempted to kill, but 
> never did, etc.
> 
a_svirn:
This is something Dumbledore never said! Whom was he tempted to kill? 
Ariana? He wasn't even tempted to kill Voldemort, as far as we know. 
He certainly wasn't temted to kill Grindenwald, quite the contrary, I 
should imagine. 

> Alla:
> And if he did kill, we have how many mentions of him doing so? Um, 
> Arianna, maybe.

a_svirn:
And that was something that could have been avoided, if it comes to 
that.




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 22:25:23 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:25:23 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjhlmr+a6kg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhq0j+o8gs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179750

> a_svirn:
> > I know it's astronomical. Sirius's name was astronomical as well. 
Yet 
> > it also reflected his inner nature, didn't it? He was named after 
the 
> > Dog-star and he *was* a big black dog, fierce and loyal. I expect 
that 
> > little Scorpius, named after Scorpio "dearly loves to bite" 
> > accordingly, and I doubt very much that any child of Harry's 
could be 
> > best mates with a Malfoy
>  
> Geoff:
> Tsk, tsk, why on earth not? Let's hope that Draco's curt nod 
indicated 
> the possibility that the Slytherin-Gryfindor feud is long past, 
despite Ron's 
> silly comment to Rosie about beating him which, fortunately, 
Hermione 
> takes him up on.

a_svirn:
It may be long past, but don't see the possibility for friendship. 
There is nothing in Draco to command respect: he's not wicked, but 
he's not good either. He's a weakling with good survival instincts. 
His mother has ten times his guts. And we are told in the epilogue 
that his son is his carbon copy, just as Al is Harry's. I really 
can't see them becoming mates.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 22:37:45 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:37:45 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect
In-Reply-To: <fjhq0j+o8gs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhqnp+6ceg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179751

---  "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > a_svirn:
> > > I know it's astronomical. ... I expect that little 
> > > Scorpius, named after Scorpio "dearly loves to bite" 
> > > accordingly, and I doubt very much that any child of 
> > > Harry's could be  best mates with a Malfoy...
> >  
> > Geoff:
> > Tsk, tsk, why on earth not? Let's hope that Draco's curt
> > nod indicated the possibility that the Slytherin-Gryfindor
> > feud is long past, despite Ron's silly comment to Rosie 
> > about beating him which, fortunately, Hermione takes him 
> > up on.
> 
> a_svirn:
> It may be long past, but don't see the possibility for 
> friendship. There is nothing in Draco to command respect: 
> he's not wicked, but he's not good either. He's a weakling 
> with good survival instincts. His mother has ten times his 
> guts. And we are told in the epilogue that his son is his 
> carbon copy, just as Al is Harry's. I really can't see them
> becoming mates.
>

bboyminn:

This is the thing that infuriated me about the Harry vs Draco
debate, which has now carried over into the Albus vs Scorpius
debate. People only see two possibilities, black and white,
either Draco/Scorpius and Harry/Albus are mortal enemies, or
they are absolute best friends slashing it up in the Astronomy
Tower. 

So, why can't they just be polite acquaintances? Why can't 
they just be school mates who each have their own circle of
friends and no particular hostility against the other? Why
does it have to be love or hate, why can't it be indifference?

Really.. why?

steve/bboyminn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 22:41:58 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:41:58 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhp65+67sk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhqvm+dhlp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179752

> Alla:
> And it would be really helpful if you could specify what past 
> behaviour of Dumbledore is known to Harry. As in whom did he kill 
> that Harry knows?. Surely Ariana would not count as one he tried to 
> avoid to but could not?
> 
a_svirn:
Yes, this is a very good point. I was puzzled by that myself. I 
disagree with the construction you put on the "never killed if it could 
be avoided", but I, too, don't see how Harry could know anything more 
about Dumbledore's past, than we do. And whatever the truth about 
Morfin and Hokey, I don't believe Harry spared them a thought either. 




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 22:42:43 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:42:43 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjhada+qva3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhr13+u7tn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179753


> Mus:
> And when you talk about LV's soul being a stunted, maimed baby, 
> can't you see that you're creating an image that's likely to 
> trigger pity? "Unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for 
> breath" - that's what he always was, from the beginning, and 
> that's how you chose to end him. Sauron was at least a grown-up.

Mike:
That's not my impression of the "creature" at King's Cross. I felt 
myself being obviously drawn to equate to the Baby!Mort creature in 
GoF. That creature wasn't a child in anything other than stature. 
That GoF creature is what I pictured when JKR brought us into King's 
Cross. Needless to say, I had *no* pity for the GoF baby-sized 
creature and that didn't change when I saw what to me was the same 
creature in King's Cross.

Since it is the soul that "moves on" (I suppose that's what I'm to 
understand) the remaining VoldySoul is depicted as small in stature 
as a metaphor for it's deranged and incomplete condition. I did not 
see the KC creature as child-like at all, merely child sized.



> Mus:
> 
> The most evil wizard in a hundred years never grew beyond flayed
> babyhood.  He was a child, and so he cannot be judged as an adult.

Mike:
As I said above, the VoldySoul was not child-like. It was the 
summation of a wicked and evil life, laid bare to stand (whimper) in 
judgement for the crimes committed in life. I'm not a religious 
person, but don't most religions ascribe to some sort of judgement 
day, where one goes before his/her creator and is made to answer for 
the decisions and acts committed during life?



> Mus:
> 
> For this reader, the returned LV in the graveyard was deeply 
> scary, for the reasons that Elkins laid out here ages ago. He was 
> grown up. He was clever. He was numinous. He was transgressive.  
> He was the worthy opponent of the boy who would save the world.  
> The last two books, for me, undermine him to the extent that I 
> really didn't care much in the Great Hall at the end.

Mike:
Here I totally agree. I had hopes that Chapter One of DH would set 
the tone for the kind of LV we'd get from that point forward. I was 
disappointed in HBP on many fronts, not the least was that I was 
finding LV less scary, more of an organizational problem to solve 
than a quest to overcome scary evil. I was much more scared of the 
showdown with the Shade in Eragon than I was for Harry vs Riddle in 
the Great Hall at Hogwarts.



> Mus, who's about to embark on some more bread making.

Mike, wondering how you could make that wonderful bread smell 
permeate your posts, so we could share :)




From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 23:08:04 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:08:04 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect
In-Reply-To: <fjfo74+9j6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhsgk+n9u2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179754

Catlady wrote:
A_svirn:
Ron's appointment is nothing if not blatant favoritism ? he would
have never been made a prefect if he hadn't been Harry's friend. 

Catlady: 
There had to be one of the Gryffindor fifth-year boys chosen as
prefect. Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean, Seamus. I kind of expected Neville
to be appointed (a DD scheme to force him to develop his self-
confidence and leadership -- that was before I knew that DD didn't
care about any student but Harry) and Molly to be quite angry at Ron
for being found less worthy than *Neville*. Which of those five boys
deserves to a prefect -- has good enough grades if that's the
selection criterion, or has shown leadership or whatever other
criteria might be?

Steph:
I agree with a_svirn that Ron became prefect because he was Harry's
friend, but *not* due to favoritism.  I think that DD saw that Ron was
brave enough, and perhaps level-headed enough, to handle a leadership
position due to his adventures with Harry.  These would have made Ron
stand out to DD, where he probably wouldn't have otherwise.  Mad-Eye
comments to Ron, "I suppose Dumbledore thinks you can withstand most
major jinxes or he wouldn't have appointed you (USPB 169)."  I can't
see DD endangering the Gryffindors just to give a patronage job to Ron
unless Ron could handle it.  I doubt DD has enough awareness of
Neville, Dean or Seamus to even have remotely considered them, and in
any case none of those boys had put themselves in the kind of danger
that Ron had and were therefore untested.

Hermione, on the other hand, was a no-brainer for prefect, as even at
that point she was not a rules-breaker.  I think she would have been
picked even if she hadn't been Harry's friend.
 
Steve bboyminn:
If Harry hadn't met Ron right away, I suspect they still would have
been friends because they did share a room for 7 years. Further, I
don't think it would have taken Harry very long to understand Draco,
what with Draco's harassment of Neville, general arrogance, and sense
of entitlement. All that was quickly evident in their first meeting. 

Catlady: 
Suppose, as a hypothetical, that no one had come to share that
compartment with first-year Harry, until Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle came
there because Draco had found out that he was the famous Harry Potter.
Draco wouldn't have insulted Ron because Ron wasn't there. So Harry
would have shaken Draco's hand and allowed them to sit in his
compartment. Then Draco, trying to win the celebrity's allegiance,
would have tried to make a good impression on Harry. Perhaps he would
have refrained from saying anything rude about Muggleborns because of
knowing that Harry's mother was one. Then Harry might have taken his
offer to introduce him to the wizarding world as kindly. Then Harry
might wanted to be Sorted into Slytherin to be with his new friend.
Then Harry and Ron wouldn't have been in the same dorm.

Steph:
True, that scenario is entirely possible.  But I think it wouldn't
have taken Harry very long to see Draco's true colors, as Draco
couldn't have hidden his contempt for Muggleborns for very long, at
which point Harry would cease being friends with Draco.  Harry would
likely have still made friends with Ron as there have been friendships
between students of different houses.  They wouldn't have shared a
dorm, true, but they could have still been friends.
 
Pippin Fowler:
I was quite annoyed with Harry's adolescent angst through most of
OotP 

Catlady:
I always thought that was supposed to be Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder from Cedric's death and the whole Graveyard scene. It appears
to me just like the descriptions I've read of PTSD. Some listies have
stated that it is leakage of Voldemort's chronic grouchiness into
Harry through the scar link. That may have been what Rowling intended,
as OoP was the book about the scar link.

Steph:
I think it was a combination of Voldie getting in Harry's head, no one
outside of Ron, Hermione, and the Order believing him that Voldie had
returned, and, as you mentioned, a bit of PTSD from the graveyard
encounter.  I'd be cranky, too, if I was Harry.  
>





From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au  Sun Dec  9 23:09:31 2007
From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:09:31 -0000
Subject: When
Message-ID: <fjhsjb+a6ul@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179755

While reading DH, I had the strong feeling that JKR's writing was based 
on resistance fighters in WW2. I then asked myself: Teenagers! Where 
are the mobile phones (cell phones) and computers? The dragon flying 
from Gringotts would easily be picked up by satellite and planes. Why 
didn't we see any? Giants would also be easily spotted.
So question:

What time period is HP set in?

Barry




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Dec  9 23:20:35 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:20:35 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhp65+67sk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjht83+p77u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179756

 > Magpie:
> > No, I don't really get it. Sure I get how you can easily find a 
> > loophole in the phrase "if you could avoid it." If you had never 
> read 
> > the series and were asking about Dumbledore's philosophy and I 
> > said, "Dumbledore doesn't believe in killing if he can avoid it" 
> that 
> > wouldn't mean that Dumbledore actually killed anybody, just his 
> views 
> > on killing. But in a scene where people are talking about one 
> > person's past behavior, which is known to both of them, if they 
> say 
> > somebody never did something and added an exception to that rule, 
> > they do it to pre-emptively head-off the obvious objection to 
> saying 
> > he "never did it" at all.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> What? You do not see that Dumbledore killing Morphin and Hockey is 
> nothing more but intepretation?

Magpie:
No, I meant I do not see how "Dumbledore, you never killed" is a 
reasonable interpretation of "Dumbledore, you never killed anyone if 
you could avoid it" without an actual correction in the scene.  In 
When Harry Met Sally that's exactly what happens in one exchange, to 
comic effect:

Harry: No man can be friends with a woman he finds attractive. He 
always wants to have sex with her.

Sally: So you're saying a man can be friends with a woman he finds 
unattractive.

Harry: No, you pretty much want to nail them too.

The comedy coming from the fact that yes, he did say first that he 
couldn't be friends with women only if they were attractive. Then he 
exaggerates the problem even more by ruling out his own exception, 
which emphasizes just how incorrigible he is on this subject. There's 
no correction in the Harry/Dumbledore scene:

Harry: You never killed if you could avoid it.

Dumbledore: True, true.

Harry: So you did kill when you couldn't avoid it.

Dumbledore: Nope, didn't kill then either. (Of course leaving open 
how he avoided it if it was unavoidable.)


Alla:
> And it would be really helpful if you could specify what past 
> behaviour of Dumbledore is known to Harry. As in whom did he kill 
> that Harry knows?. Surely Ariana would not count as one he tried to 
> avoid to but could not?

Magpie:
I think it's the same behavior we all know about. I don't think Harry 
is accusing him of any particular murder, or of any murder at all. 
He's taking the long view of Dumbledore's actions throughout the 
years and they have led to some people dying. Dumbledore has never 
claimed to be opposed to any deaths in the fight against Voldemort. 
As far as I can see they're just making the same claim they made 
about Moody, that he tried to bring 'em back alive. But I suspect 
Rowling realized it would be unrealistic to act like Dumbledore ran 
his side of the war above such ugly realities as death, especially 
since he and Harry are having this conversation in the afterlife, 
with Harry having found out that Dumbledore's plan involved his own 
death. But that's okay, because Dumbledore only planned on Harry's 
death because it couldn't be avoided. 

-m




From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 23:25:33 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:25:33 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhthd+pjd6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179757

 *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER

Steph:
I know this person is beloved by a lot of people, but for me it's
Hagrid.  I hate to say it, but I kind of hoped he *was* dead when he
and Harry were flying to the safe house in "The Seven Potters."  Just
bungle after bungle throughout all the books.  

Having said that, I don't feel that way about Movie!Hagrid as Robbie
Coltrane does a lot to make Hagrid much less annoying.  But
Book!Hagrid?  Ugh!

Dobby is the other character who completely grated on me.  Can you say
Jar-Jar Binks?  I wasn't upset when he was killed in DH, but I will
grant that his funeral was extremely well-written.  That was actually
sadder than his death. 

The Trio all occasionally annoyed me when they were displaying the
worst sides of their characters: Harry was insensitive and
self-centered, Hermione a know-it-all and insecure, Ron insensitive
and insecure.  But on the whole the good parts of them outweighed the
bad, and they certainly worked well together! 




From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 23:32:35 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:32:35 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj9eg1+cm4u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhtuj+ac6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179758

Carol:
That feeling of annoyance or irritation ("Go away and stop bothering
me! I want to get back to characters I can enjoy reading about!") is
different from moments when I wanted to slap a character, which
occurred with almost everybody:...snip snip...James almost every time he
showed up,...

Steph:
I can't believe I forgot about James!  He seemed like a total a** to
me, I can't figure out why everyone in the books thought he was so
great.  Did JKR actually show him doing anything nice?  Every time we
saw him in the Pensieve he was being a jerk.   

Carol:
...who, if she has to limit herself to a single *most* annoying
character, would choose Grawp, with Hagrid talking to "Grawpy" as a
close second

Steph:
I blame Hagrid for Grawp.  This is also why Hagrid's at the top of my
MAC list.






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec  9 23:36:02 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:36:02 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect
In-Reply-To: <fjhsgk+n9u2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjhu52+ni9a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179759

> Catlady: 
> There had to be one of the Gryffindor fifth-year boys chosen as
> prefect. Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean, Seamus. I kind of expected 
Neville
> to be appointed (a DD scheme to force him to develop his self-
> confidence and leadership -- that was before I knew that DD didn't
> care about any student but Harry) and Molly to be quite angry at Ron
> for being found less worthy than *Neville*. Which of those five boys
> deserves to a prefect -- has good enough grades if that's the
> selection criterion, or has shown leadership or whatever other
> criteria might be?
> 
> Steph:
> I agree with a_svirn that Ron became prefect because he was Harry's
> friend, but *not* due to favoritism. I think that DD saw that Ron 
was
> brave enough, and perhaps level-headed enough, to handle a 
leadership
> position due to his adventures with Harry. 

a_svirn:
Thought wrong then, didn't he? Whatever good qualities Ron has, 
leadership is not one of them. He's forever overshadowed by others. 
And he's not exactly level-headed. And in his adventures with Harry 
it was always Harry who led. 

> Steph:
  These would have made Ron
> stand out to DD, where he probably wouldn't have otherwise.  Mad-Eye
> comments to Ron, "I suppose Dumbledore thinks you can withstand most
> major jinxes or he wouldn't have appointed you (USPB 169)."  

a_svirn:
And Ron didn't feel particularly reassured. Not that we see him 
withstanding jinxes from fellow-Gryffindors. 

> Steph:
I can't
> see DD endangering the Gryffindors just to give a patronage job to 
Ron
> unless Ron could handle it.  

a_svirn:
I don't see how the Gryffindors would have been *endangered* if, say, 
Neville was picked as a prefect. 

> Steph:
I doubt DD has enough awareness of
> Neville, Dean or Seamus to even have remotely considered them, 

a_svirn:
And that's not favouritism? You have just said that he picked Ron 
because he knew him through Harry, and didn't give others a thought 
because they weren't close to Harry. This is a classic case of 
favouritism ? when you show someone favour and neglect others with 
equal claims. Or even superior ones. 

> Steph:
and in
> any case none of those boys had put themselves in the kind of danger
> that Ron had and were therefore untested.

a_svirn:
Neville was. And he behaved in PS exactly as prefect should.

> Steph:
> Hermione, on the other hand, was a no-brainer for prefect, as even 
at
> that point she was not a rules-breaker.  I think she would have been
> picked even if she hadn't been Harry's friend.

a_svirn:
I think that perhaps she would have, yes. But she wouldn't have had 
the same authority because her house-mates would have seen her only 
as an annoying know-it-all (as they did in the beginning of PS). 




From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Dec  9 23:37:39 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 18:37:39 -0500
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA+FKZ+wghC02zVRme7J4s6QEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179760

Steve:
"But this 'stunted self' is NOT how Tom always was. At one
time he was a handsome healthy boy with all the potential
in the world. He could have been Minister of Magic, he
could have been a wealthy and powerful businessman with
international influence, he could have been anything, but
he let petty emotions and fears rule him, and he paid dearly
for that choice."

Exactly. Choices and consequences. He made his choices and now 
must live with the consequences.

He was given plenty of chances to repent, but he never took 
any one. As C.S. Lewis said in "Pilgrim's Regress", Hell is 
the last severe mercy given to those who will not let Him do 
anything more for him.  Or, as Dante put it in the "Inferno", 
'her piety or pity must die.'

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other 
forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle 
remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch



From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 00:14:11 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:14:11 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <fjc7fi+j7nn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fji0cj+d7n6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179761

**MOST BELOVED CHARACTER
Steph:
I'm going to go with Ron with Hermione a close second.  

I'm probably going to get booed for liking Ron, since so many people
seem to hate him.  Yes, he's insecure, and doesn't like school much,
and can be insensitive.  But I get why he's insecure, with all those
older, cooler brothers (well, maybe not Percy), and a cool, really
popular younger sister, all of whom tease the heck out of him. Of
course the all Weasley boys have 'done it all' before he has, so he's
not anything special.  He seems to be the butt of all the jokes in the
Weasley family.  Fred, George and Ginny are particularly horrible to
him in OotP, as I recall.  I got relentlessly picked on by my older
brother so I can related to Ron, I suppose.  I can also relate to his
insecurities, especially in regards to the opposite sex.  

I like him because I can relate to his flaws, but also because he's
funny (some of the best lines in the books are Ron's), loyal, and can
think straight when Harry isn't always able to.  He welcomed Harry
into his family and got him away from the Dursleys, but didn't expect
anything in return.  He apologizes when he's wrong (especially in DH).
 He also has the brains to like Hermione, who is really a good match
for him.

Why Hermione?  I like that she's not afraid to be smart (even though
it's a defense against her insecurities), and isn't a girly-girl. 
She's a hard worker, and has the welfare of her friends in mind.  She
knows there's a limitation to her book-learning and that there are
things that can't be learned from books.  She's willing to break the
rules if the rules are wrong.  She's braver than she thinks she is. 
She also is smart enough to know when she's found someone who can
match her verbally and can make her laugh and relax.  

This isn't to say that I haven't wanted to shake both of them at
times, but overall, they've been consistently my favorites.  I do have
a tendency to like the sidekicks better than the heroes, though.  I
like Harry, he's a fantastic character, but I like Ron and Hermione
better.




From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Mon Dec 10 00:29:12 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:29:12 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjhp3p+ib83@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fji18o+nqmu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179762

lizzyben: 
I think that's as close to a confession as we'll ever get from 
Dumbledore for anything.

Pippin Fowler:

Dumbledore actually confesses to a death that could have been avoided, 
though one can easily disagree with AlD that he was responsible for it.

"It is *my* fault that Sirius died," said Dumbledore clearly. "Or I 
should say almost entirely my fault--I will not be so arrogant as to 
claim responsibility for the whole....If I had ben open with you, 
Harry, as I should have been, you would have known a long time ago that 
Voldemort might try to lure you to the Department of Mysteries, and you 
would never have been tricked intog there tonight. And Sirius would not 
have had to come after you. That blame lies with me, and with me alone."

(OotP Chapter 37)

If Harry had practiced Occlumency, Voldemort would not have been able 
to lure Harry to the Ministry, and Sirius would not have followed.

If Kreacher had not lied, Harry would have known that Sirius was safe 
at Grimmauld Place. (Incidentally, Kreacher did not die when 
AlD "persuaded him" using Legilimency to reveal what Kreacher knew 
about Harry going to the Ministry. AlD did not kill anyone to get a 
memory, according to the evidence in canon.)

If Sirius had remained at Grimmauld Place, at Snape's request, to tell 
AlD what had happened to lure Harry to the Ministry, then Sirius would 
have been entering the Ministry with AlD, instead of already engaged in 
the fight with Bellatrix.

If Voldemort had died when his AK bounced off baby Harry, then none of 
this...

One can go on and on, casting blame.

"I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I cared more for 
your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind 
than my plan, more for r life than the lives that might be lost if the 
plan failed....What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless 
people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the 
here and now you were alive, and well, and happy?...My only defense is 
this: I have watched you struggling under more burdens than any student 
who has ever passed through this school, and I could not bring myself 
to add another--the greatest one of all."

(OotP Chapter 37)

I don't believe AlD has directly killed anyone, but I think both he and 
Harry feel responsible for some deaths that occurred while they were 
figuring out how to terminate Voldemort. And that may be partly what 
AlD and Harry are referring to in Harry's vision in DH Chapter 35. 
Additionally, I read Harry's reply as "You never killed if you could 
avoid it--unlike Voldemort, who killed many times when he could have 
avoided it."

Your interpretation may vary.

Pippin Fowler




From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 00:39:13 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:39:13 -0000
Subject: Character you wanted to like, but didn't
In-Reply-To: <513956.78750.qm@web59008.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fji1rh+6oba@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179763

Leslie Brooks:
Ginny fans will probably hurl things at me but I don't like Ginny. 
She, to me, is perfect in every possible way.  She did one wrong thing
(which everybody does) but then seemed to become so perfect.  It
irritates me.

Steph:
While she's not on my MAC list, Ginny isn't one of my favorites,
either, and I really wanted to like her.  I just don't get why she's
supposed to be so great.  There's a huge disconnect between what JKR
says Ginny is like, and how she comes off on the page.  She isn't a
horrible person, but I don't think she's very nice or that powerful. 
She's very good at Quidditch, and from the little we hear, she seems
to be pretty good academically, and is pretty level-headed.  I also
like that she's not a girly-girl.  But aside from the trip to the MoM,
we don't really see her do any spectacular magic, aside from her famed
bat-bogey hex.  She can be mean and sarcastic, not warm at all.  I'm
not opposed to her relationship with Harry, but it just seemed to come
out of nowhere and it never really seemed believable.  




From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 00:45:50 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:45:50 -0000
Subject: Harry good looking?   Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affec
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAtWDJgojqokqCl1gN95t1lgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <fji27u+s863@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179764

Bruce Alan Wilson wrote:
I think that anyone who says that is influenced by the movies.  Dan R.
was, admittedly, a cute kid, and has grown up to be a rather handsome
young man.  

Steph:
I certainly would agree that Dan, Rupert and Emma are all a lot
better-looking than their literary counterparts.  I do have to say
that while Emma and Dan were cute little kids, so I expected them to
be attractive adults, I wasn't sure how Rupert would  turn out. 
However, I think he's ended up being equally good-looking.  The
producers must be breathing a sigh of relief.




From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 00:52:23 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:52:23 -0000
Subject: Harry good looking?   Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affec
In-Reply-To: <fjad5v+if9v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fji2k7+4cme@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179765

sistermagpie wrote:
Yes, I think that canonically Harry's a cute boy. He's not Sirius or
Tom or Cedric who are supposed to be pretty boys, but yes, I think
he's conventionally attractive.
 
If Harry is actually supposed to have a problem in the looks
department--which I don't think he is, since being scrawny and pale at
11 is not the last word on Harry at 17, he's chased all over the
place. He's living the life of an attractive person--and I think he is
objectively one and not funny looking at all. 

Steph:
I would say that Harry is probably more pleasant-looking rather than
cute, but his sports skills and his fame probably make him more
attractive to girls than he would have been otherwise.





From yvaine28 at gmail.com  Mon Dec 10 01:03:44 2007
From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:03:44 +0800
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjfj15+gct5@eGroups.com>
References: <fjfh1i+anje@eGroups.com> <fjfj15+gct5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5d7223330712091703h1331c70v4487f29ddf300faa@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179766

Annemehr wrote:
Well, now, I read this differently: I believe what JKR meant was 
that working with thestral tail hair *itself* could only be done 
well by someone "capable of facint death." I.e. it would apply to 
a  wandmaker who might use thestral tail-hair, but not necessarily 
to the wand-owner. (I'd say it would also apply to anyone using it 
in a potion as well.)


Meann:
Yup, that's what I gathered as well.  I forgot to add the link to 
her complete statement.  My bad.  Sorry.  :S  Anyway, the complete 
statement is:  "I decided that the core of the Elder Wand is the 
tail hair of a Thestral; a powerful and tricky substance that can 
be mastered only by a witch or wizard capable of facing death."
And here's the link:
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=25

---*Meann



From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 01:18:16 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:18:16 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj7038+rtj3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fji44o+unma@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179767

Carol wrote:
While I largely agree with you, I do dispute Harry's importance. He's
famous, certainly. People goggle at his scar. 

Steph:
Great analysis of Harry and his relative importance/popularity
throughout the books.  I was probably unclear as I meant his
importance to the WW is due to the fact that he's The Boy Who Lived,
then The Chosen One.  I will entirely agree with you that the WW
didn't really know just how important he really was, outside of a
small circle of people who knew of his battles against Voldie.  They
wouldn't realize it until as you put it, they recognized he was "the
one with the power to defeat Voldemort."

Carol: 
More important, IMO, Harry himself learns to appreciate the
contributions of other people, from Neville to Snape, and to share the
Horcrux destruction with Ron and Hermione. (I won't count Crabbe's
accidental contribution.) 

Steph:
It's just my opinion, but perhaps at this point he sees the others,
especially Ron and Hermione, as his equals. While Ron and Hermione are
not going to have to confront Voldie directly, they are willing to
sacrifice themselves to help Harry defeat him and therefore should
have a hand in destroying the pieces of Voldie.

Carol:
In the end, Harry chooses *not* to be "important," relinquishing the
opportunity to gain power and glory by wielding the Elder Wand,
becoming "Just Harry," husband, father, and Auror. (I'll just ignore
the rubbish about Harry's becoming an Auror at seventeen without even
finishing his Hogwarts education or taking three years of Auror
training and becoming head of the Auror office at twenty-seven. It's
not in the books, so it's not canon.)

Steph:
I'm right there with you. I think all three went back to Hogwarts for
their seventh year, finished their N.E.W.T.s, then went on to their
appropriate training courses.  Even though they gained a lot of
experience on the camping trip, they still had a lot to learn. 
 





From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Mon Dec 10 01:48:29 2007
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:48:29 -0000
Subject: When
In-Reply-To: <fjhsjb+a6ul@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fji5td+5d7s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179768

> While reading DH, I had the strong feeling that JKR's writing was 
based 
> on resistance fighters in WW2. I then asked myself: Teenagers! Where 
> are the mobile phones (cell phones) and computers? The dragon flying 
> from Gringotts would easily be picked up by satellite and planes. 
Why 
> didn't we see any? Giants would also be easily spotted.
> So question:
> 
> What time period is HP set in?
> 
> Barry
>

Aussie:
Harry went to Hogwarts in 1991, and DH ended in 1998. 
Analogue mobile phones (easily tapped) back then.
Windows 95 had been going for some time and even Yahoo was around in 
1996. So JKR gave Dudley a computer, which Harry played some games 
on ...

but even if Hermione was good at PC's the word HORCRUX didn't appear 
until after JKR introduced it ... it wouldn't have helped the trio 
find the artifacts.
As for giants, they may have been hidden until the Hogwarts battle, 
and the protective charms on the castles and the grounds may have 
hidden the giants.

and satelites seeing Dragons .... maybe ... but quietened for fear of 
being called crazy

aussie





From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 02:13:58 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:13:58 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fj5vdt+9cb9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fji7d6+6lnv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179769

a_svirnwrote:
Ron is drawn to the "cool" and famous, there is nothing inherently
wrong with that. He has lots of likable qualities to make up for it.

Steph:
Again, Ron thought that the twins were pulling his leg about who Harry
was and just wanted to confirm it. He didn't know for sure that Harry
was indeed Harry until Ron asked him directly.  I think he did think
it was cool that Harry survived Voldie's AK, but I don't think that he
wanted to be friends with Harry just because he was famous.  I just
don't see Ron as being that calculating.  

a_svirn:
Ron hasted to claim a seat into the same carriage with Harry under the
pretext that everywhere else is full.

Steph:
There's nothing in SS to support your statement that Ron had the pick
of compartments but chose to sit with Harry because he wanted to make
friends with the famous kid.  We do know that the Weasleys were the
last to get on the train which means it probably was the only place
left for Ron to sit.  We've seen in later books that if you don't get
on the train early it's hard to find a compartment that's not already
full.  The trio has to share a compartment with Lupin in PoA, and with
Luna in OotP.     

a_svirn:
Not at all. His jealousy was on account of Harry's fame. That's what
Hermione says in GoF...

Steph:
Harry's name getting pulled out of the goblet is the only occasion
where Ron is jealous of Harry's fame, and he quickly gets over it. 
Hermione never says that Harry is *always* jealous of Harry; she says
that he's used to getting pushed aside by his brothers and by people
who just want to pay attention to Harry, he usually blows it off, but
this was just one time too many.  He doesn't stay jealous of Harry -
who could be friends with someone of whom you're continually jealous?
Nowhere else in any of the books does he have an issue with it.  His
true issue is feeling that Hermione would never want him when she
could have her pick of other people who he thinks are better than him,
it's not really about Harry at all.  Even when he left the camping
trip it was more because of his feelings about Hermione - all his
insecurities that Hermione wasn't going to choose him actually
appeared to be true, and of course he thought that Harry knew what he
was doing, that he had more direction from DD than he really did.

Hmmm.  I'm guessing this is why a lot of people thought Ron was going
to betray Harry to the DEs in DH.  I never thought he was, although I
was really angry with Ron when he left.  I thought he'd come back, but
didn't have any idea how.  I loved how JKR had him return, though, and
loved Hermione's response. 




From AllieS426 at aol.com  Mon Dec 10 02:24:00 2007
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:24:00 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhl9g+hsre@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fji800+3p3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179770

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" 
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
> Magpie:
> I don't know what Dumbledore's killing record is, but Harry's 
> statement and Dumbledore's answer implies pretty explicitly that 
they 
> both agree he has indeed killed. 

Allie:

That's how I read it, also, although I did wonder how Harry could know 
that since we never hear that for sure.  I assumed it was along the 
lines of Mad-Eye Moody bringing the Death Eaters in alive if 
possible.  So as for the "whom," I would venture a guess at some 
nameless Death Eaters.




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 03:07:35 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:07:35 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjhp3p+ib83@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjiahn+63bn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179771


> Pippin:
> 
> Dumbledore has not yet spoken of his guilt and shame for 
> Ariana's death when he says this...we're supposed to be unsure of
> what Harry is talking about. We've already heard Harry's theory
> that Dumbledore felt responsible for Ariana's death but we don't
> know yet whether it's correct. 

lizzyben:

Actually, they weren't talking about Ariana at all, but Dumbledore's 
obsession with obtaining the Deathly Hallows. "The Hallows, the 
Hallows,"True, true," said DD, "Yet I too sought a way to conquer 
death, Harry... I asked to borrow it, to examine it... and then your 
father died, and I had two Hallows all to myself!"

And IMO Ariana doesn't fit this exchange at all. Harry says DD 
killed people when he couldn't avoid it - ie as casualties of war, 
collateral damage, or ruthless actions. Ariana wasn't someone DD 
killed because he couldn't avoid it; she was an accidental death 
during a fight. I think Harry's referring to the known casualties of 
the Order - Mad Eye Moody, Emmeline Vance, Harry Potter, etc. whom 
DD felt it was necessary to sacrifice for the larger goal. 

Pippin:
> As it turns out, the mere thought that he might learn for certain 
that he 
> was guilty of Ariana's death  almost paralyzed Dumbledore, and yet 
you 
> claim he knows he's killed loads of other people too? I don't buy 
it. 

lizzyben:

This puzzles me, because we know that he *has* allowed/organized the 
deaths of other people as part of the Plan - beginning with Harry 
himself, Moody, Dumbledore, etc. He's hardly paralyzed about doing 
this, but seems quite willing to be responsible for the deaths of 
other people in order to defeat LV. The main difference is that 
Ariana is his own sister, not a puppet; and she died as a result of 
their own stupidity, not a great plan to defeat evil, so it's more 
difficult to rationalize.

> One could just  as well claim that when Lupin said he was too 
dangerous 
> for Tonks he was confessing to murdering Sirius Black. 
> 
> Pippin

lizzyben:

Uh, this part I don't get. Is this the resurrection of ESE!Lupin? :)


Pippin Fowler:

Dumbledore actually confesses to a death that could have been 
avoided, though one can easily disagree with AlD that he was 
responsible for it.

"It is *my* fault that Sirius died," said Dumbledore clearly. "Or I
should say almost entirely my fault--I will not be so arrogant as to
claim responsibility for the whole...."

lizzyben:

Oh, this is the classic example of DD manipulation! I love this 
speech as a template for DD's way of thinking. He's manipulating 
Harry here, as he always does. Of course he confesses for the MOM 
fiasco, something he actually wasn't directly responsible for - but 
does he ever confess to the things he actually has done? No. We 
don't hear about the Harry horcrux here, or the Hallows, etc. 
Instead, DD bravely claims responsiblity for the MOM, but makes sure 
to draw our attention to Snape's failure to get over his grudges, 
Sirius' cruelty to Kreacher, Harry's saving-people-thing, etc. Until 
we're left thinking - "What a great guy DD is, taking the blame even 
though it was really Snape's fault, & Sirius' fault, & Kreacher's 
fault..." Just as you've said. Don't fall for the propaganda! When 
Harry does try to bring up something DD's directly to blame for, DD 
has a very different attitude. 

For example, even Dead!DD fails to bring up the Hallows, preferring 
to distract Harry w/flattery instead. When Harry finally mentions 
them, DD looks worried, & "looked like a small child caught in 
wrongdoing." "Ah, yes," he says, & does not elaborate. Harry 
basically forces him to admit his complicity there - DD wanted to 
avoid the subject totally. DD doesn't want to face his real mistakes.

Magpie:
"Apparently, he can't just say "you've never killed anyone" because 
Dumbledore has been responsible for deaths, they both feel. I see no 
believable reason whatsover for either the characters or the author 
to choose to have them say that Dumbledore did kill if they mean he 
avoided the temptation to kill (Harry would be the first to defend 
Dumbledore if that were the case). Not only is that intentionally 
saying something other than the characters or the author mean, but 
it is imo not how any normal human being would talk."

lizzyben:

Yes, Magpie & Mus have already addressed this point much better than 
I could. Usually, if someone says something to you that contains an 
untrue allegation, you'll correct that untruth. You won't agree by 
saying "true, true". EG - if I'm saying that I'm a bad person & 
someone says "Oh, no, you never robbed gas stations if you could 
avoid it!," I wouldn't agree w/that statement, & I certainly 
wouldn't be *reassured* by it. I'd say "Huh? What are you talking 
about? I've never robbed anyone!!" Like that. The fact that DD 
agrees & is even reassured by Harry's statement is acknowledgment 
that he has killed people in the past. And no, I don't think it's 
Death Eaters. When have we ever heard of DD engaging in direct 
battle with DEs? He's a behind-the-scenes guy. 

Alla:
> Same way here, I think it is reasonable to say if Dumbledore never 
> killed that he never killed if he could avoid it, because it was 
> hard for him to do so. Like he knew he was tempted to kill, but 
> never did, etc.

lizzyben:

No, this doesn't fit DD's character IMO. He's not someone who's 
tempted to kill someone & must restrain himself (that's Snape or 
even Harry). DD's not a violent or angry person at all overall. DD 
is much more cold-blooded & ruthless - he'd kill someone because he 
has to for the Plan, not because it's something he'd prefer to do.

lizzyben:

JKR has stated that DD has been pulling many strings thoughout the 
entire story & IMO this is one example of that. <SNIP>

Alla:

Dumbledore tortured and killed many people? Since you put Morfin and
Hokey among that number, I guess that means that he killed many
other people? Not that I agree that he killed Morfin and Hokey, but
I certainly want to ask whom else he tortured and killed?

lizzyben:

You misunderstood my post. I said that DD has been pulling many 
strings thoroughout the series according to JKR, and Morfin & 
Hokey's deaths could be one example of that. Pulling strings doesn't 
always involve torture & death. Sometimes it involves putting a 
Sorcerer's Stone in Hogwarts to lure Voldemort there, sending Hagrid 
to give Harry some pro-Gryffindor leanings, etc. 

DD usually maintains a distance from the actual deaths anyway, which 
usually occur through intermediaries & agents. It's all about the 
plausible deniability. Quirrel is only person that I'm sure he's 
killed directly.


lizzyben






From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au  Mon Dec 10 04:00:01 2007
From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:00:01 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice question
Message-ID: <fjidk1+oec6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179772

At some point, Draco's big mates use polyjuice to change into two tiny 
girls. Where does their extra mass go to?
Barry




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Dec 10 04:42:48 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:42:48 -0000
Subject: Harry good looking?   Re:School politics at Hogwarts (Re: How do the books affec
In-Reply-To: <fji2k7+4cme@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjig48+tt4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179773


> Steph:
> I would say that Harry is probably more pleasant-looking rather than
> cute, but his sports skills and his fame probably make him more
> attractive to girls than he would have been otherwise.

Magpie:
I think pleasant-looking can easily be cute, myself. But his creator 
has said that he inherited his parents good looks, so I think he is 
objectively good-looking. 

-m





From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Mon Dec 10 08:48:21 2007
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:48:21 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] MBC**
Message-ID: <cfb.229c001d.348e5755@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179774

 
In a message dated 12/7/2007 2:39:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net writes:

I've  been having fun reading responses to the MAC (Most Annoying 
Character)  question and thought I'd toss out the other end of the 
spectrum for  comment. Is there a character you simply adore? one you 
couldn't get  enough of, right to the end? 



Sandy:
This one is easy for me, no second thoughts at all, it is Harry. I adored  
him from the moment he was left on the Dursleys steps to the minute he hoped  
Kreacher would bring him a sandwich. My feelings for him never altered or  
wavered; I always loved him. It is because of Harry that I stuck the series out  
when I was less than fond of the fifth and sixth books. I had to know his fate  
and could not have borne it if he had died.
 
Sandy



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Dec 10 14:56:18 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:56:18 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjhq0j+o8gs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjjk2i+jq3p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179775

> a_svirn:
> It may be long past, but don't see the possibility for friendship. 
> There is nothing in Draco to command respect: he's not wicked, but 
> he's not good either. He's a weakling with good survival 
instincts. 
> His mother has ten times his guts. And we are told in the epilogue 
> that his son is his carbon copy, just as Al is Harry's. I really 
> can't see them becoming mates.

Magpie:
You know, I kept thinking about this post for some reason, and I 
realized it was because there was one qualification I would make for 
it. On the subject of Draco's mother having 10 times his guts, I 
think it's because his mother that she does. Whatever anyone thinks 
about how women are portrayed in general, despite most of the 
characters making things happen being men, being a mother is rather 
a superpower in itself. I think that relationship rather than the 
character of the woman is at work here. JKR has said that the series 
is a "litany of bad fathers" because she thinks evil flourish where 
people didn't get "good fathering," but mothers are awesome--the two 
relationships don't really seem to compare. 

In the book The Alienist a character talks about something 
called "the fallacy" (I think that's what he calls it) which refers 
to something that a person considers such a basic truth that they 
assume it's universal. In these books JKR seems to display similar 
ideas about mothers. I couldn't say whether or not she has this 
feeling in real life, but there is a pretty strong pattern in canon 
when it comes to mothers. 

Both Neville's parents were brave, and its his father that he hears 
about growing up, but it's Alice who performs the relatively 
superhuman feat of rousing herself out of her catatonia to give 
Neville something. (His grandmother is of course a mother herself 
and still fighting for her son via his own son.) Mr. Crouch may have 
screwed Barty up and caused a lot of misery, but his mother dies for 
her son in an incredibly brave way. It's no surprise that Molly, not 
Arthur, rises up to "surprise" us in the way she violently takes out 
a top DE because she's putting her daughter in danger. 

Even bad mothers show their power in the kinds of exceptions they 
are to the rule. Orion Black is a non-entity--its Mrs. Black's 
insane anger in the wake up Sirius' abandonment of the family that 
matters. Mother love gone wrong is a force of nature. Tom Riddle's 
mother, of course, had to be taken out completely. He could kill his 
own father, but his mother? No, she gets the rather bizarre judgment 
of having failed somehow by dying of natural causes and despair, and 
this total lack of mother love makes him unique. Hagrid's mother 
also abandoned him--the explanation stemming from her not being 
human. (And of course Hagrid spends the rest of his life acting out 
that lack with his animals.)

Meanwhile, of course, the whole basis for the series is the careful 
distinction JKR makes between James' sacrifice and Lily's. James 
does the best a father can do. He fights people when they attack the 
house. But Lily's protection of her child goes beyond that. She just 
has to stand there and say "No" and choose to die rather than her 
child and Voldemort's AK is nothing by comparison.

Iow, I don't know if Narcissa Malfoy's character is supposed to be 
that impressive. Had we known her in the MWPP era she might have 
been nothing more than a snooty, colder, prettier Pansy Parkinson. 
She gets her 10 times more guts from her weakling son.

-m (who totally agrees that there is no reason whatsoever that AS 
would be mates with Scorpius Malfoy)




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 16:19:59 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:19:59 -0000
Subject: How do the books affect children?  (was: Why down on all the characters?)
In-Reply-To: <fji7d6+6lnv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjjovf+oo48@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179776

> a_svirnwrote:
> Ron is drawn to the "cool" and famous, there is nothing inherently
> wrong with that. He has lots of likable qualities to make up for it.
> 
> Steph:
> Again, Ron thought that the twins were pulling his leg about who 
Harry
> was and just wanted to confirm it. He didn't know for sure that 
Harry
> was indeed Harry until Ron asked him directly.  

a_svirn:
So what if he did? He could just verify this information and proceed 
to another compartment with his brothers. Or he could even wait until 
the sorting, and then he would know for sure. But no, he had to 
capitalise on this knowledge and strike friendship with the famous 
Harry Potter. Nothing wrong with it in itself, but his motivation is 
self-evident. This is the same reason he wanted to sit near the 
famous Victor Krum.

> Steph:
I think he did think
> it was cool that Harry survived Voldie's AK, but I don't think that 
he
> wanted to be friends with Harry just because he was famous.  I just
> don't see Ron as being that calculating.  

a_svirn:
Is it really such a complicated calculation? Here is *the* Harry 
Potter, and wouldn't it be cool to be friends with him? You don't 
have to Lobachevski to add this up. 

> a_svirn:
> Ron hasted to claim a seat into the same carriage with Harry under 
the
> pretext that everywhere else is full.
> 
> Steph:
> There's nothing in SS to support your statement that Ron had the 
pick
> of compartments but chose to sit with Harry because he wanted to 
make
> friends with the famous kid.  We do know that the Weasleys were the
> last to get on the train which means it probably was the only place
> left for Ron to sit. 

a_svirn:
Do we? One of the last, yes. And still Ron could follow his brothers 
to their compartment.  

> Steph:
 We've seen in later books that if you don't get
> on the train early it's hard to find a compartment that's not 
already
> full.  The trio has to share a compartment with Lupin in PoA, and 
with
> Luna in OotP.   

a_svirn:
And interestingly enough there were no other kids in Harry and Ron 
compartment, even after the news spread. Draco came to offer his 
friendship, but was spurned, and Hermione came because she was 
curious, and simply had to see for herself, but naturally the boys 
failed to be impressed with the bossy know-it-all. No one else 
come "to confirm" anything (unless you count Neville who wanted to 
confirm his toad whereabouts), even though most of them must have 
been dying from curiosity.  


> a_svirn:
> Not at all. His jealousy was on account of Harry's fame. That's what
> Hermione says in GoF...
> 
> Steph:
> Harry's name getting pulled out of the goblet is the only occasion
> where Ron is jealous of Harry's fame, and he quickly gets over it. 
> Hermione never says that Harry is *always* jealous of Harry; <snip>

a_svirn:
Yes, she does. 

"Look," said Hermione patiently, "it's *always* you who gets all the 
attention, you know it is.  <
>  Ron's got all those brothers to 
compete against at home, and you're his best friend, and you're 
really famous - he's *always* shunted to one side whenever people see 
you, and he puts up with it, and he *never* mentions it, but I 
suppose this is just one time too many. . . [emphasis mine ? 
a_svirn]".


> Steph:
she says
> that he's used to getting pushed aside by his brothers and by people
> who just want to pay attention to Harry, he usually blows it off, 
but
> this was just one time too many. 

a_svirn:
Look, if you aren't *always* jealous, how on earth *one* time can be 
one too many? 

> Steph:
 He doesn't stay jealous of Harry -
> who could be friends with someone of whom you're continually 
jealous?

a_svirn:
Who could stay married with someone of whom you are continuously 
jealous? Yet it's been known to happen. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 16:33:09 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:33:09 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjjk2i+jq3p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjjpo5+l2dk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179777

> Magpie:
> Meanwhile, of course, the whole basis for the series is the careful 
> distinction JKR makes between James' sacrifice and Lily's. James 
> does the best a father can do. He fights people when they attack 
the 
> house. But Lily's protection of her child goes beyond that. She 
just 
> has to stand there and say "No" and choose to die rather than her 
> child and Voldemort's AK is nothing by comparison.

a_svirn:
Yes, that's probably true. It bothered me somewhat from the start, 
and even more so, when her sacrifice got mixed with that blood 
protection thing. There is something disturbing with the idea that 
love's protection needs blood to be binding. What if she wasn't his 
biological mother? What if it weren't his parents at all? What if it 
were Sirius who sacrificed himself (as he surely would have)? 
Obviously poor Harry would be left unprotected. 

> Magpie: 
> Iow, I don't know if Narcissa Malfoy's character is supposed to be 
> that impressive. Had we known her in the MWPP era she might have 
> been nothing more than a snooty, colder, prettier Pansy Parkinson. 
> She gets her 10 times more guts from her weakling son.

a_svirn:
I agree. But however she got them, they are there. 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 17:28:50 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:28:50 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjht83+p77u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjjt0i+fbri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179778

Alla:
> And it would be really helpful if you could specify what past
> Behavior of Dumbledore is known to Harry. As in whom did he kill
> that Harry knows?. Surely Ariana would not count as one he tried to
> avoid to but could not?

Magpie:
I think it's the same behavior we all know about. I don't think Harry
is accusing him of any particular murder, or of any murder at all.
He's taking the long view of Dumbledore's actions throughout the
years and they have led to some people dying. Dumbledore has never
claimed to be opposed to any deaths in the fight against Voldemort.
As far as I can see they're just making the same claim they made
about Moody, that he tried to bring 'em back alive. But I suspect
Rowling realized it would be unrealistic to act like Dumbledore ran
his side of the war above such ugly realities as death, especially
since he and Harry are having this conversation in the afterlife,
with Harry having found out that Dumbledore's plan involved his own
death. But that's okay, because Dumbledore only planned on Harry's
death because it couldn't be avoided.

Alla:

But the whole interpretation of Harry accusing Dumbledore of only 
killing when he could have avoided it should have a ground of Harry 
**knowing** that Dumbledore killed, only when he could not avoid it, 
no?

Or are you now arguing that Harry just **guessed** that Dumbledore 
killed and just makes an assumption?

What I am saying that partially because Harry knows nothing about 
Dumbledore killing anybody, I interpret this scene as I interpret it -
 Dumbledore did not kill since he always avoided it.


Having said that, I certainly grant you the point of Dumbledore's 
willing to sacrifice Harry himself.

If I was absolutely sure that Dumbledore was willing to sacrifice 
Harry, I would concede the point. The thing is I am not. I mean, on 
my good days I am not. I believe on my good days that Dumbledore was 
as sure as he could be that Harry would not die.

I mean I am not always sure about it, but since I have doubts, I 
cannot count Harry's death as something Dumbledore was willing to do 
if he could not avoid it.

So, back to my point. You are saying that they are talking about 
behavior of Dumbledore they are both aware of, are you not?

And I do not see Harry being aware of ANY Dumbledore's behavior that 
leads to killing people. Guessing? Sure, why not. But being aware? 
Not to me.


In fact we have Minerva saying that he won't use the means Voldemort 
uses. Which is vague, but IMO reasonable interpretation that he MAY 
not have killed anybody.

We have that **defeated** Grindelwald and we know he did not kill 
him,etc.

So I see no reason to interpret that Harry knows of any Dumbledore's 
murderous behavior. IMO of course.


Alla:

Dumbledore tortured and killed many people? Since you put Morfin and
Hokey among that number, I guess that means that he killed many
other people? Not that I agree that he killed Morfin and Hokey, but
I certainly want to ask whom else he tortured and killed?

lizzyben:

You misunderstood my post. I said that DD has been pulling many
strings throughout the series according to JKR, and Morfin &
Hokey's deaths could be one example of that. Pulling strings doesn't
always involve torture & death. Sometimes it involves putting a
Sorcerer's Stone in Hogwarts to lure Voldemort there, sending Hagrid
to give Harry some pro-Gryffindor leanings, etc.

DD usually maintains a distance from the actual deaths anyway, which
usually occur through intermediaries & agents. It's all about the
plausible deniability. Quirrel is only person that I'm sure he's
killed directly.

Alla:

I am not sure what I misunderstood. Here is your paragraph.

Lizzyben:
"I think that's as close to a confession as we'll ever get from
Dumbledore for anything. Harry's ringing endorsement (you only
killed people when you had to!) actually *reassures* Dumbledore.
When he says, "true, true", he's admitting that he's killed people
in the past, & accepting Harry's reassurance that it was all done
for the greater good. That's a whole lot more than Ariana; DD's been
responsible for the deaths of many people & he knows it. I think
Morfin & Hokey are among that number - charitably, DD may have felt
that he could not avoid their deaths, because it was essential to
obtain their hidden memories in order to find the Horcruxes. JKR has
stated that DD has been pulling many strings throughout the entire
story & IMO this is one example of that."

Alla:

I mean did you not say that Dumbledore responsible for many deaths 
and he knows it?

Of course he was pulling many strings throughout the series and how 
can I deny it?

What I AM disputing though is your claim that pulling many strings 
equals being responsible for the deaths of many people.

If I misunderstood that part, for that I apologize.

JMO,

Alla.





From lealess at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 17:34:42 2007
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:42 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fji800+3p3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjjtbi+7g97@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179779

> > Magpie:
> > I don't know what Dumbledore's killing record is, but Harry's 
> > statement and Dumbledore's answer implies pretty explicitly that 
> > they both agree he has indeed killed. 
> 
> Allie:
> 
> That's how I read it, also, although I did wonder how Harry could
> know that since we never hear that for sure.  I assumed it was along
> the lines of Mad-Eye Moody bringing the Death Eaters in alive if 
> possible.  So as for the "whom," I would venture a guess at some 
> nameless Death Eaters.
>

Harry knew that Dumbledore was responsible for Snape's death.  
Dumbledore was aware of the Hallows, having searched for them all his 
life and having owned the Elder Wand.  Dumbledore says he intended 
for the wand to pass to Snape without a fight.  Moreover, he knew 
that plan hadn't worked out, that Draco had in fact disarmed him.  
But even if Snape had taken possession of the "Elder Wand," his life 
would conceivably been forfeit.  He couldn't have used the Elder Wand 
to protect himself, since its magic would have been broken if 
Dumbledore's plan worked out.

Speculation part:  Dumbledore must have asked Snape what Voldemort 
was up to, so he must have known that Voldemort was holding a 
wandmaker, that Voldemort had taken Lucius Malfoy's wand, that 
Voldemort was traveling all over the world on some kind of quest.  
What about the escape of Ollivander from the Malfoy mansion?  Do you 
think Snape didn't hear about that and report it to Dumbledore?

Dumbledore could have warned Snape about the Elder Wand at any 
time... but he didn't.  He coldly kept his secrets and sacrificed 
Snape to Voldemort's whim.  No matter how the Elder Wand ownership 
fell, Snape could not have won.

"That part of the plan didn't work out."  Harry knew that Dumbledore 
was responsible for Snape's death.  Harry all but says so at the end 
in his explanation to Voldemort about the Elder Wand.

"Poor Severus."

lealess




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Dec 10 17:57:43 2007
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:57:43 -0000
Subject: DD killed Quirrell? (was: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy)
In-Reply-To: <fjiahn+63bn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjjumn+d7ko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179780

lizzyben:
> DD usually maintains a distance from the actual deaths anyway, which 
> usually occur through intermediaries & agents. It's all about the 
> plausible deniability. Quirrel is only person that I'm sure he's 
> killed directly.


SSSusan:
Uh. Wha-???  

Forgive me if this is something you've discussed at length at other 
times, but I only have time to read the list sporadically and this is a 
new one for me.  But may I ask how you get that you're "sure" DD killed 
Quirrell *directly*?  Is that sure as in, "I can't prove it, but I'm 
sure of it in my gut," or is that sure as in, "I'm sure because it's 
been proven"?

Siriusly Snapey Susan





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 10 22:42:27 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:42:27 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjhoqe+6v4u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjkfcj+f0dv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179781

Mus wrote:
> 
> By the same token, are we allowed to assume that Snape did not kill,
on the grounds that when he said "Only those I could not save", he
meant that he had been able to save all the potential victims.  In
that case, the only death that can be attributed to him is DD's
subsequent assisted dying.
> 
> No, that doesn't work either, does it?
>
Carol responds:

I'm not following your logic here. DD asks snape how many people he
has watched die, not how many he has killed. And he responds that,
lately, he has only watched those whom he could not save, which
implies that perhaps he could have saved someone and didn't at some
earlier point. Nowhere is it implied that he *killed* the people he
watched die;, indeed, Snape's concern for his soul when DD asks Snape
to kill him indicates otherwise. Whatever he has done, and that
includes watching at least one person die that he could have saved, he
has not, in my reading, killed anyone.

As for Dumbledore, I thought the whole "never killed anyone if you
could help it" scene was confusing and misleading, especially since
Harry know of no one that Dumbledore definitively killed. DD *may*
have accidentally killed Ariana, and, certainly, Order members have
been killed in the line of duty (I think snape qualifies as an Order
member here, or at least as DD's man), but he has not actually killed
them or sent them to certain death. (Harry's self-sacrifice doesn't
count, either, since he knew that Harry has a good chance of
surviving, and obviously Harry knows that DD didn't *kill* him.) The
phrase was used in GoF to refer to Mad-Eye Moody, an Auror authorized
to use the Killing Curse who nevertheless never killed if he could
help it. (We know that he killed Evan Rosier and perhaps Wilkes,
another DE who was killed in VW1, as well.) Could JKR have
misremembered applying the phrase to DD rather than Moody? Could
*Harry* have had it in mind when he phrased his question? Dumbledore
had the chance to kill the two Darkest wizards of the age, Grindelwald
and Voldemort (or, at least, to hit Voldie with an AK and vaporize him
again), and he chose not to do so. If he "could help" killing those
two, surely he could have avoided killing anyone else. Look how neatly
he defeated Fudge, Umbridge, and Dawlish in OoP. 

We also know that DD never used the Elder Wand to kill anyone, as he
tells Harry in King's Cross. Why, then, would Harry think that DD had
killed someone that he couldn't help killing, unless that someonw was
Ariana? (I am emphatically *not* including Hokey, an ancient House-Elf
left without a home or mistress and, probably, deeply depressed from
grief and guilt, or Morfin, sent to Azkaban, where most prisoners go
mad and die within a year, as Dumbledore's victims. Finding a true
memory beneath an altered one and undoing an extra-strong Memory Charm
[which causes Oblivion rather than substituting a false memory for the
true one] is not the same thing, and Dumbledore assuredly didn't want
either of them to die. He needed their testimony to convict Tom Riddle.)

Carol, who thinks that DD never killed anyone, including Ariana, and
that Snape killed only one person, Dumbledore, on DD's orders




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 00:43:02 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:43:02 -0000
Subject: Retrospect: Through the Past Darkly
Message-ID: <fjkmem+7122@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179782

While searching Google News I stumbled across this at Guardian
Unlimited dated July 21, 2007, titles "I Throw Away My Specs".

It is a collection of precitions for the seventh HP book and 
beyond by a broad assortment of people. It is a very 
interesting read.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,,2131113,00.html

I thought some might like looking back on how the world viewed
the end of this franchise before it actually happened. 

Amoung those responding are teachers, authors, children, 
broadcasters, and Sue Upton from The Leaky Cauldron.

Also, a pretty balanced review of the final book as well as the
series can be found at -

'A Farewell to Charms'
http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,,2136869,00.html

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn




From bartl at sprynet.com  Mon Dec 10 20:16:27 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:16:27 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect/etc
In-Reply-To: <fjfo74+9j6i@eGroups.com>
References: <fjfo74+9j6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <475D9E9B.7040902@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179783

Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote:
> Lizzyben wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179530>:
>
> << And honestly, I'm trying to remember what was so awful about
> Scrimgeour. >>
>
> He died bravely, and I'm sure his intentions were good. I want to
> believe that Percy married Penelope and they named their children
> Rufus and Amelia.
Would you willingly work with a MM who willingly kept on an employee who 
admitted to using illegal means to try to either kill or silence you, 
and then proceeded to torture you? Neither would Harry. Not to mention 
the practice of scapegoating...

Bart




From bawilson at citynet.net  Tue Dec 11 02:33:42 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:33:42 -0500
Subject: Polyjuice question
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA8NeQVyZwNkafl6nxhdBy2wEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179784

Where did the extra mass go?  Probably into the same place from which Harry &
Ron got THEIR extra mass when they polyjuiced themselves into Crabbe and Goyle.
The answer is probably related to McG's answer to the Ravenclaw Door.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man.  Other forms of
transport grow daily more nightmarish.  Only the bicycle remains pure in
heart."--Iris Murdoch



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jlnbtr at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 03:22:47 2007
From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (juli)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:22:47 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
Message-ID: <fjkvq7+lr36@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179785

This message is a Special Notice for all members of

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups

In addition to being published onlist (available in webview),
this post is also being delivered offlist (to email in boxes)
to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices."
If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact
the List Elves at (minus that extra space)

HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com

Please Note: juli, <jlnbtr at yahoo.com>, is the author of this Post,
not Mike
----------------------------------------------------------

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
CHAPDISC: Chapter 9, A Place to Hide

Chapter nine begins the moment after Kingsley Shacklebolt's Patronus
announces that the MoM has fallen and the DEs are coming. By
instinct, Harry, Ron, and Hermione all migrate towards each other.
Hermione quickly Apparates them to a Muggle street, Tottenham Court
Road. In a matter of seconds, she instructs them on what to do. She's
a Girl-Scout, that Hermione! She has everything they could ever need
right in her purse, her purse with the Extension Charm. Harry hides
under his Invisibility Cloak, and Ron changes into a Muggle outfit.
Hermione stays in her robe, her very beautiful Muggle party dress;
some men even wolf-whistle at her!

They enter an all-night caf? and order some cappuccinos, wondering
what their next move should be. Soon, two Death Eaters enter the
caf?. They duel, with the Trio emerging victorious. Dolohov and Rowle
are lying unconscious, but how did they find the Trio? If Harry's
already seventeen there's no way the Trace is still active! In the
meantime, Hermione erases the DE's memories, and Harry decides to
hide at Grimmauld Place , it's the only 'safe' place he can think of.
Besides, there're jinxes against Snape, they should be alright.

Once at Sirius' old place, they are greeted by the Anti-Snape jinxes.
Not fancying staying near them, they decide to head to the upper
level. Harry gets a quick glimpse of Voldemort's mind, he's angry,
very angry. And so is Hermione: Harry is supposed to keep the
connection closed, he should know better, after what happened to
Sirius and everything! As he pretends to be thinking of something
else, another Patronus comes in: it's Arthur's, they're all safe. The
atmosphere lightens up a bit, but Harry is feeling sick, he has to
rush himself into the bathroom, he feels Voldemort's rage. Voldemort
is very upset and disappointed in Rowle, he has let Harry escape
once again. And worse, he's making Draco torture Rowle. Harry feels
sickened at what his classmate is being put through.

Discussion Questions:

1. When you first read this chapter, what did you think it was
that tipped the Death Eaters off to the Trio's whereabouts? Did you
happen to think that the Name was jinxed? Or, like me, you thought
that the trace was simply still active?

2. Were you ever a Boy (or Girl) Scout? If so, what do you think
of Hermione's "Always prepared"? Do you think she would have made a
good Girl Scout?

3. Why do you think The Trio didn't want to kill the Death Eaters?
They are 'good', we all get that, but they are in a war, and at
those times killing is allowed. Do you agree?

4. How does Hermione know how to produce a speaking Patronus? This
isn't taught in any book at all, only the Order knows how to. Has
Tonks perhaps been teaching her? Or another Member? Who do you think
would be willing to teach her Order-Restricted incantations?

5. What do you think were Harry's feelings as he entered 12
Grimmauld Place, that dreaded place where his godfather once lived,
and is greeted by the ghost of his mentor?

6. The Trio see signs that someone has been at 12 GP. What did you
think this meant? Did you think it had been Snape, and if so, how did
you think he got past Moody's jinxes?

7. Do you think Draco regrets not taking Dumbledore's side? Do
you think he would be better off on 'The Good Side'?

8. What do you think of Harry's emotions towards Draco? Is it OK
to pity him despite all he's done? Or is this what makes Harry such a
remarkable person?


~juli~

----------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database

Next Chapter Discussion: Chapter 10, Kreacher's Tale; December 24




From kspilman at hotmail.com  Tue Dec 11 04:13:32 2007
From: kspilman at hotmail.com (adayania)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:13:32 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjhpou+87tq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjl2pc+b79r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179786

That was very beautiful.  I was very moved by that.  Thank you.

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "muscatel1988" <cottell@> wrote:
> >
> > ---  "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Does anyone besides me find this information less than 
> > > helpful, even possibly annoying?
> 
> > Mus.:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > And when you talk about LV's soul being a stunted, maimed 
> > baby, can't you see that you're creating an image that's 
> > likely to trigger pity? "Unwanted, stuffed out of sight, 
> > struggling for breath" - that's what he always was, from 
> > the beginning, and that's how you chose to end him.  
> > Sauron was at least a grown-up.
> > 
> > Mus.
> >
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> I'm not really clear on what your objections is here. Is
> it to Voldemort being portrayed as a 'baby', because I
> don't think most people read that as truly a baby, only
> that he had a baby-like body or form. I think the image
> in Goblet of Fire in the Graveyard scene, both in the books
> and in the movies, closely represents what JKR is trying to
> portray. Voldemort has a stunted and diminished baby-like
> form which indicates how much Voldemort has hurt himself.
> 
> He can create a normal full sized human body, but his true
> self both physical and spiritual is incredibly stunted.
> 
> As far as making Voldemort sympathetic. I think most people
> view him as so. Those who choose the path of evil are to 
> be pitied not scorned. The Dalai Lama, Christ, Ender Wiggin,
> and JKR taught me that I must love my enemy even while I
> do not forgive their sins and transgressions. So, yes, I
> feel sympathy and regret for Voldemort and the choices he
> made. Yet, at the same time, I hold him fully accountable
> for his choices and actions. 
> 
> But this 'stunted self' is NOT how Tom always was. At one
> time he was a handsome healthy boy with all the potential
> in the world. He could have been Minister of Magic, he
> could have been a wealthy and powerful businessman with
> international influence, he could have been anything, but
> he let petty emotions and fears rule him, and he paid dearly
> for that choice.
> 
> As far as Sauron being a grown-up, regardless of Voldemort's
> physical form, he has lived many years, roughly 70 or more,
> and he is a grown-up in every way except he can't let go of
> his irrational fears. Irrational fears that drive him to 
> control everyone and everything around him and to do so
> without a shred of mercy or compassion. He is certainly
> not a 'baby' in the truest sense of the word.
> 
> Yes, many circumstances came into play, but Voldemort is 
> what he chose to be, just as Harry is what he chose. In our
> modern world we frequently confuse explanation with 
> forgiveness. You might be able to explain why some 16 year
> old entered his school with a gun and started shooting, you
> might even feel some compassion knowing the circumstances
> that drove him to it, yet, we do and we must hold him
> accountable for the choices he made. Just as, irregardless
> of his circumstance, we must hold Voldemort accountable.
> 
> Not sure if that addresses your objection at all, but there
> it is.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 04:14:16 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:14:16 -0000
Subject: Lily's Sacrafice & Blood Protection
In-Reply-To: <fjjpo5+l2dk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjl2qo+bauo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179787

> a_svirn:
> Yes, that's probably true. It bothered me somewhat from the start,
> and even more so, when her sacrifice got mixed with that blood 
> protection thing. There is something disturbing with the idea that
> love's protection needs blood to be binding. What if she wasn't his
> biological mother? What if it weren't his parents at all? What if 
> it were Sirius who sacrificed himself (as he surely would have)?
> Obviously poor Harry would be left unprotected. 

Mike:
It's always been my understanding that the "blood protection" was a 
Dumbledore product. That's why we learned of DD's discover of 12 uses 
of Dragon's blood. Dumbledore picked Petunia's house because he knew 
an ancient blood protection charm that required him to match the 
blood of Harry's *ultimate* protector. And he picked this particular 
charm because he knew it would stiffle any attempt by Voldemort 
(though I still wonder if it worked against DEs). 

It was Dumbledore's charm that couldn't last beyond Harry's 17th 
birthday. But then, foolish old LV grabs some Harry/Lily blood while 
it's still under Dumbledore's charm. This somehow turned LV into a 
sort of Horcrux for Harry. The logic of this eluded me, but that's 
supposedly the reason why Harry survived the AK in the forest, 
according to Dead!Dumbledore.

I'd imagine, if it was Sirius that refused to step aside, Dumbledore 
would have brought Harry to 12 GP and handed him over to Ma Black (is 
that a revolting thought or what?). 






From marion11111 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 04:30:12 2007
From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:30:12 -0000
Subject: Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy/DarkMagic/Umbridge/Prefect
In-Reply-To: <fjjk2i+jq3p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjl3ok+fmir@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179788


> Magpie said:
> -m (who totally agrees that there is no reason whatsoever that AS 
> would be mates with Scorpius Malfoy)
>

marion11111:
Unless little Albie Sev would like to pick the friend most guaranteed to annoy his older 
brother.  After that merciless teasing at the train station, I certainly would.  But, this is the 
stuff of fanfic.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 04:42:17 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:42:17 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjkvq7+lr36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjl4f9+veqd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179789

> Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
> CHAPDISC: Chapter 9, A Place to Hide
> <snip admirably concise discussion>
> Discussion Questions:
> 
> 1. When you first read this chapter, what did you think it was that
tipped the Death Eaters off to the Trio's whereabouts? Did you happen
to think that the Name was jinxed? Or, like me, you thought that the
trace was simply still active?

Carol:
I suppose I thought that the Ministry had found some way to keep the
Trace on Harry. I certainly didn't think about the name being jinxed
(though if that had been done in VW1, it would certainly explain the
widespread fear of speaking the name). I think I was more interested
in finding out what was going on than in supplying answers of my own
at that point.

> 
> 2. Were you ever a Boy (or Girl) Scout? If so, what do you think of
Hermione's "Always prepared"? Do you think she would have made a good
Girl Scout?

Carol:
I *was* a Girl Scout. I'm proud of that experience. Sorry. I really
was never more than a Brownie Scout, but I couldn't resist parodying a
certain (now dead) U.S. President. Anyone who can't hear his voice in
their head as they read those words is either not American or younger
than I am. Anyway, I thought "Be Prepared" was the Boy Scouts' motto.
FWIW, I think Hermione would have made a very annoying Girl Scout,
always wanting to be in charge of everything.
> 
> 3. Why do you think The Trio didn't want to kill the Death Eaters?
They are 'good', we all get that, but they are in a war, and at those
times killing is allowed. Do you agree?

Carol:
Killing unconscious people, Death Eaters or not, is murder. I would
have been most unhappy with both Rowling and the characters if they
had done any such thing. You don't lower yourself to the bad guys'
level if you're a good guy (even if you do use an Unforgiveable Curse
on occasion, but that's another discussion). Fortunately, the kids
aren't generals in a position to order the bombing of civilians or
even soldiers ordered to take the offensive against the enemy. For
them as for most people, killing is only justified to save their own
lives or someone else's, in battle or self-defense. All they need to
do in this situation is take the bad guys out of action and get away.
(On a side note, LV probably made the DEs wish they'd been killed. I'm
surprised that they both showed up at the Battle of Hogwarts,
loyalties still apparently intact.)
> 
> 4. How does Hermione know how to produce a speaking Patronus? This
isn't taught in any book at all, only the Order knows how to. Has
Tonks perhaps been teaching her? Or another Member? Who do you think
would be willing to teach her Order-Restricted incantations?

Carol:
Hermione says that she's been practicing, not that anyone has taught
her, so she must have figured it out on her own. Unfortunately, Mr.
Weasley tells them not to respond to his message, so we never get to
see her messenger Patronus in action. It feels to me as if JKR dropped
the ball on that one.
> 
> 5. What do you think were Harry's feelings as he entered 12
Grimmauld Place, that dreaded place where his godfather once lived,
and is greeted by the ghost of his mentor?

Carol:
I'm not sure that the spooky shade of DD conjured by Moody's spell
looked like a ghost. It certainly didn't act like one, whooshing over
them like cold air and rolling up their tongues and then addressing
them as Severus Snape. And unlike a ghost, it has sunken, fleshless
eye sockets, more like a zombie created after the corpse has begun to
rot than a ghost. Harry seems horrified and yet in possession of his
wits, not as terrified as Hermione and Ron (who at least comforts
Hermione after it explodes in a cloud of dust). I'd have wet my pants,
frankly. But once they discover that it responds to the word "kill,"
it doesn't seem so frightening.
> 
> 6. The Trio see signs that someone has been at 12 GP. What did you
think this meant? Did you think it had been Snape, and if so, how did
you think he got past Moody's jinxes?

Carol:
I thought it might be Snape and that he got past both the jinx and the
dust corpse. Since the tongue-rolling jinx seems to be temporary (I
thought it was intended to prevent Snape from telling anyone about
Order HQ now that the Secret Keeper spell has been diluted), I figured
he simply said something along the lines of, "You know I killed you on
your orders, Dumbledore," or "I didn't kill you willingly, Dumbledore;
I did it on your orders." That way, the spell would still be broken by
"kill" (or "killed"). I don't think that he'd be afraid of the dust
corpse for more than a moment. Certainly, he wouldn't think it was a
vengeful ghost that had returned to harm him (and if it were an
Inferius, he'd know how to deal with it). At any rate, Snape is a
master of DADA and very clever himself, not to mention that he isn't
haunted by a murder he didn't commit, so the psychological element of
Moody's spell would fail. Assuming, of course, that Snape was DDM,
which I didn't know for sure at that point. I also thought that Snape
(again assuming DDM) could tell Voldemort and the DEs about the
tongue-curling jinx, which would prevent him from naming the Order
HQQ's location, if anyone questioned him about the Fidelius Charm
being broken.
> 
> 7. Do you think Draco regrets not taking Dumbledore's side? Do you
think he would be better off on 'The Good Side'?

Carol:

I don't think Draco ever had the opportunity to take Dumbledore's
side. The offer of sanctuary in HBP ("The Lightning-Struck Tower")
never materialized and I doubt that he believed DD when it was
offered. He undoubtedly regrets joining the DEs (or being recruited;
it amounts to the same thing since he was happy to join to begin
with). He was already disillusioned, to say the least, in the previous
book, and now he sees that there's no glory at all, only inflicting
pain or suffering it himself. (I don't think his experience
necessarily resembles Regulus's or Severus's since Voldemort is bent
on punishing and humiliating the Malfoys.) I suspect that Draco wishes
that he'd simply remained on the sidelines like Blaise Zabini and, I'm
assuming, Theo Nott. I'm sure that he wishes the Dark Lord had never
been restored to power. Certainly, he's learned that torture and
murder aren't glorious and that the Dark Lord cares no more for his
followers than for his enemies. Whether he understands that his
earlier bragging and bullying led him down this path is unclear. As
for whether he could ever have been on the good side, how would that
have happened? At best, he'd be in hiding like Dudley. No one is going
to trust the boy who tried (or intended) to kill Dumbledore to fight
on the good side. Look at McGonagall's attitude toward even Slytherins
who had nothing to do with it and no DE connections.
> 
> 8. What do you think of Harry's emotions towards Draco? Is it OK to
pity him despite all he's done? Or is this what makes Harry such a
remarkable person?

Carol:
Harry has already felt pity (mixed with contempt) for Draco. Now he
seems to be feeling only pity. I think that's a sign that he's growing
up, better able to understand other people's feelings and predicaments
(and a precursor of his understanding and forgiveness of Snape). It's
an excellent sign that he's lost all trace of hostility toward Draco
and perceives him as almost a victim (though not a wholly innocent
one). I don't think Harry is necessarily remarkable, aside from the
scar connection. Most people experiencing that vision under those
circumstances would feel the same way. It's the right way to feel,
IMO, and it illustrates the (Christian) motif of forgiveness, enabling
Harry to move away from the desire for vengeance that still poisons
his mind with regard to Snape.

Carol, thanking Juli for the questions and summary




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 05:13:37 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:13:37 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
Message-ID: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179790

*Best Piece of Magic

What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?

Not necessarily the strongest, but it could be. It can be a spell,
a potion, a magical object, or some magical rule/result. Whatever 
strikes your fancy.

I'll start. For me, it was the Marauder's Map, hands down. I loved 
how you activated it and erased it. Loved how it worked, LOVED how 
it insulted Snape, and loved the fact that Harry ended up with it, 
almost like it was his inheritance as the only offspring of one of 
the Marauders.

///\\\////\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\

I guess while we're at it, we could include the Worst Piece of Magic.

For me, the blood protection and how it turned Voldemort into a 
pseudo-Horcrux for Harry. C'mon! Bad enough that Harry became 
Horcruxified by a free range soul piece. Now Voldemort returns the 
favor by taking Harry/Lily's blood. What? Not working for me.

Mike





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 07:22:03 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:22:03 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjldqr+2m56@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179791

---  "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> *Best Piece of Magic
> 
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?
> 
> Not necessarily the strongest, but it could be. It can be a
> spell, a potion, a magical object, or some magical rule/
> result. Whatever strikes your fancy.
> 
> ...
> 
> ///\\\////\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
> 
> I guess while we're at it, we could include the Worst Piece 
> of Magic.
> 
> ...
> 
> Mike
>

bboyminn:

Well the simultaneous best and worst piece of magic in the
series was whatever spell was used to allow Nagini to live
in Bertha's body while the body still remained animated and
apparently under the control of the snake. 

True, it is nasty enough to creep out an undertaker, but
horrible as it was, it was still an amazing bit of magic.

I agree that the Marauder's Map was a nice bit of magic,
and the Three Hallows were pretty spectacular too.

For what it's worth.

steve/bboyminn




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 08:32:45 2007
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:32:45 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjlhvd+re7k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179792

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> *Best Piece of Magic
> 
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?
> 
> Not necessarily the strongest, but it could be. It can be a spell,
> a potion, a magical object, or some magical rule/result. Whatever 
> strikes your fancy.
> 
Montavilla47:
I would say that my favorite piece of magic was Occlumency/
Legilimency.  I find the idea of magical mind-reading very 
interesting, and I find myself wondering a lot about how 
Snape managed to keep his thoughts and emotions protected
from someone who had the reputation of being the "most
accomplished Legilimens" of his time.


> ///\\\////\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
> 
> I guess while we're at it, we could include the Worst Piece of Magic.

Montavilla47:
Hmm.  That's harder.  Should I pick Felix Felicis, because it's so 
silly?  

Or should I go for that whole Elder Wand mess?






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 09:05:19 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:05:19 -0000
Subject: Legilimency/DD secrecy
In-Reply-To: <fjhi1j+t0vj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjljsf+amiq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179793

> lizzyben:
> 
> LV says "with a little persuasion," DD says he "coaxed it out of 
> him", LV & DD both say that they used magic to "extract" a modified
> memory, & both say that it was difficult process. 
> 
> Crouch Jr. is the only independent eyewitness to the breaking of a 
> Memory Charm, and he calls it torture. ("He tortured her until he 
> broke through the Memory Charm my father had placed on her." 

Mike:
Young Master Barty wasn't an eyewitness to anything. When Voldemort 
was breaking through the memory charm on Bertha Jorkins, Crouch Jr. 
was at his father's house under an IC and under the Imperious Curse, 
still. His "testimony" is second hand at best.



> lizzyben:
> It's also interesting that DD never shows Harry the memory of his
> own interrogation of Hokey and Morfin, while he does show Harry
> his own memories of questioning Burke & Riddle. Why? I think it's 
> because DD's actual interrogation method w/Hokey & Morfin was 
> something that he wouldn't want Harry (or anyone else) to see. He 
> extracted these memories through less than human means. He tortured
> them, just as LV had tortured Bertha Jorkins. It's just that DD is
> more inclined to use euphemisms, so we hear about how he 
> used "skilled Legimency", & extracted the memories with "extreme 
> difficulty," etc. This could just be speculation, but the proof is
> in the fact that both prisoners died right after DD's questioning.

Mike:
"This could just be speculation" - ya think? ;) It's one thing to 
criticize Dumbledore's plans and strategies, penchant for secrecy, 
Machiavellian machinations, and ability to obfuscate the truth, as
I have right along with you. It's another altogether to suspect him 
capable of torture and de facto murder merely to extract memories.

This speculation is clearly non-canonically based, imo. The DD 
revealed in DH is not the "epitome of goodness" (a non-canonical
depiction, imo, as it comes from a JKR interview. You will not find 
those words it in the books.) It is now understood that any may be 
sacrificed in the pusuit of the "plan's" success. 

Yet the "plan" did include Harry's survival. It's clear from The 
Prince's Tale and King's Cross that Dumbledore intended for LV to 
curse Harry and that that would allow Harry to survive. And 
the "plan" did include minimizing the pain and suffering of the 
Hogwarts students, through ensuring Snape's headmastership. Those 
are canon. That is the canonical Dumbledore. Whether one agrees or 
disagrees with his strategies and tactics, his goals are clear.

One must stand the canonical Dumbledore on his head to conclude 
that he is also capable of torture and murder of innocents. IMO, 
you are no longer reading between the lines, you are clearly off 
the page. A slightly misguided youth with skewed ideas of the 
perfect world that results in the accidental death of his sister 
does not translate into a behind the scenes torturer.

To the specifics; Carol has pointed out the extreme age of Hokey, 
by the time Dumbledore would have come calling. Morfin has spent at 
least 14 years in Azkaban, (in my calculations) and quite probably 
many more than that by the time Dumbledore extracts the memory. 
Dumbledore, in both cases must circumvent the implanted memory 
(canon said the memories were implanted), not break memory charms 
(which seek to hide memories) like LV did with Bertha. Therefore, 
DD's and LV's objectives and methods must of necessity be different. 
The branch of magic is no doubt the same, as Animagus and 
Metamorphmagus transformations are no doubt in the same branch. But 
the methods and results are entirely different.


> lizzyben:
> Morfin himself no longer has any memory of that meeting, yet DD & 
> Harry watch his extracted memory in the Penseive. How did DD get
> an erased memory?

Mike:
The memory cannot have been "erased", it was obviously still there, 
else it could not have been extracted.


> lizzyben:
> He had to break through the memory charm/oblivation that LV 
> had placed on Morfin. Morfin's memory is the real "sluggish 
> memory," and it took quite a bit of prying for DD to obtain it.

Mike:
"memory charm/obliviation" is not canon. "performed the complex bit 
of magic that would *implant* a false memory in his uncle's mind" 
is canon. (HBP p. 367; emphasis mine) We have seen people extract 
their own memories and put them into a Pensieve. I've no doubt 
implanting ones own memories into another in such a way as to cover 
up the new hosts previous memory is a "complex bit of magic" as 
Dumbledore described it. If it had been more sinister, or if it had 
involved an Obliviate (a charm introduced in the second book), I see 
no reason to exclude that bit of information. 

Of course, in this case, it appears that Morfin was unconscious the 
entire time and there was no previous memory to cover. The actual 
memory that was extracted and visited was only of the preamble to 
the implanted memory. That's the one that Dumbledore used "a great 
deal of skilled Legilimency to coax it out" of Morfin.(ibid) 
Likewise, I'd imagine much skilled Legilimency is needed to 
circumvent a complex bit of magic that has convinced the victim that 
the implanted memory is the true memory and anything that contradicts 
that memory must be denied. Morfin would not have wanted reveal the 
memory (just as Kreacher didn't in OotP), so Tom Riddle would not 
have concerned himself with hiding it. His plan worked to perfection 
without it, didn't it?
 


> lizzyben: 
> 
> Oh, but he does confess:
> 
> "Master of Death, Harry, master of Death! Was I better, ultimately,
> than Voldemort?"
> "Of course you were," said Harry. "You never killed if you could 
> avoid it!"
> "True, true," said Dumbledore, and he was like a child seeking 
> reassurance. (DH)
> 
> I think that's as close to a confession as we'll ever get from 
> Dumbledore for anything. -<snip>-
>
> DD's been responsible for the deaths of many people & he knows it.
> I think Morfin & Hokey are among that number - <snip>

Mike:
Much has already been debated about this confession of Dumbledore's. 
I will merely add that I dispute your premise of equivalent 
obstacles, equivalent methods, and therefore your conclusion similar 
outcomes regarding DD's and LV's memory extraction operations.



> lizzyben, who never thought she'd see a connection between Harry 
> Potter & the CIA interrogation scandal, but does now!

Mike, who figures lizzyben's concatenation of the CIA and 
Dumbledore's methods of information gathering, means the CIA has an 
equally deleterious reputation as she's proven Dumbledore's to be.

Conspiracy theories and theorists abound, 
actual evidence is thin on the ground.




From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 10:28:14 2007
From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:28:14 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjkvq7+lr36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjlonu+e440@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179794

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juli" <jlnbtr at ...> wrote:
>
> Discussion Questions:

> 1. When you first read this chapter, what did you think it was
> that tipped the Death Eaters off to the Trio's whereabouts? Did you
> happen to think that the Name was jinxed? Or, like me, you thought
> that the trace was simply still active?

mz_annethrope:
I had no idea and I certainly didn't suspect the name had been 
jinxed. Ron's idea about the trace got a "maybe."
 
> 2. Were you ever a Boy (or Girl) Scout? If so, what do you think
> of Hermione's "Always prepared"? Do you think she would have made a
> good Girl Scout?

Two responses. One is that the Trio needed to have everything handy 
after their escape so JKR had Hermione include everything they could 
possibly need. Of course. But you can't anticipate everything that 
will happen in real life so Hermione's loaded handbag would have 
seemed more plausible if a few important items were overlooked and a 
few unimportant ones were included. The other response is that I--
and probably everybody in this group--expected the attack at the 
wedding. I was never a girl scout, but as a character in this book I 
would have known I should be packing. And, unlike Hermione, I'm an 
experienced adventure traveler so I know what to pack.

> 3. Why do you think The Trio didn't want to kill the Death Eaters?
> They are 'good', we all get that, but they are in a war, and at
> those times killing is allowed. Do you agree?

I don't think killing would have occurred to Harry or Hermione. It 
would occur to Ron, but he would never have gone through with it. 
They are not yet at war. The state has just been overthrown by a 
coup. Even if they are completely cold hearted they would have been 
unwise to kill the goons of the new powers that be. Imagine the 
retaliatory slaughter of the Weasley family.

> 4. How does Hermione know how to produce a speaking Patronus? This
> isn't taught in any book at all, only the Order knows how to. Has
> Tonks perhaps been teaching her? Or another Member? Who do you 
think
> would be willing to teach her Order-Restricted incantations?

Hermione produces a speaking Patronus? What bothers me is that she 
knows how to erase memories. That seems to be something only Aurors 
do. And for good reason. I would think that if Hermione can perform 
Memory Charms then a number of talented people who shouldn't be 
performing these charms are having a heyday with them. And would she 
really be able to perform a complicated charm she's never practiced 
before? She may be quickest to learn in a class, but she doesn't do 
magic perfectly in the beginning.
 
> 5. What do you think were Harry's feelings as he entered 12
> Grimmauld Place, that dreaded place where his godfather once lived,
> and is greeted by the ghost of his mentor?

Under normal circumstances he would want to avoid 12 GP and he would 
have been horrified to see the eyeless Dumbledore. (Nice touch, 
Moody.) Under these circumstances he is probably so pumped up with 
adrenaline that he's not feeling anything.
 
> 6. The Trio see signs that someone has been at 12 GP. What did you
> think this meant? Did you think it had been Snape, and if so, how 
did
> you think he got past Moody's jinxes?

I thought it was Snape and that he got past the jinxes. And anyway 
the Tongue Tie curse may have been Snape's own creation. After all, 
Harry found a Tongue Tie curse in the Prince's potions book and used 
it on an unsuspecting Filch.

> 7. Do you think Draco regrets not taking Dumbledore's side? Do
> you think he would be better off on 'The Good Side'?

No. He's a pure blood fanatic, thoroughly indoctrinated by Dad and 
Mum, and thinks DD has the wrong beliefs. But I'll bet he really 
regrets his father's falling in with Voldemort.

> 8. What do you think of Harry's emotions towards Draco? Is it OK
> to pity him despite all he's done? Or is this what makes Harry 
such a
> remarkable person?

I'd be horrified too. Harry's showing normal empathy. Draco is also 
a good set up for Harry's understanding of Kreacher.
 
mz_annethrope

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please 
see
> "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database
> 
> Next Chapter Discussion: Chapter 10, Kreacher's Tale; December 24
>





From logistis_20 at yahoo.gr  Tue Dec 11 07:19:55 2007
From: logistis_20 at yahoo.gr (logistis_20)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:19:55 -0000
Subject: L.V Sympathy!!
Message-ID: <fjldmr+j6ct@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179795

I see all of you in the times that talk about the dark lord as the
most terrible person.

I do not disagree with you in some point. But I believe that all
that happened because he was truly trying to be someone.

He was been raised with no friends. Nobody loved him! And he tried
to become someone!! So he made the Horcruxes! (more than one) nobody
have done this before! He will be written in the books of history!!!

But he could not understand that with that he would not have feelings.
Feelings come from our soul! That?s happened in my opinion.

Please forgive my English.

logistis_20



From greatraven at hotmail.com  Tue Dec 11 11:28:27 2007
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:28:27 -0000
Subject: When
In-Reply-To: <fji5td+5d7s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjls8r+ii18@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179796

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" <aussie_lol at ...> wrote:
>
> > While reading DH, I had the strong feeling that JKR's writing was 
> based 
> > on resistance fighters in WW2. I then asked myself: Teenagers! Where 
> > are the mobile phones (cell phones) and computers? The dragon flying 
> > from Gringotts would easily be picked up by satellite and planes. 
> Why 
> > didn't we see any? Giants would also be easily spotted.
> > So question:
> > 
> > What time period is HP set in?
> > 
> > Barry
> >
> 
> Aussie:
> Harry went to Hogwarts in 1991, and DH ended in 1998. 
> Analogue mobile phones (easily tapped) back then.
> Windows 95 had been going for some time and even Yahoo was around in 
> 1996. So JKR gave Dudley a computer, which Harry played some games 
> on ...
> 
> but even if Hermione was good at PC's the word HORCRUX didn't appear 
> until after JKR introduced it ... it wouldn't have helped the trio 
> find the artifacts.
> As for giants, they may have been hidden until the Hogwarts battle, 
> and the protective charms on the castles and the grounds may have 
> hidden the giants.
> 
> and satelites seeing Dragons .... maybe ... but quietened for fear of 
> being called crazy
> 
> aussie

Sue here:

I think in one of the earlier books Hagrid said that Muggles who did see giants didn't live 
to tell the tale - it was assumed that they'd had mountain-climbing accidents.

Even if Hermione did get to an Internet cafe - and there weren't many of them around 
back then - you'd be unlikely to find the word 'horcrux" on-line because it would mean 
some wizard had a web site (a wizard with dark ambitions!) and they just don't use Muggle 
technology, which clashes with magic. Heck, they don't even have phones! :-)
>





From minihooie at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 01:40:24 2007
From: minihooie at yahoo.com (Liz Gilbert)
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:40:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: MAC*
Message-ID: <442358.47077.qm@web44916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179797

Yeah, James came across as a jerk...but did we ever see him through anyone else's memories, except Snape's? I mean actual memories, not story descriptions, like from Sirius or Lupin.  If we judge characters by they company they keep, James couldn't have been all bad - Sirius, Lupin...oh, wait...Worm Tail may just screw that theory....but still, Lily must have seen something in him.  

As for who annoyed me?  I might have to reread the series and see if someone pops out as exceedingly annoying...every character had moments that irritated me, although I might have to go with Dolores Umbridge...at least her initial appearances.  She later came as pretty evil, but the "sweetness and light" view that she seems to act with, especially early on, grated on me.    

minihooie

       



From salgal513 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 12:34:27 2007
From: salgal513 at yahoo.com (salgal513)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:34:27 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjm04j+ub2c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179798

"Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> *Best Piece of Magic
>
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?
>
> Not necessarily the strongest, but it could be. It can be a spell,
> a potion, a magical object, or some magical rule/result. Whatever
> strikes your fancy.
>

It's so hard to choose! JKR's cleverness with the details of the
magical world is one of my favorite parts of the books.

The Marauder's Map is wonderful, and I love Polyjuice Potion and what
I wouldn't give for an invisibility cloak. Transfiguring into an
animal is pretty amazing too. Expecto Patronum. I can't seem to choose.

However, the spell I have most often wished was real is Accio. Would
that I could say "accio keys" or "accio cellphone".

salgal513



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 17:53:49 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:53:49 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjmird+nktj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179799

Mike wrote:
>
> *Best Piece of Magic
> 
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?
> 
> Not necessarily the strongest, but it could be. It can be a spell, a
potion, a magical object, or some magical rule/result. Whatever
strikes your fancy. <snip>

Carol responds:

For me, it's Snape's final act of wandless magic--causing memories to
flood out of his head as he's dying so that Harry can not only receive
that crucial message from Dumbledore but also finally understand who
Snape really is. Amazing and wholly unanticipated, at least by me.

Second best is Snape's splendid Patronus even though I think it
represents an idealized Lily rather than Lily as she's represented in
the books.

Carol, who can't think of a worst bit of magic at the moment but does
find it annoying that the magic (e.g., Apparition) isn't described
consistently (and why would a Shrinking Solution turn Trevor into a
tadpole rather than a smaller toad? It's not a Youth Potion!)





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Dec 11 17:53:21 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:53:21 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: When
References: <fji5td+5d7s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007401c83c1e$b992cbf0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179800

From: "Barry" <whealthinc at ozemail.com.au>
>> While reading DH, I had the strong feeling that JKR's writing was based
>> on resistance fighters in WW2. I then asked myself: Teenagers! Where
>> are the mobile phones (cell phones) and computers? The dragon flying
>> from Gringotts would easily be picked up by satellite and planes.
>> Why  didn't we see any? Giants would also be easily spotted.


Shelley:
This question for me can be explained by looking at the Quidditch World Cup, 
and by the conversation with the Other Prime Minister. The Wizards clearly 
manipulated the Muggle environment with charms that meant to confound, hide 
and conceal the magical world, including the Dragons and Giants. It was said 
of the Giants that most (Muggles) were "lost in accidents" while in the 
wild, when they had encountered a Giant and died from it. Those that lived 
had their memories wiped by squads of Wizards who covered things up. The 
satellite images and planes would be the same way- the Wizards would have to 
have people working with almost every police network and control towers for 
the airplanes to make sure things we kept quiet, or spun to be publicized 
with an excuse that the Wizards thought the Muggle public would just buy 
hook and sinker. (Take a cue from today's alien/UFO sightings: "That wasn't 
an alien spacecraft you saw, that was a government weather balloon.") I 
imagine with the War with Voldemort that the more Voldemort killed and 
murdered innocent people, the busier the Wizard world would have had to have 
been just working overtime to keep all of those events covered up and 
obliterated, or released as some crazy old geezer who claims to have met 
"Bigfoot", or just some odd mixture of metals that caused a bridge to 
fatigue unnaturally early. Sure, people saw the Dragon, until the headlines 
in the paper featured a local group of kids that had developed a radar 
controlled plane or kite that looked like a Dragon, and the poor Muggles 
would just change their mind that what they saw mustn't have been a real 
animal after all.

Yes, Muggle teenagers would have had cell phones and Internet connections, 
but we assume that Hermione and all the other Muggleborns gave up all of 
that when they came to Hogwarts to learn about all the Wizarding stuff 
instead. Only those, like Arthur, would still know how to use these things 
and be interested in them. I imagine that Kingsley, at the Muggle Prime 
Minister's office, would have "sat" in front of a computer to pretend to do 
his work, but in reality he didn't need a computer to finish it. He would 
have used magic instead, and everyone who entered his office would have been 
"confounded" to see Kingsley actually typing at the computer, just as the 
Wizards wanted them to see. The office itself would have rigged, just like 
the Quidditch World Cup stadium was, so that it had the proper intended 
affect on the Muggles who got near it. Maybe they just got the feeling of 
contentment, like Kingsley was adequate and they didn't need to stay long, 
as he had everything well taken care of. I bet the Muggles who met Kingsley 
in his office would "swear" that they saw him answering his cell phone once 
or twice, while they were in his presence. 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Dec 11 18:20:56 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:20:56 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MBC**
References: <fjcjsf+rfku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <012d01c83c22$9378c7e0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179801

 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
 <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
> **MOST BELOVED CHARACTER
>
> I've been having fun reading responses to the MAC (Most Annoying
> Character) question and thought I'd toss out the other end of the
> spectrum for comment.  Is there a character you simply adore? one you
> couldn't get enough of, right to the end?

Shelley:
THE TWINS- Fred and George. I couldn't wait to see one of them again, to 
hear what they'd be up to, to hear of their latest scheme or antic. I was 
disappointed they were largely missing for parts of DH (I know, they weren't 
out camping with our crew), but I figured that they would play a large part, 
or at least some part, in the defeat of LV through one of their inventions 
that Harry would end up using, putting a final touch to the money that Harry 
donated to the twins for their business, in that it came back to him. Sure, 
there was the radio program, but that was just a tiny fraction of what the 
twins  were capable of. But no, I don't think Rowling used them to their 
fullest potential at the end, and killing off Fred was just cruel. In my 
mind, I wanted to see the famous Weasley twins still having fun in their old 
age. I guess in "my Harry Potter Universe", they still are.




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Dec 11 18:47:42 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:47:42 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Polyjuice question
References: <fjidk1+oec6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01ee01c83c26$505264e0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179802

> At some point, Draco's big mates use polyjuice to change into two tiny
> girls. Where does their extra mass go to?
> Barry


Shelley:
This would be the same question for an animagious: Sirius, a 175 lb guy 
(using a figure just for comparison) turning into a 30 lb dog, or Peter 
Pettigrew, 150 lbs, turning into a 10 lb (at best) rat. The law of 
conservation of mass just doesn't apply to magic. To explain it, you just 
have to say "it's magic!", meaning that magic does not follow the rules that 
the rest of us are used to playing by. 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Dec 11 19:05:19 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:05:19 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: BPoM*
References: <fjm04j+ub2c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <024901c83c28$c6ad8c80$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179803

 "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> *Best Piece of Magic
>
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?
>
> Not necessarily the strongest, but it could be. It can be a spell,
> a potion, a magical object, or some magical rule/result. Whatever
> strikes your fancy.


Shelley:
At first, I adored Molly's clock. But by the end of the series, I thought 
Rowling had castrated it (always stuck on Mortal Peril, rendering it 
effectively useless!) But in the early books, I just loved it.

The Marauder Map, certainly. Loved that it retained a personality to insult 
Snape.

The worst piece of magic for me is better described as the "worst described 
magic" of Harry's suddenly better than the usual Invisibility Cloak, while 
all along just having been another Invisibility Cloak. Seems like it was 
just a Johnny-come-lately thought of Rowling's, otherwise, she would have 
thrown in a single line earlier that the spell on Harry's cloak was still 
going strong, or that it seemed not to have faded yet, or something to 
indicate that it was special, from one of those that had and used cloaks 
often, such as the realMoody. It's the worst described piece of magic for me 
because it just contradicts the whole scene where the fakeMadEyeMoody saw 
right through it, and it became useless to hide Harry, but now we're 
suddenly supposed to believe that it's this extra-special item that 
outstrips the power of all other Invisibility Cloaks. Nah, not working for 
me as a Hallow. Let me revise that, the whole "Hallow" idea to begin with 
just seems like a sudden, last minute invention that didn't work for me, so 
I'd have to include all three Hallows in the "worst" category.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 19:20:20 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:20:20 -0000
Subject: L.V Sympathy!!  .... or Sympathy for the Devil
In-Reply-To: <fjldmr+j6ct@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjmntk+rd5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179804

---  "logistis_20" <logistis_20 at ...> wrote:
>
> I see all of you in the times that talk about the dark lord 
> as the most terrible person.
> 
> I do not disagree with you in some point. But I believe that
> all that happened because he was truly trying to be someone.
> 
> He was been raised with no friends. Nobody loved him! And he
> tried to become someone!! So he made the Horcruxes! ... 
> nobody have done this before! He will be written in the books
> of history!!!
> 
> But he could not understand that with that he would not have
> feelings. Feelings come from our soul! That's happened in my 
>opinion.
> 
> Please forgive my English.
> 
> logistis_20
>

bboyminn:

To a limited extent I agree. In the following post I 
touched on 'Sympathy for Voldemort' -

"The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179748

Which was a response to someone complaining that the author
did things that made Voldemort sympathetic.

But I think it is important not to confuse sympathy, 
explanation, and understanding with forgiveness. Just 
because I can explain what motivated a person to commit
a crime, doesn't automatically make that crime excusable.

Actions are a result of choices. I am frequently annoyed
by poor underprivileged people complaining about no one
giving them a change. But they are given many chances and
many resources to improve their lives that they simply don't
take. Education being the best example. 

And many people in the same or worse situations find a way to
work themselves out of poverty. The keyword being 'work'. 

So, while I have sympathy for Voldemort, while there are
explanations for who and what he was, those explanations
do not absolve him of his crimes. They help us understand
and pity him all the more, but he made choices and he
must stand up and face an accounting of the choices he
made. 

Voldemort, with his brilliance and magical talent, could 
have worked his way to a very prominent social, economic,
and political position in the wizard world. He could have 
had wealth, fame, and power. Yet, instead, rather than 
/earn/ wealth, fame, and power, he chose to try and take
it by force, and that choice was the source of his 
destruction.

The same is true of those who try to solve poverty by crime.
Their choices are the seeds of their destruction. 

So, while I understand and sympathize with Voldemort, and
can even find spiritual forgiveness for him in my heart,
I do not have social, legal, or moral forgiveness. He 
made choices and must face the consequences of those 
choices. In his case, an endless chain of bad choices
lead to his untimely death.

I feel sympath for Voldemort because I see how much he
could have been, if only he had made different choices.

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 20:01:30 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:01:30 -0000
Subject: When
In-Reply-To: <fjhsjb+a6ul@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjmqaq+lch0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179805

---  "Barry" <whealthinc at ...> wrote:
>
> ... I then asked myself: Teenagers! Where are the mobile 
> phones (cell phones) and computers? The dragon flying 
> from Gringotts would easily be picked up by satellite and 
> planes. Why didn't we see any? Giants would also be easily
> spotted. So question:
> 
> What time period is HP set in?
> 
> Barry
>

bboyminn:

First, JKR conveniently made it so that muggle electrical and
electronic devices would not work at Hogwarts because the 
aura of magic was so strong there. I suspect cell phone 
reception in Diagon Alley or the Ministry of Magic would have
been very poor at best.

So, there is really no point of any of the kids to have any
of these modern electronic gadgets at Hogwarts.

As to the time frame, Harry was born in 1980, and started 
school in 1991 ('91-'92 school year) and the last book
took place in the 1997 to 1998 school year. 

As a side note, in the first book, JKR mentions Dudley
having a Nintendo or Playstation or Gameboy, some 
computerized game console, but someone pointed out that
game consoles like that didn't exist at that time. Even
personal computers in 1991 were relatively primitive by
todays standards. And I don't recall every little kid,
much less every adult, having a cell phone in 1991. I think
the bulk of 'every kid has a cell phone' occurred in the
21st century. 

As to muggles seeing Giants or Dragons, keep in mind that
those legends are very prominent in muggle society. We all
knew about Dragons, Giants, Sphinxes, Unicorns, etc... long
before JKR came along. Those legends had to come from 
somewhere, and if we fit common muggle legends into JKR's
fictional world, then the legends came from actual muggle
sightings of those creatures. 

Virtually all the magical creatures that exist in JKR's world,
existed in our real world before JKR started writing. In fact,
many of the legends date back many many many centuries. So, 
muggles must have seen these magical creatures at some point. 
But, since we so strongly believe that they are fictional, when
ever we might see one, we construct our own alternate
explanation. Dragon? No... No... it must have just been a 
funny shaped cloud or a trick of the light. 

Combine muggle denial with magical concealment, and you have
your answer.

steve/bboyminn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 21:39:42 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:39:42 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjlonu+e440@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjn02u+en2i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179806

> mz_annethrope:
 But you can't anticipate everything that 
> will happen in real life so Hermione's loaded handbag would have 
> seemed more plausible if a few important items were overlooked and a 
> few unimportant ones were included. 

a_svirn:
She did overlook something really important though ? food. Surely a few 
packs of, say, AlpineAir cooked beef or chicken and some dried fruit 
wouldn't have gone amiss. A serious oversight, and almost cost her her 
boyfriend. 

> mz_annethrope:
> I'd be horrified too. Harry's showing normal empathy. Draco is also 
> a good set up for Harry's understanding of Kreacher.

a_svirn:
Why?




From Sherry at PebTech.net  Tue Dec 11 21:55:54 2007
From: Sherry at PebTech.net (Sherry)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:55:54 -0000
Subject: DD killed Quirrell? (was: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy)
In-Reply-To: <fjjumn+d7ko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjn11a+es8i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179807

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> lizzyben:
> > DD usually maintains a distance from the actual deaths anyway, which 
> > usually occur through intermediaries & agents. It's all about the 
> > plausible deniability. Quirrel is only person that I'm sure he's 
> > killed directly.
> 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Uh. Wha-???  
> 
> Forgive me if this is something you've discussed at length at other 
> times, but I only have time to read the list sporadically and this is a 
> new one for me.  But may I ask how you get that you're "sure" DD killed 
> Quirrell *directly*?  Is that sure as in, "I can't prove it, but I'm 
> sure of it in my gut," or is that sure as in, "I'm sure because it's 
> been proven"?
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan
>
I, too, was wondering about that. What we know of Quirrell's death is
what Dumbledore says in Chapter 17 of PS/SS:

"Professor Quirrell did not manage to take [the Stone] from you. I
arrived in time to prevent that..."

"I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you. ...the effort
involved nearly killed you. For one terrible moment there, I was
afraid it had."

"[Voldemort] left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy for
his followers as his enemies."

It seems to me that Voldemort left Quirrell as soon as Dumbledore
pulled him off Harry. My interpretation is that Voldemort had taken
such control over Quirrell, "hogging" so much of his strength and will
to live, that Quirrell alone could no longer maintain his life. This
is what almost becomes of Ginny in CoS: Tom Riddle has leached so much
of her spirit that she is about to die, and Harry drove Riddle off in
the nick of time.

If one person "killed Quirrell," I think that person was Voldemort. As
the scant bits of disclosure about the end of his confrontation with
Harry do not say precisely what happened, other readers'
interpretations will differ. However, I don't think this passage could
be read as saying that DD directly killed Quirrell.

Amontillada





From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au  Tue Dec 11 21:04:26 2007
From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Polyjuice question
Message-ID: <996062.17217.qm@web59109.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179808

My big polyjuice question is whatever happened to the fact of it only lasting an hour unless you take another dose every hour on the hour.

It seems to me that all the polyjuice episodes in DH last for a lot longer than an hour. I don't remember reading that the formula had been tweaked at all and besides , Hermione found the polyjuice formula in a very old book, 'Moste Potente Potions' and I am sure, if it was possible, it would have been tweaked long before the time HP universe is set in.

Lesley



From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 11 23:28:53 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:28:53 -0000
Subject: Everything you never wanted to know about Professor Quirrell
In-Reply-To: <fjn11a+es8i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjn6fl+upak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179809

> > lizzyben:
> > > Quirrel is only person that I'm sure he's killed directly.
(Talking of Dumbledore the elder)

> > SSSusan:
> > Uh. Wha-??? 
<SNIP balance as it says it all>

> Amontillada

> I, too, was wondering about that.
<SNIP>
> If one person "killed Quirrell," I think that person was 
> Voldemort.

Goddlefrood:

I agree with SSSusan and Amontillada largely due to the quotes 
provided by Amontillada. However, it is clear that no effort 
was made to treat Quirrell by Dumbledore. That Quirrell was 
alive, albeit it barely, when Dumbledore arrived on the scene 
is an easy conclusion to make from the available snippets in 
canon in respect of this matter. Could Dumbledore have done 
anything to save Quirinus? The answer is probably not. Does 
that make him responsible for Quirrel's death? Again, the 
answer is probably not, but there is certainly room for the 
view that Dumbledore didn't even try to help Quirrell and so, 
is at least partially responsible for his death. Indirectly 
though, and not as earlier averred by Lizzyben directly. LV 
was more directly to blame, having no regard for QQ whatsoever.

It's easy to blame Dumbledore for everything, but in this post 
I want to shift the focus to Quirrell. In that regard allow me 
to post a discussion that occurred off-line with our resident 
Quirrell expert, Constance Vigilance, who has not posted for a 
while, and whom I notify that my address for service is:

Goddlefrood
P. O. Box 39573058
Varasa Island (meaning onion island)
Fiji

This address is provided in case any complaint is forthcoming 
from Ms. Vigilance.

The discussion began on list and a search for Josef 
Djugashvili and Lev Davidovitch Broinstein as author 
would take anyone interested to the bulk of it. The 
continuation dissects Quirrell's life a little:

Goddlefrood (pre-DH):

Once more your theory was of interest. I'm sorry to
say I'm not a fan of Mr. Granger but I'll dissect what
you say a little.
 
> CV:
> Well, Mr. Grant, regarding Quirrell's alma mater,
> let's take a look.
 
> Here is what we know:
 
> Quirrell is well trained in Dark Arts - enough to be
> hired by Dumbledore to teach. Of course, D may have
> been less than picky, but let's assume Q got his
> post on merit. And he actually was a good teacher
> until he picked up a parasite.
 
> Quirrell is good with trolls.

Vladimir Ulyanov:

Up to this point I would agree with the analysis. I'm
going to write this from memory, rather than crib from
any sources.

> CV:
> Quirrell prefers Norwegian dragons, eschewing all of
> the local varieties (Welsh greens, Hebredean Blacks,
> etc.) which could be gotten much easier than zipping
> to the northern realm and back between classes.

Norma Jean Baker:

This one I can't give you. Although Norbert is
indubitably a Norwegian Ridgeback there is too little
else given to make the assumption that that breed was
Quirrell's preferred one.

The only firm fact we have, barring whatever might be
stated in FB&WTFT, relative to dragons is that the
largest colony is in Romania. That each country or
region that has a dragon breed named for it may have
some remaining specimens is not a matter with which I
would disagree, however. You have a point, in other
words, but it is rather spurious.

> CV:
> I believe those are facts beyond dispute.

Varo:

See above.
 
> Furthermore, trolls are of Scandinavian legend.
> Trolls sometimes herd dragons. (I have some links
> for that, but I'm too lazy to look for them right
> now. They do. Honest.)

Nicholas Brakespeare:

There are, it's true, many troll legends from
Scandinavia. However, other parts of Europe also have
their own trolls stories. One such troll legendarily
lived not a million miles away from the Forest of
Dean. Whenever one is proximate to it it is wise to
say "Good morning (or appropriate time of day) Newton
Beck". I know this because I too, like Ms. Rowling,
originate from that part of the world and grew up
there only a couple of years behind her.

> CV:
> Let's assume that Q has some contacts in Scandinavia
> where he learned to handle trolls and found a dealer
> of rare dragons. Since she made such a point of the
> rareness of the type of dragon, I think JKR is
> pointing us to the idea that this dragon would be
> found only in northern Scandinavia.

Edward Marshall Hall:

I never make assumptions, too tricky to deal with the
consequences should they prove inaccurate. The dragon
egg in question could equally have come from Willie
Widdershins, Mundungus Fletcher or one of their ilk,
so that simplifies matters even further. Quirrell
would not have to leave the vicinity of Hogsmeade to
have obtained the egg if that were the case, although
it's another matter I doubt we'll ever have clarity
on.

>CV:
> Quirrell had a problem. He needed a dragon egg to
> fool Hagrid. There is a time problem with dragon
> eggs. You can't let them cool off or the baby dragon
> will die. Quirrell has his own time problem. He is
> being stealthy. He can't be gone long enough to be
> missed. How to get to Norway and back with a dragon
> egg before the egg gets cold or he is missed?

Harry Webb:

Agreed up to a point. My above solution would work
just as well and preclude any trip to Norway.

> CV:
> Broomstick, thestral? Nope - too slow.
> Knight Bus? Nope. Over water.
> Apparate? Maybe, but they don't seem to apparate
> over long distances. Dumbledore doesn't apparate
> even when he is going to London. 

Gordon Sumner:

Dumbledore misses few opportunities not to apparate.
He has said, iirc, that he prefers a more leisurely
way of travel, so it avails little to compare his MO
to Quirrell's possible mode of travel. Naturally a
stroll to Hogsmeade takes almost no time at all.

> CV:
> How about the lake portal to Durmstrang? That would
> work, but only if the other end is in Scandinavia.

> There has been a lot of discussion and analysis
> about where Durmstrang is. All the clues point
> towards Norway except the names of the school,
> teachers and students. But the names of the faculty
> and students can be explained by noting that
> Durmstrang is a magnet school for students all over
> Europe who want to learn the Dark Arts. Draco told
> us that.

Quisling:

The analysis of Norway as the venue for Durmstrang is
not one with which I concur. Not that I have actually
gone too deeply into the matter, although I probably
could. It seems more likely that Durmstrang is
situated on the Baltic. If that is the case then
Norway is really out.

> CV:
> How about the school name? I think the hint is from
> Dumbledore's frog card. Grindelwald in 1945. Even
> before JKR told Melissa Anelli that 1945 and WWII is
> significant, I had already made that connection. And
> what was happening in Norway in 1945? Occupation by
> Nazis. I think we will find that Nazi wizards were
> sent to occupied Norway to take over an existing
> magic school, rename it, and establish a curriculum
> heavy in the Dark Arts, which it is to this day.
> Imagine my smugness when I found an early quote from
> JKR, which has not made it to Accio Quote yet. The
> question was asked, where is Durmstrang. She said
> that it was in Norway or northern Sweden, but that
> the location is secret and she could be wrong.

Goddlefrood:

Try searching for Sturm und Drang and then let me know
your thoughts. If there is any credence in the early
quote to which you refer, and btw there are many that
are not at accio-quote, then Northern Sweden of the
two proposals would be more likely.

> CV: 
> So far, I think I'm pretty solid.

Goddlefrood:

Certainly, there could be some merit in the thought
train you have followed.

> CV:
> It is not that much of a leap to decide that
> Quirrell learned his Dark Arts and troll skills at
> Durmstrang. Besides, it fits in nicely with his
> pairing with Krum. That was the latest bit that I
> added to the picture after a lecture from John
> Granger (www.hogwartsprofessor.com) on the spiritual
> imagery and literary alchemy of HP. In this style of
> writing, twins are common. We have lots of twins,
> both literal ones (Weasleys, Patils) and figurative
> ones (the maruaders/the Trio plus Neville,
> Harry/Draco, Snape/James, etc) That's when it
> occurred to me that Quirrell and Krum were also this
> type of twins. Unfortunately, in literary alchemy,
> twins usually die.

> I think JKR will give Gred and Forge a reprieve by
> having Q/K be the doomed twinset. Q either is
> already toast or will certainly be so by the end of
> Book 7. I think it doesn't look good for Krum.

Goddlefrood:

I've written up a post on Homorphus before now, which
may interest you. It is at the group under a title
that would include Homorphus. My conclusion may be of
some intrigue to you and add further to your twins
views.

As I said earlier, I'm not a fan of Mr. Granger, I
will, hopefully before DH, do a post on why there is
little merit in the alchemy based interpretations of
JKR's world. There is some, but not a great deal. It
may also surprise you, it certainly pleased me, to
learn that Hagrid will almost certainly not die. As
many of the Alchemy theories lead to a conclusion that
he will this information could be tricky to factor in.
There are a good number of red haired people in the WW
so possibly the alchemists would see one of them dying
instead of Hagrid as a validation of their theories. I
would not, sad to say.

> CV:
> OK, here comes some pure speculation. Just my
> thinking.
 
> In the dungeon. Quirrell is in pain. Harry is being
> taken to the hospital. What would Dumbledore do?
 
> I think he helped Quirrell back to some degree of
> health. When the Voldysite off his head, I think
> Quirrell's head literally cleared and he and
> Dumbledore had a good talk.

Goddlefrood:

Possible, but like I said at list I doubt we'll find
out a great deal more about it.

> CV:
> Everybody thinks Quirrell is dead. *Everybody*. He
> would make an excellent agent to go back to
> Durmstrang and recruit trolls and Durmstrang
> students for the Final Battle. Dumbledore likes
> using spies. 

Goddlefrood:

There are a great number of spies of which we are
already aware, I'm prepared to agree there will be
more we are unaware of so far revealed. I find it
unlikely Quirrell would be one of them.

> CV: 
> I think Quirrell took Myrtle's pipes to the lake and
> used a First Year boat to get to Durmstrang, where
> he's been for the past several books. This is sort
> of my pet theory because it makes good use of some
> random facts that we've had that aren't serving any
> useful purpose.

> If Quirrell doesn't go through the pipes to the lake
> and take a First Year boat to Durmstrang, then I bet
> SOMEBODY will. The pipes and the boats are Chekov's
> guns. 
 
> As is the unicorn blood. If it didn't keep Quirrell
> alive, then it had no purpose at all in the story. 

Goddlefrood:

Intersting again. I offer an alternative. I do think
there is merit in travel by means of water. That there
is a lake underground at Gringotts is not a matter
that can be overlooked in that regard. I'm sure you
are aware of the thoughts put out there on that issue.

Goddlefrood (post-DH):

The assistance of the various authors mentioned throughout 
the above extract is hereby acknowledged, may their souls 
rest in peace excepting those of Messrs. Webb and Sumner, 
who are still amongst us.





From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Dec 11 22:34:37 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:34:37 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
References: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <475F107D.3080901@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179810

Mike wrote:
> *Best Piece of Magic
>   
Bart:
I STILL say the Room of Requirement. Possibly also the most 
underutilized magic, seeing that the room could stock itself with 
necessary books. Who needs to go through the library system? And that's 
just one part we KNOW can be done.

Bart




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 12 02:16:51 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:16:51 -0000
Subject: DD killed Quirrell? (was: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy)
In-Reply-To: <fjjumn+d7ko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjngaj+vi8n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179811


SSSusan:
> Uh. Wha-???  
> 
> Forgive me if this is something you've discussed at length at 
other 
> times, but I only have time to read the list sporadically and this 
is a 
> new one for me.  But may I ask how you get that you're "sure" DD 
killed 
> Quirrell *directly*?  Is that sure as in, "I can't prove it, but 
I'm 
> sure of it in my gut," or is that sure as in, "I'm sure because 
it's 
> been proven"?
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan


lizzyben:

Definitely just sure of it in my gut. I was hoping that'd get a 
response! It doesn't seem like Quirrell's fate has been brought up 
on the list post-DH & IMO it's something that definitely takes on a 
new light in view of the revelations of that book.

The ending of SS is very, very odd. Harry confronts Quirrell/LV, LV 
recoils when Harry grabs his face & Harry hangs onto his arm, Harry 
hears voices calling his name... and he blacks out. He wakes up three
days later & DD tells him that Quirrell died when LV fled his body. 
I am, as usual, suspicious! Why would Quirrell die when LV stopped 
possessing him? LV possessed Harry, & Harry didn't die when LV fled 
his body. Ditto for Ginny. So why should Quirrell die? Where was he 
buried? Doesn't the guy even get a funeral, or any mention after 
teaching at the school for many years? And finally, who's bright 
idea was it to send Quirrell to Albania to study in the first place? 
Right before Harry is scheduled to come back to Hogwarts? Well, who 
knew that LV was floating around an Albanian forest, through his 
many "sources"? One guess. :)

Harry's last memory before blacking out was this: "He felt 
Quirrell's arm wrenched from his grasp, knew all was lost, and fell 
into blackness, down . . . down . . . down . . ."

Later on, DD says: "I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you -
-"
"It was you."
"I feared I might be too late."

So, DD arrives, wrenches Quirrell's arm from Harry's grasp & pulls 
Quirrell away. Pretty clear here. He's still fighting Harry when DD 
arrives. But he's dead when Harry wakes up.

"But sir, the Stone --"

"I see you are not to be distracted. Very well, the Stone. Professor 
Quirrell did not manage to take it from you. I arrived in time to 
prevent that, although you were doing very well on your own, I must 
say."

DD says that he just arrived in time to prevent Quirrell from taking 
the stone - DD says that he prevented that, but doesn't elaborate on 
how he did that.

"He left Quirrell to die; he has just as little mercy for his 
followers as his enemies".

Notice that DD doesn't actually SAY that Quirrell died when LV fled, 
he just says that LV "left Quirrell to die". DD doesn't specify 
*how* Quirrell's death actually arrived. Kinda like "by the time I 
extracted her memory, her life was almost over." DD doesn't actually 
lie, usually, he just violates the maxims of communication with 
complete impunity. 

Finally, DD tells Harry that he's been unconscious for *three days*. 
Isn't that an awfully long time? A lot of things could happen in 
three days in regards to Quirrell & Harry would never know about it. 
JKR deliberately left an enormous hole in the story there, & I don't 
know why. It actually goes against the rules of storytelling, which 
is probably why the movie completely revamped the Quirrell 
confrontation. Usually, we see the hero defeating the villian in the 
climax of the story. But here, right at the most intense moment, it 
all fades to black, & we never do hear the truth of it all. The 
truth is a beautiful & terrible thing according to DD, and maybe JKR 
too. So yes, I think DD killed off Quirrell after LV fled, in order 
to avoid troubling questions from Hogwarts staff or the MOM. And we 
never hear about Quirrell again. Maybe DD just told everyone he went 
on another sabbatical? And I think it's at least 50/50 that DD sent 
Quirrell off to Albanian forest in the first place, in order to 
bring back Vapormort in time for Harry's arrival at Hogwarts. 

The last chapter of SS is titled "The Man with Two Faces," & it 
features both Harry's confrontation with Quirrell & his ending 
conversation with Dumbledore. IMO that's another case of a chapter 
title w/a double meaning. Harry sees the other face of Quirrell at 
the end of this book, but he doesn't see the other face of DD until 
the end of the series.


lizzyben





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 12 02:24:13 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:24:13 -0000
Subject: DD killed Quirrell? (was: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy)
In-Reply-To: <fjngaj+vi8n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjngod+oqvc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179812

lizzyben:
> 
> Definitely just sure of it in my gut. I was hoping that'd get a 
> response! It doesn't seem like Quirrell's fate has been brought up 
> on the list post-DH & IMO it's something that definitely takes on a 
> new light in view of the revelations of that book.
> 
> The ending of SS is very, very odd. Harry confronts Quirrell/LV, LV 
> recoils when Harry grabs his face & Harry hangs onto his arm, Harry 
> hears voices calling his name... and he blacks out. He wakes up three
> days later & DD tells him that Quirrell died when LV fled his body. 
> I am, as usual, suspicious! <snip>

Carol responds:

Nevertheless, it's confirmed by Voldemort himself in GoF:

"The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as weak as I
had ever been" (GoF Am. ed. 654).

Carol, noting that the snakes and other small animals that Vapormort
possesses also die when he uses up their life force






From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Dec 12 02:50:22 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:50:22 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: When
In-Reply-To: <fjmqaq+lch0@eGroups.com>
References: <fjmqaq+lch0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <475F4C6E.2050701@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179813

Steve wrote:
> As a side note, in the first book, JKR mentions Dudley
> having a Nintendo or Playstation or Gameboy, some 
> computerized game console, but someone pointed out that
> game consoles like that didn't exist at that time. Even
> personal computers in 1991 were relatively primitive by
> todays standards. And I don't recall every little kid,
> much less every adult, having a cell phone in 1991. I think
> the bulk of 'every kid has a cell phone' occurred in the
> 21st century. 

Bart:
	I was doing Internet programming in 1991. The first game consoles came 
out in the early 80's. The IBM PS/2 with microchannel architecture was 
released in 1987. Admittedly Windows NT didn't come out until 1993, but 
I was using a Macintosh in 1986. The i486 (predecessor to the Pentium) 
came out in 1989. Not only was the Nintendo out by 1991, the SUPER 
Nintendo was out by then. There had already been a video console crash 
(in the early 80's and revival. And the Commodore Amiga, which was well 
ahead of its time, was quite mature by 1991.

	Cell phones were not common; one running joke was that the first 
month's bill for virtually every new cell phone owner was $1000.

	Bart



From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Wed Dec 12 03:56:35 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 03:56:35 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjnm5j+ka4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179814

Mike:
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?

Pippin Fowler
JKR excelled at getting her magical beings from place to place. 
Apparate/Disapparate, the Floo Network, invisible passages from the 
muggle world, brooms with varying features, flying Dragons and 
Hippogriffs, flying Weasley-modified muggle automobile, portraits 
traveling from frame to frame, and (my favourite) providing different 
rules that allowed the house elves, for instance, to come and 
go 'under the radar' of LV and other wizards and witches.

Mike:
> I guess while we're at it, we could include the Worst Piece of 
Magic.

Pippin Fowler:
Given all of the above, Splinching seemed like a silly, plot-
fruitless invention that shook me from my suspension of belief every 
time it was mentioned.

Pippin Fowler




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Dec 12 14:32:42 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 07:32:42 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD killed Quirrell? (was: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy)
References: <fjngod+oqvc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003c01c83ccb$dc1265c0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179815

> Carol responds:
>
> Nevertheless, it's confirmed by Voldemort himself in GoF:
>
> "The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as weak as I
> had ever been" (GoF Am. ed. 654).
>
> Carol, noting that the snakes and other small animals that Vapormort
> possesses also die when he uses up their life force


Shelley:
I think it's pretty clear that DD did not kill Quirrell; Voldemort did when 
he possessed Quirrell in the first place, and once the two were separated, 
dead was imminent. DD may have been able to extract a memory from Quirrell 
before that final dead breath was taken, but even if extracting a memory 
hastened the process, it was a certainty that Quirrell was not long for this 
earth (a few hours maybe) anyway. Personally, I think that Quirrell only had 
a few minutes when DD found him and got the memories from him.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 12 16:37:37 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:37:37 -0000
Subject: DD killed Quirrell? (was: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy)
In-Reply-To: <003c01c83ccb$dc1265c0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fjp2oh+duuk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179816

Carol earlier:
> >
> > Nevertheless, it's confirmed by Voldemort himself in GoF:
> >
> > "The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as weak as
I had ever been" (GoF Am. ed. 654).
> >
> > Carol, noting that the snakes and other small animals that
Vapormort possesses also die when he uses up their life force
> 
> 
> Shelley:
> I think it's pretty clear that DD did not kill Quirrell; Voldemort
did when he possessed Quirrell in the first place, and once the two
were separated, dead was imminent. DD may have been able to extract a
memory from Quirrell before that final dead breath was taken, but even
if extracting a memory hastened the process, it was a certainty that
Quirrell was not long for this earth (a few hours maybe) anyway.
Personally, I think that Quirrell only had a few minutes when DD found
him and got the memories from him.
>
Carol responds:

Evidently, my intended meaning wasn't clear. (Sorry about the vague
pronoun "it's"!) I agree with you that *Voldemort* killed Quirrell,
who died when LV left his body. Dumbledore had nothing to do with it.
I don't think we need to speculate about Legilimency being involved.
There's no evidence for it that I can see. Both Dumbledore and
Voldemort, the only people who would know since Harry was unconscious
and Quirrell is dead, state that Voldemort left Quirrell to die. His
life force or soul had clearly been used up as Ginny's nearly is in
CoS and as the life force of the beasts that Voldemort possesses
before Wormtail finds him also is ("[Wormtail's] filthy little friends
told him there was a place deep in an Albanian forest, that they
avoided, where small animals like themselves met their deaths by a
dark shadow that possessed them," GoF Am. ed. 655).

All Dumbledore did to Quirrell was to pull him off Harry and prevent
him from taking the Stone (SS Am. ed. 297). There's no indication that
DD used Legilimency or did anything else to Quirrell. At that point
Voldemort, apparently realizing that he was not going to get the
Stone, abandoned Quirrell, leaving him to die. (Evidently, the unicorn
blood was all that sustained Quirrell once Voldemort had parasitically
sucked the life force from him, but I realize that I'm speculating on
this detail.)

Carol, realizing that the Dumbledore's explanation is rather vague but
it's supported by Voldemort's account, which also places the blame for
Quirrell's death on Voldemort




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 12 18:06:19 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:06:19 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjp7ur+djbq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179817

Mike:
>
> *Best Piece of Magic
> 
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?

a_svirn:
Apparition. Oh, to be able to pop up wherever I want without all the 
bother and expense of booking fights, checking in (to say nothing of 
obtaining visas)! Definitely the most attractive piece of magic as 
far as I am concerned. 
 
Mike:
> I guess while we're at it, we could include the Worst Piece of 
Magic.

a_svirn:
Elves' joint-apparition to and from anywhere. It kills most of the 
plotlines. Not only has it made the ridiculous seven-Potters plan 
even more ridiculous, Rowling seems to overlook the fact that it 
works both ways. If Harry could use it to kidnap Mundungus Fletcher, 
how much more easily could Voldemort use it to kidnap Harry! In GoF 
he could use Winky, in OotP he could use Kreacher. In any other book 
he could use any other elf (surely the Malfoys weren't the only elves-
owners among the death eaters). All he needed is for an elf to seize 
Harry while he is asleep and apparate him to where the Dark Lord's 
resided at the moment. 

Besides, I don't see how anything can be safe at Gringotts. Not only 
Goblins seem to contest their clients ownership of their valuables, 
any elf at any moment can apparate at any vault and steal (or as 
Pippin put it commandeer) anything his or her owner fancies. 

And why didn't they use Hogwarts elves to evacuate students before 
the Battle of Hogwarts? 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 12 18:45:26 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:45:26 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjpa86+9m6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179818

> ---  "Mike" <mcrudele78@> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> > What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?
>> > 
> > ///\\\////\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
> > 
> > I guess while we're at it, we could include the Worst Piece 
> > of Magic.
> > 


Alla:

Best piece of magic? Heeee, as in my favorite symbolic magic is 
definitely Harry's patronus, I also love Map. I love so many things 
that people already named.

I love love Minerva's battle magic that she unleashed at Snape. I 
love Dumbledore's battle magic with Voldemort. 

But as the piece of magic I want to have and use? Um, Molly's 
household spells and lovely house elf would be nice too.

Oh, oh and I want to fly on the broom as well. Very cool.  And I want 
to have access to phoenix' tears.

I really have to think about worst piece of magic, since nothing 
comes to mind right away. I mostly love them all, but I think if I 
were force to choose, I would probably choose memory charms and 
legilimency.

I have no problem in the context of Potterverse with memory charms on 
muggles, since I understand the premise of keeping two worlds 
separate and distinct, but I do find them to be a violation of one's 
identity. I would like to be able to choose whether I want to forget 
something or not, thank you very much.

Legilimency? GRRRRRRR ? mind rape as far as I am concerned. And yes, 
this is a problem I have no matter who uses it ? Dumbledore or Snape 
or Voldemort.

JMO,

Alla





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec 12 19:02:34 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:02:34 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice question
In-Reply-To: <996062.17217.qm@web59109.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fjpb8a+fkla@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179819

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lesley McKenna <wrappedinharry at ...> wrote:
>
> My big polyjuice question is whatever happened to the fact of it only lasting an hour unless 
you take another dose every hour on the hour.
> 
> It seems to me that all the polyjuice episodes in DH last for a lot longer than an hour. I 
don't remember reading that the formula had been tweaked at all and besides , Hermione 
found the polyjuice formula in a very old book, 'Moste Potente Potions' and I am sure, if it 
was possible, it would have been tweaked long before the time HP universe is set in.
> 

Pippin:
Possibly the hourly dosage is the most efficient -- an important consideration for
Hermione in CoS and Crouch Jr in GoF, both of whom were relying on stolen 
ingredients. But I don't think anyone ever says that a larger dose wouldn't last
longer.

Pippin




From jmrazo at hotmail.com  Wed Dec 12 20:22:29 2007
From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:22:29 -0000
Subject: The Core of the Elder Wand and other new JKR explanations
In-Reply-To: <fjeuf6+v56q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjpfu5+3qpg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179820


> Carol responds:
> 
> Does anyone besides me find this information less than helpful, even
> possibly annoying? It isn'e in the books (we don't even know that the
> wand *has* a core), and it seems to me that a number of people became
> the master of the Elder Wand by seizing it or killing the previous
> master without necessarily being capable of facing death. 

phoenixgod2000:

I took the explanation to mean that the material could only used as a 
core for wands by someone capable of mastering death, i.e. Olivander 
doesn't exactly have a line of Thestral hair wands he lets people try 
out.  

A note on manufacturing and not terms of use in other words.




From slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Dec 12 20:25:09 2007
From: slytherin_jenn at yahoo.co.uk (slytherin_jenn)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:25:09 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjpg35+8o0r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179821

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> *Best Piece of Magic
> 
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?


Celoneth:
My favourite pieces of magic were the ones that hide the WW in the
middle of the Muggle world - like the enchantments that allow the
Leaky Cauldron to be seen only by wizards or the broken telephone
booth & empty department store that hide the MoM & St. Mungos that
Muggles never seem to notice. Its fun to imagine an entire world
hiding in the midst of everything ordinary. McGonagall's
transfigurations were also very cool - the giant chess set, the battle
w/ Snape & the enchantments in the battle of Hogwarts just very
impressive all around.

Least favourite have to be the Hallows, I don't like super-powerful
magical trinkets & the hero searching for such trinkets seems cliche
to me. Also the house-elf magic - its way too broken - using
house-elfs, one could break every single wizarding enchantment, no
matter how complex or unbreakable, just by ordering the elf. It also
seems really odd that with wizards, who've owned house-elfs for
generations wouldn't realise the potential of their servants.
Celoneth




From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Dec 12 18:46:18 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:46:18 -0500
Subject: Polyjuice question
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAOeJYUY7JAESVxB/AVPpTQgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179822

Anent the time factor, Hermione's formula and the one tested on in OWLs is, I
imagine, the basic one.  We know that Aurors take advanced training, and a NEWT
in Potions is required for admission to Auror training, so it is not
inconcievable that there is a more long-lasting formula known among and used by
Aurors.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man.  Other forms of
transport grow daily more nightmarish.  Only the bicycle remains pure in
heart."--Iris Murdoch



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From jaschenk at hotmail.com  Wed Dec 12 18:55:13 2007
From: jaschenk at hotmail.com (jaschenka)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:55:13 -0000
Subject: MBC**
In-Reply-To: <012d01c83c22$9378c7e0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fjpaqh+1qko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179823

> Shelley:
> Sure,  there was the radio program, but that was just a tiny fraction
> of what the twins  were capable of. But no, I don't think Rowling
> used them to their fullest potential at the end, and killing off
> Fred was just cruel. In my mind, I wanted to see the famous Weasley
> twins still having fun in their old age. I guess in "my Harry Potter
> Universe", they still are.

jaschenka:
In my opinion Fred's dead was the most unnecessary!
Why didn't she just kill Percy instead? Breaking up the twins was
indeed just cruel!
Would it not have been cool if Fred's ear had just been blown of?
Then the twins would have been identical again! Just a thought..
My favourite character... I think Ron... or Snape... or Neville!
(I loved that Neville killed Nagini)





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 12 23:40:43 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:40:43 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice question
In-Reply-To: <996062.17217.qm@web59109.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fjprhr+24n2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179824

---  Lesley McKenna <wrappedinharry at ...> wrote:
>
> My big polyjuice question is whatever happened to the fact 
> of it only lasting an hour unless you take another dose every
> hour on the hour.
> 
> It seems to me that all the polyjuice episodes in DH last 
> for a lot longer than an hour. ...
> 
> Lesley
>

bboyminn:

I've speculated on this in the group recently. My view is
that JKR is still well aware of her one hour limit on 
Polyjuice potion, but in an effort to keep her story compact
and moving forward, she simply didn't bother to add that 
detail to the story. In a sense, she eliminated all the
extraneous clutter to keep the story focused. 

I think we are intended to assume that detail is being 
managed off-page. That is, H/R/H are taking more that one
dose, but it distracts from the story to continually stop
and say so, consequently we are meant to assume it is
happening, even though it is never mentioned. 

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn




From torillgrnhaug at yahoo.no  Thu Dec 13 00:20:04 2007
From: torillgrnhaug at yahoo.no (Torill)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:20:04 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fj95vn+tmoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjptrk+ck27@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179825

I am sorry to say that Molly Weasley is one of the characters
who annoys me the most in the books. I see her as a completely
self-centered and emotionally immature person. She doesn't
seem to have an adult's understanding of how her actions and
emotional outbursts affect other people. Or if she has, she
considers other people's reactions as invalid or insignificant,
or both. And unlike other flawed characters on the "good" side
in the series, she has nothing, in either her background story
or her immediate situation, that may serve as an excuse for this
behaviour.

She is true to her own values and goals, sure, which is all
about family life and "family values". Nothing wrong in that
per se, but she does come across as horribly narrow-minded.
"Scarlet women" anyone? Except, of course, when she was the
girl roaming the grounds at Hogwarts after hours in the company
of a boy, that is. That was different, because that was Molly!

She always seeks to get what she wants and enjoy what she likes,
and if anyone has any other inclination or preference, she is
capable of seeing this as nothing short of a personal insult.
An example of just how childish she can get in this respect,
is the Christmas party, where she furiously keeps turning the
volume up on the wireless, to stop her guests from being able
to pay attention to anything else than what she likes and wants
in way of entertainment. Her reasons for wanting to listen to
that particular programme are fairly private, so it's incredible
how she assumes everyone else must be just as delighted and
interested as she is! Even Arthur feels this as embarassing,
and makes excuses to Harry for her behaviour... but he doesn't
seem to think it would be possible to ask her to turn it off
or at least down since their guests are not interested - you
don't openly oppose Molly at the Burrow, unless your name is
Fred or George!

Another example of her immature behavioiur is how she comes
bustling into Harry's bedroom in Fleur's wake, with no other
purpose than to make sure it is understood that she was the
one who was supposed to give Harry his breakfast tray. The
fact that Fleur may have her own, independent friendship
with Harry after their experiences in the Tournament, and
have her own valid reasons to want to do something for Harry
that have nothing to do with Molly, seem to be completely
beyond Molly's imagination or concern. Molly doesn't like
Fleur or want her as a daughter-in-law, then of course Fleur
is not going to be allowed to do anything for Harry, Molly's
very own favorite! (And this is not meant as a discussion of
Fleur's conduct or manners, of course - which also may be said
to be lacking in several respects!)

That it is so important to her to deny Fleur that small pleasure
of serving Harry his breakfast, demonstrates a considerable lack
of generousity on Molly's part. But she is the kind of woman that
will only be generous on her own terms, and to her own favorites
- then on the other hand she may lavish more attention and fuss
and care on them than they actually want or need. Again, her
"gifts" will be more about her own needs than the needs of
others.

This is also demonstrated I think by the way Molly plays
favorites among her own children, openly and unabashedly.
On a couple of occations, see below, she even acts as if
she favours Harry over Ron! Also, she thinks nothing of
criticing the twins in front of Harry in their absence.
(And in their presence too, for that matter..) She has
no qualms about telling Harry, a minor and a guest, not
a family member, and a school mate of the twins to boot,
about all her worries over the twins, with no concern for
how disloyal to her family this is, or how embarassing it
may be for Harry to have to listen to it. No, this is just
what she feels at the moment, so then she just blurts it
out, regardless of the situation or who is listening! The
"what are we, next door neighbours?" remark from the twins
is maybe a funny line, but the reality behind it is grim
enough imo, and not funny at all.

She is also horribly insensitive on several occations, with
no respect or concern for the needs and feelings of others,
her own children included. It is not only that she never
remembers or cares - not sure which it is - that Ron can't
stand maroon. Although that detail repeated over and over
may still amount to a message of little concern for his
individuality. She can be more blatantly incosiderate than
that. Take for instance the way she presents Ron with his
impossible dress robes in GoF. Would it have killed her to
acknowledge and validate his disappointment over how ugly
they are? Molly is supposed to be an accomplished witch when
it comes to domestic spells, isn't she? So how about saying
something like: I can change the colour or remove the lace
trimmings for you if you like, just tell me what you want
and I will do my best to fix it!

Not Molly. No, first she fondly presents Harry with brand new,
modern and stylish robes in front of Ron, and gushes about how
she was careful to get Harry a colour that would "bring out his
eyes". Then she presents second hand and outdated  - and maroon!
- robes to Ron in front of his richer friend, and still expects
him to react as if they were of the same kind as Harry's new
and modern ones, with the careful and considerate choice of
colour that she never honours Ron with. When Ron shows a very
predictable and understandable reaction to this - he is fourteen,
for goodness sake! - she snaps that he can go naked, and stomps
out of the room like a moody teenager! Just how insensitive and
childish can a mother get?

When Ron makes her feel uncomfortable by calling attention
to the fact that she is presenting him with ugly second hand
robes that does not suit him, she feels completelly entitled
to take it out on him in front of Harry. But Ron is not allowed
to have any reactions when she makes him feel uncomfortable by
this blatant demonstration of their poverty in front of his
friend. That's Molly for you.

And how I hate the way she speaks of and to Sirius, in his own
house and in front of his friends and his Godson too - with a
complete lack of compassion and respect! He, as one of the
most heavily traumatised characters in the series, shows
every sign of a severe clinical depression and post traumatic
stress reactions - and she calls it "having the sullens" and
teaches the kids (Hermione especially) to see him as selfish!
A variation of "please don't bleed on the carpet, it creates
such a mess for the rest of us" imo...

Not to mention how she tries to make it seem like no one else
but she cares for Harry and his interests, how she is immediately
ready and willing to disfavour Hermione in very petty and hurtful
ways (a small Easter egg when the boys have big ones!) after only
one  article from the horrible Rita Skeeter she has no reasn to
trust, having had Hermione as a guest in her house..

Ok, this rant must stop now - I think you may have understood
already how I really can't stand Molly! ;)

torillgrnhaug



From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 03:01:29 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 03:01:29 -0000
Subject: DD killed Quirrell? (was: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites/Legilimency/DDsecrecy)
In-Reply-To: <fjngod+oqvc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjq7a9+5df8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179826

> Carol responds:
> 
> Nevertheless, it's confirmed by Voldemort himself in GoF:
> 
> "The servant died when I left his body, and I was left as weak as I
> had ever been" (GoF Am. ed. 654).
> 
> Carol, noting that the snakes and other small animals that 
Vapormort
> possesses also die when he uses up their life force


lizzyben:

This is true! However, LV isn't the best witness - he did leave 
Quirrell's body, but does he know if & when Quirrell died? Small 
animals die when LV posseses them, but Nagini didn't die. Harry 
didn't, Ginny didn't. Humans that have been posessed by LV haven't 
died from the experience. How can we be sure that Quirrell did? And 
even if he did die the instant that LV left, we still don't know how 
or when that happened. Did DD & Quirrell/LV have a spectacular 
battle? Did LV flee right when DD was about to kill Quirrell? Did DD 
throw Quirrell/LV into a dundgeon for three days until LV got bored 
& left? Or did they all sit down for a cup of tea & a discussion of 
their various plans for world domination? We just don't know. 

JKR cut out the most exciting part of the book - the moment where 
Voldemort flees & Quirrell dies. The movies actually showed this 
climatic moment, like a good story should. But in the book, we just 
have to take DD's word on what happened after Harry passed out. And 
DD's word on this matter is (deliberately?) vague. The Master of 
Secrets & Lies says (actually just implies) that Quirrell died - but 
where's the funeral, burial, etc? It's actually more like Quirrell 
evaporated. I thought we'd get more information on those missing 
three days, but we didn't. It's like it's meant to be a secret 
between JKR & DD. 

And that's really the problem. JKR says that DD has been pulling 
strings behing the scenes, treating people like puppets, acting like 
a Machievelli, but she doesn't ever lay out exactly what DD has been 
responsible for. It's all just speculation now, because canon is 
closed. But she calls him a great wizard. How can we agree/disagree 
if readers still don't know the extent of his manipulations? Does 
she mean "great" in the same sense Ollivander did - "terrible 
things, but great"? 

I think that Quirrell was DD's puppet just as much as LV's. DD sent 
the gullible young professor to the Albanian forest, where 
his "sources" had informed him that LV was lurking. In GOF, DD says 
that those sources told him that LV was back in the same spot post-
SS, so he's always known where LV was. It's about time for the 
Chosen One to come to Hogwarts, & so it's about time to fetch LV 
back to fight him & "test his strength". DD then sets up the 
philosopher's stone trap to lure LV (and Harry) to their 
confrontation. DD obviously knew that LV was inhabiting Quirrell's 
turban that year (keep an eye on Quirrel), so it's just a short hop 
to conclude that DD sent Quirrell to Albania in the first place in 
order to bring LV back & set the Plan in motion. Then, DD moves the 
Stone to Hogwarts, moves Quirrell to the cursed DADA position, & 
lets the games begin. In the process, Quirrell's life is used up & 
tossed aside - by both DD & LV. 

In the first novel, DD is presented as good, noble, someone who 
wouldn't use Dark means to accomplish his ends. But by the end, we 
know that DD did indeed use dark means to accomplish his goals. He 
exploits people & treats them as puppets, just as he treated 
Quirrell like a puppet on a string. So, if Quirrell was just a pawn 
to both LV & DD, what's the difference between these wizards? 
Quirrell's statement that "there is no good & evil, only power," 
starts to look like an accurate statement of the ultimate morality 
of the Potterverse. 


lizzyben




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 04:14:06 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 04:14:06 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjlonu+e440@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjqbie+hfs6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179827

> Carol:
> Killing unconscious people, Death Eaters or not, is murder. I
> would have been most unhappy with both Rowling and the characters
> if they had done any such thing. You don't lower yourself to the
> bad guys' level if you're a good guy 

Mike:
Agreed, but why don't they take their wands? What is it with the 
Trio, it takes Harry getting his wand broke and being without one 
himself for any of them to finally think about disarming the enemy.

In the battle of the DoM, Harry, Hermione and Neville had 
incapacitated three DEs (besides the baby-head modified DE) and they 
took none of their wands. Despite the fact that they know Accio and 
Hermione had already used it to retrieve Harry's wand. To have three 
wandless DEs in the penultimate battle, would have meant seven DEs 
versus five Order members and Harry. Much better odds, wouldn't you 
say?

And what is Harry's "signature spell", according to Lupin's way of 
interpreting the DE's response? **Expelliarmus** the DISARMING charm.
This inconsistency makes no sense to me. Harry stuns Rowle twice in 
DH and takes his wand neither time. Same for the other DEs and 
Umbridge (I'd a broke her wand <eg>). Ron at least grabs more than 
his own wand when he escapes the snatchers. It takes Harry until 
the Malfoy Manor chapter to get this strategy.


> mz_annethrope:
> 
> What bothers me is that she [Hermione] knows how to erase memories.

Mike:
Apparently not as well as she thinks. As Juli pointed out in her 
summary: "Voldemort is very upset and disappointed in Rowle, he has 
let Harry escape once again. And worse, he's making Draco torture 
Rowle." How would Rowle know he let Harry escape and have been able 
to report that to Voldemort, if Hermione had just erased his memory 
a few hours ago? The Taboo doesn't indicate *who* said Voldemort's 
name, it only acts like an locater beacon. (More bad JKR magic?)


Carol:
I *was* a Girl Scout. I'm proud of that experience. Sorry. I really
was never more than a Brownie Scout, but I couldn't resist parodying
a certain (now dead) U.S. President.

Mike:
The only unelected President, Gerry Ford. What do I win? <BG>
Oh, I won't comment on which of us is younger. <g>




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Dec 13 05:26:02 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:26:02 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MBC**
References: <fjpaqh+1qko@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00d801c83d48$a7c515b0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179828

>> Shelley:
>> Sure,  there was the radio program, but that was just a tiny fraction
>> of what the twins  were capable of. But no, I don't think Rowling
>> used them to their fullest potential at the end, and killing off
>> Fred was just cruel. In my mind, I wanted to see the famous Weasley
>> twins still having fun in their old age. I guess in "my Harry Potter
>> Universe", they still are.
>
> jaschenka:
> In my opinion Fred's dead was the most unnecessary!
> Why didn't she just kill Percy instead? Breaking up the twins was
> indeed just cruel!
> Would it not have been cool if Fred's ear had just been blown of?
> Then the twins would have been identical again! Just a thought..
> My favourite character... I think Ron... or Snape... or Neville!
> (I loved that Neville killed Nagini)

Shelley:
Or Fred's other ear, so that one had the right one missing, and the other 
one the left one missing, but Molly still mixing them up and everyone having 
a good laugh over it. Some tangeable sign that the twins and their family 
would be ok, and move on in life, despite scars and missing parts.





From apetersonhanson at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 05:56:24 2007
From: apetersonhanson at yahoo.com (apetersonhanson)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 05:56:24 -0000
Subject: Sympathy for LV or sympathy for Riddle?
Message-ID: <fjqhi8+536b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179829

I read some of you having some small sympathy for LV. I agree to some
extent but I want to rephrase. I think we can have sympathy for Tom
Riddle, I certainly do, hugely. However I have none for LV.

apetersonhanson




From apetersonhanson at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 06:02:38 2007
From: apetersonhanson at yahoo.com (apetersonhanson)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:02:38 -0000
Subject: Draco, Narcissa and Harry
Message-ID: <fjqhtu+hmrd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179830

I was really hoping that Draco would flip the script and become good,
abandoning his Death Eaters and finally seeing that they are all just
being used. I feel for him and don't think he would have turned out
the way he did without Lucius.  If Narcissa had raised him alone then what would have happened...

Narcissa kind of makes what I wanted to happen between Draco and Harry
happen, when she lies for Harry to save Draco by telling the
surrounding group of Death Eaters he has no heartbeat, he is dead.

Early on I hoped that Draco and Harry could have become allies or even
friends, Draco helping to defeat LV. In my perfect world he would have.
Especially after Harry saved him from the Fiendfyre, I hoped then
Draco would turn around. Then Ron helps him when Death Eaters are
shooting at him and Draco is yelling I am Draco Malfoy, I am on your
side.  Poor Draco

apetersonhanson



From apetersonhanson at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 06:04:12 2007
From: apetersonhanson at yahoo.com (apetersonhanson)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:04:12 -0000
Subject: RE polyjuice
Message-ID: <fjqi0s+a0q7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179831

Hermione finds the recipe in an old book but in DH she doesn't make
it, she takes Moody's leftover PJ potion after his death; which by the
way pissed me off so much, especially so early in the book.

apetersonhanson



From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Dec 13 13:10:48 2007
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:10:48 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco, Narcissa and Harry
In-Reply-To: <fjqhtu+hmrd@eGroups.com>
References: <fjqhtu+hmrd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40712130510g3f174ab7o6ba14f8e9a61f70f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179832

On 12/13/07, apetersonhanson <apetersonhanson at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I was really hoping that Draco would flip the script and become good,
> abandoning his Death Eaters and finally seeing that they are all just
> being used.


montims:
I'm not convinced that he doesn't.  Unfortunately, JKR dropped his storyline
in a very frustrating way.  We have no idea what happens from when he goes
off with Snape to the end, except for a few cameos which we see in a skewed
way (pre Harry's Snape and DD revelations).  We know that Snape
couldn't tell Draco what side he was really on, while fleeing from DD's
murder, as that would have been revealed to LV, but whether Snape has the
chance to speak with Draco (of whom he was fond, and who had seen and
experienced some horrendous things) at Hogwarts, we don't know.  Certainly,
in the RoR, he sounds very like Snape, with his cries of "don't kill him"
...  Draco may have still believed that Snape was bad, and have been acting
off his own bat, or he may at this time have been allowed a glimpse into how
Snape was trying to look out for everybody - the Malfoys, the Trio, etc...
This is a sidestory I would be interested to read...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 08:28:35 2007
From: KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com (kimberleyelizabeth)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:28:35 -0000
Subject: RE polyjuice
In-Reply-To: <fjqi0s+a0q7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjqqfj+566i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179833

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson"
<apetersonhanson at ...> wrote:
>
> Hermione finds the recipe in an old book but in DH she doesn't make
> it, she takes Moody's leftover PJ potion after his death; which by the
> way pissed me off so much, especially so early in the book.


PJ juice takes a month to brew properly and since she didn't how to get
the ingredients, where she could find a place to brew it safely, or
when she would need some in a hurry, Moody's ready made potion was
available, I'd have taken it too.

Kimberley




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Thu Dec 13 13:57:06 2007
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:57:06 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjkvq7+lr36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjrdni+t9oi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179834

> Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
> CHAPDISC: Chapter 9, A Place to Hide
>
> Discussion Questions:
> 3. Why do you think The Trio didn't want to kill the Death Eaters?
> They are 'good', we all get that, but they are in a war, and at
> those times killing is allowed. Do you agree?

Aussie:
NB: Dolohov was in the cafe, and killed Lupin in the end. 
You don't have to kill to keep an enemy off the front line. Pop an 
ear drum and he is to dizzy and disorientated for much moving 
around ... so I felt maiming him early in the book would have been 
welcomed.
aussie
 
> 1. When you first read this chapter, what did you think it was
> that tipped the Death Eaters off to the Trio's whereabouts? 

Aussie: 
Because JKR gave us the red herring (wrong solution) of the Trace, I 
dismissed it immediately. I thought any time magic is done in a 
muggle area, it is detectable. So when Hermione opened the bag to 
get things, I thought that was magic being performed in a muggles' 
area, so detectable.
aussie

> 2. What do you think of Hermione's "Always prepared"? Do you think 
> she would have made a good Girl Scout?

Aussie:
The scouts/girl guides weren't the most prepared. Hermione just 
agrues both sides of the debate till she knows all possibilities.
aussie
 
> 4. How does Hermione know how to produce a speaking Patronus? 

Aussie:
a "corporeal Patronus" is difficult to produce. This came from the 
court scene and Hog's Head scene in OOTP. HG's talking patronus is 
never tested, but her otter never had much force against dementors
aussie

> 5. What do you think were Harry's feelings as he entered 12
> Grimmauld Place?

Aussie: 
Sirius hated the place .. especially when Dumbledore didn't allow 
him out. Plus Kreatcher stank the place up.
aussie
 
> 6. The Trio see signs that someone has been at 12 GP. What did you
> think this meant? 

Aussie:
I thought first of Mundungus ... when he raided the house for 
treasures
aussie

> 7. Do you think Draco regrets not taking Dumbledore's side? 
> 8. What do you think of Harry's emotions towards Draco? Is it OK
> to pity him despite all he's done?

Aussie:
His dad was in jail and disgraced in front of Voldy. He had little 
choice he could trust.
Harry thought Draco would never have killed DD no matter how much 
time he had .... that's why he had less vicious thoughts against 
Draco than other DE
aussie




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Thu Dec 13 16:21:53 2007
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 07:21:53 -0900
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE polyjuice
In-Reply-To: <fjqqfj+566i@eGroups.com>
References: <fjqqfj+566i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6AA69F78-D0A9-44A3-AF7C-F288F45ED1ED@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179835


On 2007, Dec 12, , at 23:28, kimberleyelizabeth wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson"
> <apetersonhanson at ...> wrote:
>>
>> Hermione finds the recipe in an old book but in DH she doesn't make
>> it, she takes Moody's leftover PJ potion after his death; which by  
>> the
>> way pissed me off so much, especially so early in the book.
>
>
> PJ juice takes a month to brew properly and since she didn't how to  
> get
> the ingredients, where she could find a place to brew it safely, or
> when she would need some in a hurry, Moody's ready made potion was
> available, I'd have taken it too.
>
> Kimberley

I wonder if Moody's PJ potion was actually brewed by Snape, since
it was never clear that the real Moody was good a brewing potions.
If so, the Half-Blood Prince could have made significant changes in
the PJ potion.  After all, the book that Hermione got the recipe from
was very old.  And the HBP was certainly an outstanding potion
master.

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Dec 13 18:20:57 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:20:57 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE polyjuice
References: <fjqqfj+566i@eGroups.com> <6AA69F78-D0A9-44A3-AF7C-F288F45ED1ED@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <015001c83db4$e8ca9fa0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179836

Laura:
> I wonder if Moody's PJ potion was actually brewed by Snape, since
> it was never clear that the real Moody was good a brewing potions.
> If so, the Half-Blood Prince could have made significant changes in
> the PJ potion.  After all, the book that Hermione got the recipe from
> was very old.  And the HBP was certainly an outstanding potion
> master.


Shelley:
I had wondered that too, if Snape had made it. But if the trio knew that 
Snape had brewed it, would they have trusted it? Certainly, they trusted 
Moody.

But what really bothered me about that potion was the time that it takes to 
brew it- and the fact that the "multiple Harry" plan was recently hatched, 
leading me to question at all where this large stockpile of PJ suddenly came 
from to have on hand to be used for this plan? What had Moody used it 
before, that he happened to have a large batch for them to just use? 




From oscar_v_ascencio at yahoo.com.mx  Thu Dec 13 16:39:33 2007
From: oscar_v_ascencio at yahoo.com.mx (oscar_v_ascencio)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:39:33 -0000
Subject: Draco, Narcissa and Harry
In-Reply-To: <fjqhtu+hmrd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjrn85+g556@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179837

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson"
<apetersonhanson at ...> wrote:
>
> I was really hoping that Draco would flip the script and become good,
> abandoning his Death Eaters and finally seeing that they are all just
> being used. I feel for him and don't think he would have turned out
> the way he did without Lucius.  If Narcissa had raised him alone then
>what would have happened...


Hi:

I just can say that it would have been a too "nice" ending of the story
that Draco & Harry became friends or even allies, they have passed for
too many bad things for get together at the end.

Also I would say that JKR may gave us an explanation of how after 19
years Draco also has a family and children... Draco should have been
sent to Askaban, at the end he also was a Death eater ain't it??

oscar_v_ascencio



From apetersonhanson at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 15:09:50 2007
From: apetersonhanson at yahoo.com (apetersonhanson)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:09:50 -0000
Subject: RE polyjuice
In-Reply-To: <fjqqfj+566i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjrhvu+5q1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179838

> > apetersonhanson wrote:
> >
> > Hermione finds the recipe in an old book, but in DH she doesn't
> > make it, she takes Moody's leftover PJ potion after his death;
> > which by the way pissed me off so much, especially so early in
> > the book.
>
> Kimberley:
>
> PJ juice takes a month to brew properly and since she didn't know
> where to get the ingredients, where she could find a place to brew
> it safely, or when she would need some in a hurry, Moody's ready
> made potion was available, I'd have taken it too.
>
>------------------------------------------

I agree w/ you Kimberley, the point I was making referred to a post
about polyjuice asking when Hermione brewed it before the trio took
off to go hiding/seek horcruxes.  Someone below me had posted that
she couldn't have made it quick enough and it takes someone very skilled to make it well.... I was trying to point out to them only
that the PJ potion they used was in fact made by poor Moody

-alicia



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec 13 19:15:29 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:15:29 -0000
Subject: RE polyjuice
In-Reply-To: <6AA69F78-D0A9-44A3-AF7C-F288F45ED1ED@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <fjs0ch+jlqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179839

Laura:
> I wonder if Moody's PJ potion was actually brewed by Snape, since
> it was never clear that the real Moody was good a brewing potions.
> If so, the Half-Blood Prince could have made significant changes in
> the PJ potion.  After all, the book that Hermione got the recipe from
> was very old.  And the HBP was certainly an outstanding potion
> master.

Pippin:
There are always exceptions in the Potterverse, but NEWT level
potions are a requirement for aurors, and we know polyjuice is part
of the NEWT curriculum, so I would expect Moody to be able to
brew it.

Pippin




From apetersonhanson at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 06:35:48 2007
From: apetersonhanson at yahoo.com (apetersonhanson)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:35:48 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
Message-ID: <fjqjs4+6sss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179840

I may be newly joined to this group but I see no discussion about
Horcruxes which were a huge part of the book and series. Which was the
Horcrux people thought most important or meaningful?

Also, Does anyone else think JKR should expand the series, this time
telling the story of Ron & Hermione's and Harry & Ginny's kids?
Maybe they can face a new evil, not LV he should stay dead. How could
he come back unless she gets crazy and makes another Horcrux pop up.

And, what do people think about what she said about DD being gay and
having had a love interest in Grindlewald yrs earlier? I never got any
gay impressions from DD.

I hate that Remus Lupin and Tonks died, I hate that the twins were
split up. And I wanted Harry to kill Bellatrix Lestrange, or have
Neville do it, not Molly Weasley!!!!!

-alicia



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Dec 13 19:50:47 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:50:47 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjqjs4+6sss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjs2en+390s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179841

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson" <apetersonhanson at ...> wrote:
>
> I may be newly joined to this group but I see no discussion about
> Horcruxes which were a huge part of the book and series. Which was the
> Horcrux people thought most important or meaningful?

Geoff:
I think that Horcruxes have featured but little in recent posts because 
they didn't seem to be such a big part of the action in DH. We knew what 
most of them were by the end of HBP and it was a case of finding them 
and destroying them. Though I have to say that I argued for a long time 
that Harry was not a Horcrux and it did appear that he was a "maverick" 
Horcrux - or as I termed it on one occasion a Horcrux Mark 2.

The topic of Horcruxes was really flogged to death in the period between 
the publication of HBP and that of DH. You might consider searching the 
archives in that sort of time period although I think a number of the 
theories and ideas were rendered redundant by the last book.




From vanillaslim at sbcglobal.net  Thu Dec 13 19:53:13 2007
From: vanillaslim at sbcglobal.net (nschwinnen)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:53:13 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjqjs4+6sss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjs2j9+4nro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179842


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson"
<apetersonhanson at ...> wrote:
>
> I may be newly joined to this group but I see no discussion about
> Horcruxes which were a huge part of the book and series. Which was
the
> Horcrux people thought most important or meaningful?
>
> Also, Does anyone else think JKR should expand the series, this time
> telling the story of Ron & Hermione's and Harry & Ginny's kids?
> Maybe they can face a new evil, not LV he should stay dead. How
could
> he come back unless she gets crazy and makes another Horcrux pop up.
> <SNIP>



I am new also, but I think all the Horcruxes were equally important,
with the exception of the 7th Horcrux, Harry himself.
I don't want to see the series come back in any way.  I was sad to be
finished with the books, but the ending was perfect and should be
left just as it is.
As for Dumbledore being gay, I really didn't like it because I didn't
like JK adding things after the books were finished, but after
thinking about it more, I'm sure she had plenty of ideas in her mind
that didn't fit into the books.  I don't like the Dumbledore in the
movies though.  I think he's horrible and his personality is nothing
like the Dumbledore in the books.
As for the deaths of certain characters, I didn't like any of them,
but they were necessary.  It would be unrealistic to have a "war"
like this and not have some deaths of some known and well-liked
characters.
nschwinnen



From bobjtc at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 20:06:23 2007
From: bobjtc at yahoo.com (Bob Connors)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] horcruxes
Message-ID: <224114.66005.qm@web52811.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179843


alicia:

I may be newly joined to this group but I see no discussion about 
Horcruxes which were a huge part of the book and series. Which was the 
Horcrux people thought most important or meaningful?

Also, Does anyone else think JKR should expand the series, this time 
telling the story of Ron & Hermione's and Harry & Ginny's kids? 
Maybe they can face a new evil, not LV he should stay dead. How could 
he come back unless she gets crazy and makes another Horcrux pop up. 
<SNIP>


Bob:
Expand the series?  Heck yes!  But she had made it quite clear that it was draining her, and wanted to put an end to it.  She had also implied that she wanted no one else to be able to 'pick up on it' and write more about it. That was one of the main reasons so many people feared she was going to kill Harry off, to make sure it ended the series.  She did in effect set some parameters with that epilogue, but it still allows for many years of activity in between, battles cleaning up the DEs, continuing education, jobs, engagements, weddings, births, other 'bad' people.  

I am not sure that I would jump right to their kids, afterall there is quite a large time frame to fill in first.  

As for the horcruxes, I would say "Harry", it was sort of there all along, all his 'dark magic' skills, the connection with LV etc.  but it never really came out till the end.
 
Bob 




      



From apetersonhanson at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 20:26:28 2007
From: apetersonhanson at yahoo.com (apetersonhanson)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:26:28 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjjtbi+7g97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjs4hk+npnb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179844

> lealess
>
> Speculation part:  Dumbledore must have asked Snape what Voldemort
> was up to, so he must have known that Voldemort was holding a
> wandmaker, that Voldemort had taken Lucius Malfoy's wand, that
> Voldemort was traveling all over the world on some kind of quest.
> What about the escape of Ollivander from the Malfoy mansion?  Do
> you think Snape didn't hear about that and report it to Dumbledore?
> <snip>


OK, a lot of what you say makes sense but how could Snape have told DD
about Olivander's escape from the Malfoy mansion, DD was dead at the
end of HBP and the escape happens in DH.

Alicia





From bobjtc at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 19:23:14 2007
From: bobjtc at yahoo.com (Bob Connors)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:23:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE polyjuice
Message-ID: <112278.23134.qm@web52807.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179845




Shelley:
I had wondered that too, if Snape had made it. But if the trio knew that 
Snape had brewed it, would they have trusted it? Certainly, they trusted 
Moody.

<SNIP>
Bob:
Let's remember the requirements for being an auror - Snape would not have accepted anyone in his NEWT level class unless they were Outstanding in Potions.  Now, while that may have been just his rule, but I am sure someone not very good in potions would have never made it to become an Auror.

Also keep in mind that Moody never trusted anyone, esp a former DE.  I would suspect given the needs of his work, he would have had some around all the time.
 
Bob 




      



From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 20:42:23 2007
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:42:23 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjs2en+390s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjs5ff+nk0c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179846

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson" <apetersonhanson@> 
wrote:
> >
> > I may be newly joined to this group but I see no discussion about
> > Horcruxes which were a huge part of the book and series. Which was the
> > Horcrux people thought most important or meaningful?

Montavilla47:
I guess if I had to go for the most interesting Horcrux, it would be the 
diary.  It was also important, since it led Dumbledore to the multiple
Horcrux theory (which turned out to be true).

The story of the locket Horcrux was great, and I liked the image of 
the eyes in the locket.  That was nice and evil.

The rest were not very interesting, even if the ring had the resurrection 
stone in it.

Nagini made no sense to me.  Snakes die.  Why put your Horcrux in 
something that dies, if you have a choice?  Why not put it in your
wand, instead?  That might be kind of useful, given that wands can,
with care, last forever, and that a wand sort of has a life of its own,
anyway.






From jaschenk at hotmail.com  Thu Dec 13 19:38:51 2007
From: jaschenk at hotmail.com (jaschenka)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:38:51 -0000
Subject: MBC**/ Twins
In-Reply-To: <00d801c83d48$a7c515b0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fjs1ob+aijf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179847

> Shelley:
> Or Fred's other ear, so that one had the right one missing, and
the other
> one the left one missing, but Molly still mixing them up and
everyone having
> a good laugh over it. Some tangeable sign that the twins and their
family
> would be ok, and move on in life, despite scars and missing parts.
>

Jaschenka:
Right! They should have stayed together... to get mixed up forever
more! Remember when they were both Harry; they turned to each other
and said: 'Wow, we're identical!' That realy made me laugh. And now
Fred is dead... sad, sad, sad




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec 13 21:57:34 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:57:34 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjjtbi+7g97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjs9se+fhne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179848

Lealess:
> 
> 
> Dumbledore could have warned Snape about the Elder Wand at any 
> time... but he didn't.  He coldly kept his secrets and sacrificed 
> Snape to Voldemort's whim.  No matter how the Elder Wand ownership 
> fell, Snape could not have won.

Pippin:
If Snape could not have won no matter who owned the wand, then
what use would a warning be?  Voldemort's belief that he had to
kill Snape was delusional, since Voldemort knew that mastery
of the wand had passed from Grindelwald to Dumbledore while
Grindelwald was still alive. Dumbledore could predict that 
Voldemort would delude himself into believing the Elder Wand
would give victory to whoever had it, but how could he predict
what form that delusion would take? 

Harry knows that Dumbledore orchestrated his own death and Harry's
near-death, and he knows that  Order member Moody  killed Rosier,
who preferred to die rather than come quietly. From Moody's rather
boastful "took a bit of me with him" he did not think Dumbledore
would disapprove. 
 
Harry has also told Aberforth that he believes Dumbledore felt
responsible for Ariana's death. 

But Harry also knows that Dumbledore spared the lives of many
whom others would have killed, if Lupin is correct that most
people would not hesitate to kill DE's in  a combat situation: 
Draco, the DE's captured at the Ministry, Grindelwald and  Crouch Jr.  


Pippin




From lealess at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 22:07:29 2007
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:07:29 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjs4hk+npnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjsaf1+e5on@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179849

<apetersonhanson at ...> wrote:
>
> > lealess
> >
> > Speculation part:  Dumbledore must have asked Snape what Voldemort
> > was up to, so he must have known that Voldemort was holding a
> > wandmaker, that Voldemort had taken Lucius Malfoy's wand, that
> > Voldemort was traveling all over the world on some kind of quest.
> > What about the escape of Ollivander from the Malfoy mansion?  Do
> > you think Snape didn't hear about that and report it to
> > Dumbledore? <snip>
> 
> 
> OK, a lot of what you say makes sense but how could Snape have told 
> DD about Olivander's escape from the Malfoy mansion, DD was dead at 
> the end of HBP and the escape happens in DH.
> 
> Alicia
>

Apparently, Snape was keeping Dumbledore's portrait informed of 
events, if not taking direction from Portrait!Dumbledore, for 
example, the seven Potters and the Sword of Gryffindor events.  Since 
the Elder Wand was something Dumbledore knew about from his youth and 
had apparently secured from Grindelwald, and since Dumbledore had a 
actual "plan" for the wand to pass to Snape, it seems he could have 
told Snape about the wand when Olivander disappeared or when 
Voldemort took Lucius' wand.  Full trust, no matter what he said, and 
full and informed consent were not components of Dumbledore's 
leadership, however.  Too bad Snape didn't look at his own situation 
when he accused Dumbledore of sending Harry to the slaughter.  
Dumbledore knowing that Voldemort would protect Nagini seems far more 
far-fetched than him surmising that Voldemort was looking for the 
Elder Wand, yet that was all the information Snape got, without
instructions on what it meant so he could conceivably protect himself.

lealess




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 22:07:47 2007
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:07:47 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjs4hk+npnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjsafj+6shb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179850

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson" 
<apetersonhanson at ...> wrote:

> > lealess

> > Speculation part:  Dumbledore must have asked Snape what Voldemort
> > was up to, so he must have known that Voldemort was holding a
> > wandmaker, that Voldemort had taken Lucius Malfoy's wand, that
> > Voldemort was traveling all over the world on some kind of quest.
> > What about the escape of Ollivander from the Malfoy mansion?  Do
> > you think Snape didn't hear about that and report it to 
> > Dumbledore?


> Alicia wrote:

> OK, a lot of what you say makes sense but how could Snape have told DD
> about Olivander's escape from the Malfoy mansion, DD was dead at the
> end of HBP and the escape happens in DH.


zanooda:

Well, LV taking Lucius's wand and traveling all over the world also 
happened in DH, but I think that the previous poster meant Portrait!DD, 
not real DD. Maybe Portrait!DD was not as smart as we thought, after 
all, and couldn't put two and two together about the Elder wand :-)!




From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Dec 13 22:17:32 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:17:32 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjpa86+9m6o@eGroups.com>
References: <fjpa86+9m6o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4761AF7C.3090600@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179851

dumbledore11214 wrote:
> Legilimency? GRRRRRRR  mind rape as far as I am concerned. And yes, 
> this is a problem I have no matter who uses it  Dumbledore or Snape 
> or Voldemort.
>   
Bart:
You mean that when someone talks, you don't pay attention to their tone 
of voice? Their body language? Their facial expressions? The way Sevvy 
explains leglimancy, it's not all that different than that.

Bart




From lealess at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 22:26:39 2007
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:26:39 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/WerewolfBites
In-Reply-To: <fjs9se+fhne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjsbiv+8nln@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179852

> Lealess:
> > 
> > 
> > Dumbledore could have warned Snape about the Elder Wand at any 
> > time... but he didn't.  He coldly kept his secrets and sacrificed 
> > Snape to Voldemort's whim.  No matter how the Elder Wand 
> > ownership fell, Snape could not have won.
> 
> Pippin:
> If Snape could not have won no matter who owned the wand, then
> what use would a warning be?  Voldemort's belief that he had to
> kill Snape was delusional, since Voldemort knew that mastery
> of the wand had passed from Grindelwald to Dumbledore while
> Grindelwald was still alive. Dumbledore could predict that 
> Voldemort would delude himself into believing the Elder Wand
> would give victory to whoever had it, but how could he predict
> what form that delusion would take? 
> 

Snape has knowledge of Voldemort, enough to spy and make plans.  If 
Snape had knowledge of the Elder Wand, do you think he couldn't 
have conjured an explanation that would have satisfied Voldemort's 
delusions, or thrown him off the scent, or given him an alternative 
to needlessly killing him, like dueling and losing, for example?  
Snape survived for how many years as a spy?  Surely that wasn't all 
Dumbledore's doing.  But Dumbledore took even the chance of making an 
explanation or coming up with an alternate plan from Snape, in the 
face of what I believe to be a fairly knowable danger.  It's like 
sending someone into a burning building and failing to tell them that 
there are containers of explosive gas stored within.  It is viewing 
someone as either untrustworthy, which I think Snape proved he was 
not, or unworthy of consideration.  For those reasons, I think 
Dumbledore is as guilty of Snape's death as Voldemort.

lealess




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 22:28:44 2007
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:28:44 -0000
Subject: MBC**/ Twins
In-Reply-To: <fjs1ob+aijf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjsbms+lq54@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179853

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jaschenka" <jaschenk at ...> wrote:

> Right! They should have stayed together... to get mixed up forever
> more!


zanooda: 

They should have stayed together even when Fred was still alive, and 
shouldn't have separated under any circumstances, IMO. Bad things only 
happen to them when they are apart. The first ever time they go 
different ways - and George looses his ear, the second time they get 
separated - and Fred dies. They just had to stay together on both 
missions - somehow I'm sure nothing would have happened to them in this 
case. They were like lucky charms to one another ...







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 23:03:08 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:03:08 -0000
Subject: RE polyjuice - Time Release Polyjuice
In-Reply-To: <6AA69F78-D0A9-44A3-AF7C-F288F45ED1ED@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <fjsdnc+nu1l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179854

---  Laura Lynn Walsh <lwalsh at ...> wrote:
> 
> 
> I wonder if Moody's PJ potion was actually brewed by Snape,
> since it was never clear that the real Moody was good a 
> brewing potions. If so, the Half-Blood Prince could have 
> made significant changes in the PJ potion.  After all, the 
> book that Hermione got the recipe from was very old.  And 
> the HBP was certainly an outstanding potion master.
> 
> Laura
>

bboyminn:

Two points, one relevant, the other pure fantasy.

We do know it takes a month to /brew/ Polyjuice potion, but 
once brewed, how long is it good for; what is its shelf-life?
Since the Trio keep the same batch for nearly a year and
keep using it, we must assume that once brewed, it will
keep for a long time. 

Consequently, it may be possible to simply walk in to an
appropriate shop and purchase ready-made potions. That could
very well be where Slughorn got the potions he demonstrated
on the first day of class. He simply bought them at the 
local potions shop. 

Next, regarding the one hour time limit. In a still unwritten
fan fiction, one of Harry's friends, on Harry's behalf, 
approach Snape with a novel concept. They bring Snape a muggle
time release cold capsule, the kind that are filled with 
little colored beads and explains the concept of the coating
on the beads taking a certain time to dissolve and release
the medicine. That way, a 4 hour medicince can be extended 
over 12 hours. They then ask Snape to apply that to Polyjuice
potion, only instead of 4 hour increments of coatings, they
use one hour increments. 

Conceivably, I'm not the first person to think of this. Maybe
some advanced potions maker has already conceived of Time
Release Polyjuices, and that time release Polyjuice is 
available in advanced potions shops. 

Of course, none of this is explained the books, so we will
never know. I do however like the idea that JKR simply didn't
want to clutter her story with those little details, so we
are to assume more doses of polyjuice are being taken off-
page. 

Deeply into the realm of speculation.

Steve/bboyminn





From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Dec 14 03:02:30 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:02:30 -0500
Subject: Draco, Narcissa and Harry
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA3bO6KU520UGjJeDEIXPFuAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179855

The idea of Draco and Harry becoming friends is nice, but not realistic given
all that has passed between them.  That they are civil to one another in public
is probably the best that can be expected.  Of course, the next generation. . .
. .

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man.  Other forms of
transport grow daily more nightmarish.  Only the bicycle remains pure in
heart."--Iris Murdoch



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From tkjones9 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 03:48:22 2007
From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:48:22 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Do_you_think_Ginny_was...._=09?=
Message-ID: <fjsue6+qm81@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179856

bewildered and totally taken by surprise when Harry kissed her in HBP
or do you think she already had a good idea that Harry fancied her and
was waiting for him to make the first move?

I will have to read HBP again to find clues for Ginny's awareness of
Harry's liking of her...if any.

Do you have any clues or thoughts about it? 




From wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au  Fri Dec 14 04:03:02 2007
From: wrappedinharry at yahoo.com.au (Lesley McKenna)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Do you think Ginny was....
Message-ID: <168315.12452.qm@web59105.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179857

Tandra <tkjones9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you think Ginny was bewildered and totally taken 
> by surprise when Harry kissed her in HBP or do you 
> think she already had a good idea that Harry fancied 
> her and was waiting for him to make the first move?
> <snip>


Lesley:
How could Ginny have been taken by surprise? She was the 
one who made the first move. She ran at Harry with a 
'Blazing look in her eye.'  I think she had begun to 
realise that Harry had, at last, noticed her as something 
more than a little sister substitute.

She would have realised this because, despite trying to 
get on with her life (as Hermione suggested) and going 
out with other boys, she would not have been able to turn 
off her feelings for Harry that easily and she would have 
still been watching him pretty thoroughly.

She would have realised when he started to look on her as 
an attractive girl, I am sure.

I am sure plenty of people will disagree, even knock 
Ginny, but I love the H/G ship. I think they are perfect 
for each other, as did the author of the books. And it is 
her opinion that counts.

Lesley
wrappedinharry





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 13:33:51 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 13:33:51 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships / JKR's Opinion (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA3bO6KU520UGjJeDEIXPFuAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <fju0nv+hbqm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179858

> >>Bruce Alan Wilson:
> The idea of Draco and Harry becoming friends is nice, but not        
> realistic given all that has passed between them.  That they are     
> civil to one another in public is probably the best that can be      
> expected.  Of course, the next generation. . .

Betsy Hp:
...will be exactly the same.  After all, they have the exact same 
issues passing between them: cut-throat quidditch games and way too 
serious attention paid to house points and all.  Slytherin and 
Gryffindor will never be friends.  The rift has won.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179857
> >>Lesley:
> <snip>
> And it is her [Rowling's] opinion that counts.

Betsy Hp:
Actually, JKR's opinion count's the *least* in my opinion.  Because 
she's the one trying to tell us something.  It's *the reader's* call as 
to whether or not she succeeded.  Like a pastry chef may feel he has 
placed the most delicious cake in the world in front of you, but it's 
your taste that will be the judge.

Betsy Hp




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Dec 14 14:21:34 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:21:34 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjkvq7+lr36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fju3he+og4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179859


>Juli wrote:
> Discussion Questions:
> 
> 2. Were you ever a Boy (or Girl) Scout? If so, what do you think
> of Hermione's "Always prepared"? Do you think she would have made a
?? good Girl Scout?

Potioncat:
I was a Girl Scout leader, and if Hermione were in my troop, we'd 
have to have a little chat about that SNEAK jinx business. As for 
Girl Scouting in DH, she'd have to submit paperwork to show she had 
reviewed Safety-Wise, and she'd have to have a trained first aider. 
Oh, never mind. Hermione would be a Girl Guide and I don't know what 
their paperwork is like.

She was pretty well prepared given she didn't really know what Harry 
was up to. If she had known that he didn't know what he was up to 
either, I think she would have packed differently. (Like for a 
honeymoon in Bermuda.)

> 
> 3. Why do you think The Trio didn't want to kill the Death Eaters?
> They are 'good', we all get that, but they are in a war, and at
?? those times killing is allowed. Do you agree?

Potioncat:
I agree with Carol, the DEs were unconscious. It wouldn't be the 
right way to go about it. The difference between how Harry reacts now 
and how he'll use Dark magic later is quite dramatic.

But I also agree with Mike and Aussie. The Trio should have done more 
to keep them out of the war. But, you know, these are 3 kids who are 
just trying to stay alive at this point.
> 
> 4. How does Hermione know how to produce a speaking Patronus? This
> isn't taught in any book at all, only the Order knows how to. Has
> Tonks perhaps been teaching her? Or another Member? Who do you think
?? would be willing to teach her Order-Restricted incantations?

Potioncat:
I thought that she was a member of the Order. Her comments at Privet 
Dr. made it seem that she had been active in planning sessions. So I 
never thought twice about her knowing how to cast a speaking 
Patronus. 

But, the Patronus Charm hasn't stayed consistent. I'm not sure why it 
couldn't have been used for communication with Order members. Seems 
pretty useless all the way around. Also, Umbridge is able to cast a 
regular one and use it for prolonged periods, yet it was supposed to 
be an anti-Dark charm.
> 
> 5. What do you think were Harry's feelings as he entered 12
> Grimmauld Place, that dreaded place where his godfather once lived,
?? and is greeted by the ghost of his mentor?

Potioncat:
I don't know, but it scared the snot out of me! Afterwards, it seemed 
a strange, comical sort of jinx and I didn't quite "get it" as an 
anti-Snape device; unless it would have acted differently if Snape 
really had attempted to enter. 

> 6. The Trio see signs that someone has been at 12 GP. What did you
> think this meant? Did you think it had been Snape, and if so, how 
did you think he got past Moody's jinxes?
?? 

Potioncat:
Like an earlier post, I thought it was Mundungus, or the Order 
leaving in a rush. We don't get the look at the bedrooms yet, to know 
that someone has actually gone through the house looking for 
something. The scene does work to set up Foe!Snape and it sets up the 
possibility that he could have been in the house. I kept hoping that 
this was all part of an elaborate cover-up to protect Snape. It turns 
out you don't need any cover-up at all when the leader doesn't tell 
anything to anyone.
>
> 
> 7. Do you think Draco regrets not taking Dumbledore's side? Do
?? you think he would be better off on 'The Good Side'?

Potioncat:
The suggestion of an offer was made rather late in the game. Draco 
may wish he could have gone over, but at this point, I don't think he 
has a side. The Malfoys are just trying to stay alive.


Thanks, Juli, for a great discussion 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec 14 16:31:54 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:31:54 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships / JKR's Opinion (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fju0nv+hbqm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjub5q+s8lq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179860

> Betsy Hp:
> ...will be exactly the same.  After all, they have the exact same 
> issues passing between them: cut-throat quidditch games and way too 
> serious attention paid to house points and all.  Slytherin and 
> Gryffindor will never be friends.  The rift has won.

Pippin:

Wh-at?? So, in your opinon the S/G hatred is about Quidditch and House
Points and has nothing to do with the fear of dark magic or pureblood
mania? But if so then all the Houses should be at each other's throats,
and they're not. 


Besides which nobody cares much about House Points past third year (we 
don't even find out who won the cup) and being too keen on Quidditch as
a grown up is viewed as slightly pathetic -- look at Bagman. 

OTOH, at the end of DH dark magic has been defeated. Scorpius has surely 
been raised to think he has enemies, but I doubt he's been raised to think 
dark magic is cool. Everyone saw the greatest dark
wizard who ever existed beaten by an Expelliarmus. That's what
people will remember. And they should, despite the Trio's
stumbles along the way. 

And pureblood mania has been diluted -- flawed reproductive
strategies are, after all, by definition self-limiting. 

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Actually, JKR's opinion count's the *least* in my opinion.  Because 
> she's the one trying to tell us something.  It's *the reader's* call as 
> to whether or not she succeeded.  Like a pastry chef may feel he has 
> placed the most delicious cake in the world in front of you, but it's 
> your taste that will be the judge.

Pippin:
But it's not fair or useful criticism to douse the cake with catsup and 
then complain that it didn't improve the taste, or insist that the chef 
has made  an apple pie and as an apple pie the cake is lousy. Like it or
not, the author's intent counts for something.

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 17:41:22 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:41:22 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fju3he+og4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjuf82+q7j6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179861

Potioncat wrote:
> <snip> I thought that she was a member of the Order. Her comments at
Privet Dr. made it seem that she had been active in planning sessions.
So I never thought twice about her knowing how to cast a speaking 
Patronus. 

Carol responds:
But wouldn't Ron also be a member of the Order since he's of age and
part of the Seven Potters team? But no one has taught him how to cast
a speaking Patronus. I thought that Hermione had practiced it on her
own. Probably she hasn't mastered the technique, though, since her
Patronus isn't as strong as Harry's when it comes to holding off
Dementors.
> 
Potioncat:
> But, the Patronus Charm hasn't stayed consistent. I'm not sure why
it couldn't have been used for communication with Order members. Seems
pretty useless all the way around. Also, Umbridge is able to cast a 
regular one and use it for prolonged periods, yet it was supposed to
be an anti-Dark charm. <snip>

Carol:
Evidently, it's detectable with the MoM watching the Burrow and Mr.
Weasley doesn't want HRH revealing their Patronus messengers. (???) At
any rate, only Hermione would be able to wend one. Or maybe, sending a
Patronus to and from wherever HRH were hiding would give away their
location if any DEs were in the area. (I think JKR just wanted them to
be isolated and virtually without adult help.) 

As for Umbridge casting a Patronus, all she needs is a memory that
makes *her* happy. (I don't know whether it would matter if the
thought itself is rather evil, for example, being happy that her
anti-werewolf legislation passed or that she'd been promoted to being
in charge of the Muggle-born Registration Commission.) Her Patronus
protects her (and Yaxley) from Dementors, which don't care whether a
person is good or evil, a student at Hogwarts or a DE in Azkaban. Look
at their effect on Barty Crouch Jr. at his sentencing. (I wonder, BTW,
whether the Dementor that sucked his soul some twelve years later
merely took advantage of an unconscious person or somehow knew who he
was even though Dementors can't see and Barty Jr. was thought to be dead.)

Carol, who was wrapping Christmas presents last night and suddenly
started thinking about Dumble Claus




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 18:19:51 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:19:51 -0000
Subject: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fjub5q+s8lq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjuhg7+88fd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179862

Betsy Hp wrote:
> > Actually, JKR's opinion count's the *least* in my opinion. 
Because she's the one trying to tell us something.  It's *the
reader's* call as  to whether or not she succeeded.  Like a pastry
chef may feel he has placed the most delicious cake in the world in
front of you, but it's  your taste that will be the judge.
> 
> Pippin:
> But it's not fair or useful criticism to douse the cake with catsup
and then complain that it didn't improve the taste, or insist that the
chef has made  an apple pie and as an apple pie the cake is lousy.
Like it or not, the author's intent counts for something.

Carol responds:

Authorial intention is problematic for a number of reasons, among them
that much of the writing process is unconscious, so an author is not
always aware of her own intentions, not to mention that the intentions
may change as she writes. Even if she's aware of her own intentions,
she may not have succeeded in conveying them to the reader. Stating
her intentions (as she perceives them) in an interview may or may not
"count for something." It's still up to the reader to determine
whether her intentions made it onto the page. 

Many writers *intend* to write a gripping, entertaining novel. Some
*intend* to make us laugh or cry or to keep us guessing until the
mystery is unraveled. Not all of them succeed. They *intend* to make
us care about the protagonist and his friends and to dislike his
antagonists. (I wonder, BTW, whether JKR sneakily wanted her readers
to care about Snape and Draco or whether those feelings arose despite
her intentions.) JKR *intended* for her readers to care about Harry,
for us to view him as (slightly) flawed but good ("pure," if we
believe Dumbledore). I *think* she intended for us to view Dumbledore
as wise and good despite the flaws she revealed in him in the last
book. Certainly, she intended for us to see Voldemort as evil and
deserving of his fate. She intended for us to see Ginny as Harry's
ideal wife and Ron and Hermione as made for each other. For some
readers, she succeeded in realizing all of these intentions, but for
many, she failed to realize one or more. As for themes, we can look at
her pronouncements in the interviews and judge for ourselves whether
the books convey the messages that she thinks they convey (or no moral
lesson at all, just a story, as she seems to imply elsewhere).

As far as I'm concerned, an author's intentions matter not at all.
What matters is the book itself, the words on the page, and the
reader's interpretation of them. If interpretations differ so wildly
that there's no agreement at all, then the book itself is a failure,
regardless of its author's intentions. If the interpretations are
virtually identical, it's also a failure since it has no substance
worthy of discussion.

At any rate, JKR clearly *intended* to make Ginny spunky, funny,
pretty, brave, and powerful, a worthy future wife for her hero. We
know that's what she intended because of interviews and what we're
*told* about Ginny. But what we're *shown* doesn't necessarily match
what JKR *intended* us to see. Instead, we get a sneaky little brat
who brazenly lies to her mother, whines a lot ("But I *want* to!"),
approves of Harry's use of Sectumsempra on Draco, and attacks
Zacharias Smith because he won't take Harry's word that Voldemort is
back without supporting evidence.

Harry's ideal mate? He'd be better off with Romilda Vane. Or with Cho,
anyway. At least she has a heart and cries for Cedric. Or better
still, with Luna, who is genuinely funny and good-hearted and brave.

Carol, who intends to pick out perfect Christmas gifts for everyone on
her list but fears that those intentions won't be realized because
"perfection" is in the eyes of the receiver rather than the giver






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 18:36:12 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:36:12 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships / JKR's Opinion (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjub5q+s8lq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjuies+a514@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179863

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > ...will be exactly the same.  After all, they have the exact same 
> > issues passing between them: cut-throat quidditch games and way   
> > too serious attention paid to house points and all.  Slytherin   
> > and Gryffindor will never be friends.  The rift has won.

> >>Pippin:
> 
> Wh-at?? So, in your opinon the S/G hatred is about Quidditch and   
> House Points and has nothing to do with the fear of dark magic or   
> pureblood mania?

Betsy Hp:
That's correct.  I'm somewhat surprised to see you think 
differently.  I thought the books ended with the idea that there's 
not really such a thing as "dark magic" and I didn't see much made 
about "pureblood mania" either.  The final battle took place between 
two guys of a similar blood background and with similar views on 
magic use.  I mean, one was psycho and really into chaos, and the 
other was not psycho and more into order.  And it's cool the non-
psycho won.  But I didn't see any definitive statement about blood or 
magic being made.  I'd say that the statement made (if there was one) 
was about death.

> >>Pippin:
> But if so then all the Houses should be at each other's throats,
> and they're not. 

Betsy Hp:
Aren't they?  I mean, when the other Houses have a chance, they root 
for their House as shown in GoF with Hufflepuff Cedric. 

> >>Pippin:
> Besides which nobody cares much about House Points past third year  
> (we don't even find out who won the cup) and being too keen on      
> Quidditch as a grown up is viewed as slightly pathetic -- look at   
> Bagman. 

Betsy Hp:
Doesn't the WW quite like Bagman?  Arthur doing him favors and juries 
cooing over him as he's put on trial for being a death eater, etc.?  
And if no one cares about House Points, why was Harry ostracized in 
PS/SS?  And who was doing all the cheering when Gryffindor pulled it 
out in the end?

> >>Pippin:
> OTOH, at the end of DH dark magic has been defeated.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Huh?  *Voldomort* was defeated at the end of DH.  I suspect 
Unforgivables would still work.

> >>Pippin:
> Scorpius has surely been raised to think he has enemies, but I      
> doubt he's been raised to think dark magic is cool.

Betsy Hp:
I'm quite positive James thinks it's cool since his mom and dad 
thought it cool. (Though only if used for the greater good, of 
course. <eg>) 

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> And pureblood mania has been diluted -- flawed reproductive
> strategies are, after all, by definition self-limiting. 

Betsy Hp:
As per Ron, wizards are still very interested in the pedigree of 
those their children breed with.  It's just, some criteria has 
changed. (You know how fickle fashions can be. <eg>)


> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Actually, JKR's opinion count's the *least* in my opinion.       
> > Because she's the one trying to tell us something.  It's *the    
> > reader's* call as to whether or not she succeeded.  Like a pastry 
> > chef may feel he has placed the most delicious cake in the world 
> > in front of you, but it's your taste that will be the judge.

> >>Pippin:
> But it's not fair or useful criticism to douse the cake with catsup 
> and then complain that it didn't improve the taste, or insist that 
> the chef has made  an apple pie and as an apple pie the cake is    
> lousy.

Betsy Hp:
Of course.  Which is why I discuss the books here and not 
fanfiction.  So I look at what's been written and evaluate it.  
That's my opinion at play, not JKR's.  Now, JKR can tell me, "oh, 
this is a chocolate cake" but it's still *my* opinion as to whether 
or not I can taste the chocolate, or if it's a good chocolate cake, 
etc.

> >>Pippin:
> Like it or not, the author's intent counts for something.

Betsy Hp:
Right, and I'm not saying her intent doesn't matter.  What I'm saying 
is her *opinion* doesn't matter.

Betsy Hp




From jaschenk at hotmail.com  Fri Dec 14 18:57:28 2007
From: jaschenk at hotmail.com (jaschenka)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:57:28 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjqjs4+6sss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjujmo+kdtd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179864

> -alicia
>
> Also, Does anyone else think JKR should expand the series, this time
> telling the story of Ron & Hermione's and Harry & Ginny's kids?
> Maybe they can face a new evil, not LV he should stay dead.
>
> And I wanted Harry to kill Bellatrix Lestrange, or have
> Neville do it, not Molly Weasley!!!!!


Jaschenka:
I think there's still room for another story about the hallows,
because they were NOT destroyed. But I don't think Harry can play a
part in it, unless it's as the 'new Dumbledore'.

And I loved that Molly killed Bellatrix!




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 20:56:10 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:56:10 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fju3he+og4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjuqla+m672@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179865

---  "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> >Juli wrote:
> > Discussion Questions:
> > 
> > 2. Were you ever a Boy (or Girl) Scout? If so, what do you
> > think of Hermione's "Always prepared"? Do you think she 
> > would have made a good Girl Scout?
> 
> Potioncat:
> I was a Girl Scout leader, and if Hermione were in my troop,
> we'd have to have a little chat about that SNEAK jinx 
> business. As for Girl Scouting in DH, she'd have to submit 
> paperwork ....
> 
> She was pretty well prepared given she didn't really know 
> what Harry was up to. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Well, it was a short chapter and others seem to have covered
the key points nicely. The best I can do is add some 
secondary minor points.

I think Hermione would have made a great scout, not because
she /was/ prepared, but because she /does/ prepare. That is
typical Hermione, always needing to feel a sense of control,
not necessarily that she is in control, but that things are
under control, and one way to keep situations under control
is to 'be prepared'.

I think given the circumstances, Hermione was as prepared
as she could be. She had no way of knowing that they would
have to leave so soon or so suddenly. If they had the 
luxury of leaving the next day, likely she would have pack
food too. But, no point in packing food when you plan to 
spend that day at the equivalent of a feast. 

So, in my mind, it seems perfectly reasonable that she did
not have food with her.


> > 
> > 3. Why do you think The Trio didn't want to kill the Death
> > Eaters? They are 'good', we all get that, but they are in 
> > a war, and at those times killing is allowed. Do you agree?
> 
> Potioncat:
> I agree with Carol, the DEs were unconscious. It wouldn't be
> the  right way to go about it. ...
> 
> But I also agree with Mike and Aussie. The Trio should have
> done more to keep them out of the war. ...

bboyminn;

In previous long discussions of the Battle at the Ministry,
we have touched on the various points made by Mike and Aussie.
If I were in a battle, to the extent that circumstances allow,
I would deprive the DE's of the ability to fight. That is, I
would take, break and/or hide their wands. 

But really is it so strange the the Trio didn't? It seems that
in every action movie the hero knocks out the villain and 
tosses the villain's weapon aside. Yet 'tossed aside' can't 
be more than about 10 feet away. Like the villain is really 
so stupid he can't find it when he wakes up. 

Personally, I'm in favor of hitting them with multiple curses
just to confuse the matter. Knock them out with a Stunning
Curse, that compound that with a petrifying/Body-Bind curse,
top if off with Impedimenta, and maybe throw in Langlock
just for good measure. When re-enforcements arrive and 
try to undo the curses, they are going to have a complicated
mess on their hands, and are certainly going to be delayed
trying to sort it all out. 

While I can see a certain honor in not depriving a wizard of
his wand. When it is a matter of life and death, especially
when the death is mine, I think I can make an exception. 
Even if you can't bring ourself to destroy a wand, it wouldn't
hurt to take it outside and drop it down the storm drain. They
could probably get it back with a Summoning Charm, but how 
long would it take them to figure out that was the right and
necessary thing to do. Any delay and annoyance is to the 
advantage of the heroes. 

> > 
> > 4. How does Hermione know how to produce a speaking Patronus? 
> > ...
> 
> Potioncat:
> I thought that she was a member of the Order. Her comments at
> Privet  Dr. made it seem that she had been active in planning 
> sessions. ...
> 
> But, the Patronus Charm hasn't stayed consistent. I'm not 
> sure why it couldn't have been used for communication with 
> Order members. ... 

bboyminn:

I think Hermione has seen the Messenger Patronus demonstrated
and might have even gotten some basic instruction from Tonks 
and others, but she really hadn't had a chance to try it
out yet. So, she understood the underlying theory, but had
no practical experience.

As to why they couldn't use the Patronus to communicate with
say the Weasleys, each Patronus takes on a unique animal 
form. If a known animal form had come soaring in the Burrow
or the Minstry, it would have been a dead give away. Even if
the animal form wasn't known, there would be no logical
reason for a dark defense form to travel to a place that had
no Dark magic. Again, very very suspicious indeed.

Plus, if they sent the Patronus to a specific person, how
could they be sure that person was in a secure situation
so they could receive the message? Mr. Weasley could be
standing in the hall of the Ministry talking to DE's when
the Patronus arrived and delivered its message. That would
be bad for everyone. 

> Potioncat continues"
>
> Also, Umbridge is able to cast a regular one and use it for
> prolonged periods, yet it was supposed to be an anti-Dark 
> charm.

bboyminn:

I don't see an inconsistency here. Harry's Patronus seems 
to last as long as it is needed but no longer. They don't
linger or dwell. There were Dementors in the court room,
as long as the Dementors would be there, the  Patronus
would be needed and would therefore linger.

If the objections is to how a troll like Umbridge could 
come up with the happy memory necessary to cast a Partonus,
as someone else already pointed out, the memory only has
to be uniquely happy to Umbridge. She could have conjured
the Patronus with happy memories of torturing Harry with
the Cutting Quill. Horrific to everyone else, but probably
a happy memory for Umbridge.

> > 
> > 5. What do you think were Harry's feelings as he entered
> > 12 Grimmauld Place, that dreaded place where his godfather
> > once lived, and is greeted by the ghost of his mentor?
> 
> Potioncat:
> I don't know, but it scared the snot out of me! Afterwards,
> it seemed a strange, comical sort of jinx and I didn't quite
> "get it" as an anti-Snape device; unless it would have acted 
> differently if Snape really had attempted to enter. 
> 

bboyminn:

I think Moody was very limited in the Jinx he could reasonably
put of Grimmauld Place. It was Harry's house after all, and
he could use anything so extreme it would actually prevent
people from using the house. Nor could he use anything that
would cause real harm in case it accidentally harmed the 
wrong person. 

I think the curse was just a reminder to Snape that the Order
knew full well what he did, or thought they did, and were 
intent on holding him fully responsible for his actions. 


> > 6. The Trio see signs that someone has been at 12 GP. What did you
> > think this meant? Did you think it had been Snape, and if so, how 
> did you think he got past Moody's jinxes?
> ?? 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Like an earlier post, I thought it was Mundungus, or the Order 
> leaving in a rush. ...The scene does work to set up Foe!Snape
> ... 

bboyminn:

Well, we already knew Mundungus had been in there when he
really shouldn't have, and it seemed very likely that Snape
had searched it after Mundungus, though certainly Snape 
would have very different priorities in what he searched for.

Which brings up the question, exactly what was Snape searching
for? Certainly his secondary objective was to find things
related to Lily, nothing important, just mementos and keep-
sakes. But what was his primary objective? What could have
possibly been left in the house by the Order that they 
would so disregard as to leave behind, and yet would be so
valuable that Snape would seek them out? 

I wondered if others had been in the house, because there
was an element of mystery and uncertainty about it. It seemed
very unlikely that it was anyone other than Snape and 
Mundungus.


> >
> > 
> > 7. Do you think Draco regrets not taking Dumbledore's side?
> > Do you think he would be better off on 'The Good Side'?
> 
> Potioncat:
> The suggestion of an offer was made rather late in the game.
> Draco may wish he could have gone over, but at this point, 
> I don't think he has a side. The Malfoys are just trying to
> stay alive.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Juli, for a great discussion

bboyminn:

Yes, Draco was an idiot for getting mixed up with the DE's
so young, and even an idiot for getting mixed up at all.
There was a brief moment when Dumbledore made his offer of
protection, but there simply wasn't time to think or act.
Before Draco could honestly weigh his options, the 
situation had gotten out of hand, and he was blocked from 
taking the offer.

>From that point on, Draco was deeper in a trap of his own
making than he could have ever imagined. He didn't want
to be where he was, but there was no where else to go, and
if he ran, it would mean abandoning his family. 

Draco is another one of those that is cursed by the choices 
he made.

Luckily, in the end, (likely) Harry's mercy saved him from
the bulk of the consequences he surely deserved. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 21:16:11 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:16:11 -0000
Subject: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fjuhg7+88fd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjurqr+m6pg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179866

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Betsy Hp wrote:
> > Actually, JKR's opinion count's the *least* in my opinion. 
> > Because she's the one trying to tell us something. ...
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > But it's not fair or useful criticism to douse the cake 
> > with catsup and then complain that it didn't improve the
> > taste,...
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Authorial intention is problematic for a number of reasons,
> ... Stating her intentions (as she perceives them) in an 
> interview may or may not "count for something." It's still 
> up to the reader to determine whether her intentions made 
> it onto the page. 
> 
> ...
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, an author's intentions matter not 
> at all. What matters is the book itself, the words on the 
> age, and the reader's interpretation of them. If 
> interpretations differ so wildly that there's no agreement 
> at all, then the book itself is a failure, regardless of 
> its author's intentions. If the interpretations are 
> virtually identical, it's also a failure since it has no 
> substance worthy of discussion.
> 

bboyminn:

I agree with Carol, though hopefully I can add more than that.

I think JKR responds in two ways, one as an author and
creator, and the other is as a fan. JKR say that she see
Dumbledore as gay, but that doesn't make him so. She is 
making a fan interpretation based on her knowledge of 
Dumbledore which may not necessarily include intimate details
of personal encounters. 

I think we are free to disagree with her. We are free to see
Dumbledore as momentarily smitten, or as a confuse adolescent,
or as a flaming queen as the evidence moves us. 

Until such time as JKR relates Dumbledore's 'gay' experiences
in formal written form, I think her statements are her
interpretations as an outside observer, not her statements
of absolute fact as the creator of these characters.

She isn't dictating that Dumbledore is gay, she is simply
holding firmly to her view that he is. We are certainly free
to interpret what is written in a number of different ways.

> Carol continues:
>
> At any rate, JKR clearly *intended* to make Ginny spunky, 
> funny, pretty, brave, and powerful, a worthy future wife 
> for her hero. ...

bboyminn:

We are all free to interpret how well JKR conveyed her intent,
and to even contradict her stated intent. For me, I liked 
Ginny and did see her as a strong woman who could handle
the pressures that were sure to plague Harry for the rest of
his life. She isn't a girly-girl, she is strong and independent,
and able to speak frankly when the situation calls for it,
but also feminine enough to offer Harry comfort when that is 
called for.

In short, for me Ginny worked. For other, she didn't. As you
said, or implied, the author puts her intent into her work
from that point on we are each free to determine for ourselves
whether the author succeeded. 

In a sense, I am saying that the author put one thing in, but
we, as many many readers, are each free to take out individual
interpretations. One source rightly yields many many personal
outcomes. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 21:21:21 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:21:21 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC*: Harry or Dobby?
In-Reply-To: <fjc93o+fln3@eGroups.com>
References: <fjc93o+fln3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4762F3D1.2070708@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179868

horridporrid03 blessed us with this gem On 08/12/2007 04:06:

>> *MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER

> But the character who *became* annoying as I read 
 > through DH... brace yourselves.. . Harry "I keep my
 > brain in my *other* pants" Potter. My
> God, the stupidity was just... awesome.

I won't second Harry as the most annoying character (Dobby wins that, 
hands down), however, I'll second nearly everything else you've said.

Having himself been skewered by the sharp end of Rita Skeeter's pen, it 
was just inconceivably dense of Harry in DH to lend any credence 
whatsoever to her Dumbledore expose. His utter credulity despite his 
first-hand experience of Skeeter's fabrications was so seriously 
exasperating in the final book it distracted me from the plot -- oh, 
wait, no, it WAS the plot! I just wanted to reach into the pages of the 
book and slap the dolt silly, as both Ron and Hermione ought to have done.

Still and all, it was the occasional (no doubt adventitious) bout of 
charm that cost Harry the MAC crown. That title goes to the vexatious 
Dobby, who irked me EVERY time he showed up on page. I can't say whether 
it was his tediously twisted English or his nettly penchant for mischief 
that chafed me more, but I found him nearly as irritating as Jar-Jar 
Binks. At least JKR was merciful enough to kill him off, though she took 
far too long getting around to it.

CJ



From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 21:35:07 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:35:07 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships / JKR's Opinion (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjuies+a514@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjusub+md6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179869

 > >>Pippin:
> > 
> > Wh-at?? So, in your opinon the S/G hatred is about Quidditch 
and   
> > House Points and has nothing to do with the fear of dark magic 
or   
> > pureblood mania?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> That's correct.  I'm somewhat surprised to see you think 
> differently.  I thought the books ended with the idea that there's 
> not really such a thing as "dark magic" and I didn't see much made 
> about "pureblood mania" either.  The final battle took place 
between 
> two guys of a similar blood background and with similar views on 
> magic use.  I mean, one was psycho and really into chaos, and the 
> other was not psycho and more into order.  And it's cool the non-
> psycho won.  But I didn't see any definitive statement about blood 
or 
> magic being made.  I'd say that the statement made (if there was 
one) 
> was about death.

a_svirn:
I think it *is* about pure-blood mania, though. The great showdown 
between Harry and Voldemort is about "mastering Death", yes. But the 
controversy between Slytherin and the other houses, most notably 
Gryffindor (not because Gryffindor is essentially different from 
Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, but because it is the best among them) is 
about this pure-blood thing. Slytherin is characterised in the series 
as the house of bigotry. 




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 21:39:32 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:39:32 -0000
Subject: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fjuhg7+88fd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjut6k+jqmq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179870

I am reposting it because I snipped Carol too early at first.

Re: JKR's Opinion 

> Carol:
>
> Authorial intention is problematic for a number of reasons, among
them
> that much of the writing process is unconscious,

a_svirn:
Is it though? I wonder how it can be possible. I suppose Ginny when
she wrote "enemies of the Heir beware" on the wall did it
unconsciously, but her circumstances were somewhat unique. To write a
coherent chapter, let along the whole series unconsciously is a bit
of a stretch, I'd say.

> Carol:
so an author is not
> always aware of her own intentions, not to mention that the
intentions
> may change as she writes. Even if she's aware of her own intentions,
> she may not have succeeded in conveying them to the reader.

a_svirn:
Here you give three contradictory statements at once. The first one
seems to me rather patronising ? obviously you exempt literary
critics from the charge of not knowing one's own intentions. It's
only poor authors who are at mercy of their subconscious and cannot
account for theirs. Literary critics (i.e. all of us, listers, to
some extent) on the contrary are fortunately rational ? they know
their own mind, they know how authors' minds work (or do not work as
the case may be). The can see between the lines right through
authors' subconscious and fish in its murky depths the meanings and
intentions to which the authors themselves are oblivious. I suppose
it may be true in some cases ? when the author in question is lousy
and the critic in charge is brilliant. Then again, why would a
brilliant critic waste his or her time on a lousy author? And here is
another question I always found intriguing ? do critics not have
subconscious? If they do, how come they are so very different from
authors? How can they be sure of their own intentions? Or we of
theirs?

The second statement suggests that authors do know their intentions
(hooray!), but their natures are notoriously fickle ? they change
constantly. This has certainly been known to happen, but it does not ?
normally ? mean that the final product is incoherent. Shakespeare
obviously intended at some point to include the Falstaff character in
a play about Henry V, but then discarded the idea. Count Tolstoy
intended for one of his main characters in the War and Peace to
become a Decembrist (a noble rebel), but he ended up making him a
contented family man instead. Yet both Shakespeare and Tolstoy were
presumably in their right mind and in a possession of all their
faculties when they changed their minds. All the more interesting for
us to speculate why did they do so, and what had influenced their
choice. The change of an author's intentions is not something
unimportant it is what makes their works even more interesting to
contemplate.

Unlike the first two of your statements your third suggestion is not
so much a general statement on literary work, but an assertion that
it can be at times unsatisfactory. *Shrug* . Obviously it can. But it
doesn't mean that an author's intentions don't count. Even to state
that Rowling has failed to make Ginny "spunky and funny", you'd have
to recognise that she had this intent in the first place and
presumably was aware of it in her own mind. Otherwise we can't even
hold her responsible for her own failure.

a_svirn





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 22:00:43 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:00:43 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjusub+md6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjuueb+23mj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179871

> >>Pippin: 
> > Wh-at?? So, in your opinon the S/G hatred is about Quidditch 
> > and House Points and has nothing to do with the fear of dark     
> > magic or pureblood mania?

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > That's correct.  I'm somewhat surprised to see you think 
> > differently.  I thought the books ended with the idea that       
> > there's not really such a thing as "dark magic" and I didn't see 
> > much made about "pureblood mania" either.
> > <snip>
> > But I didn't see any definitive statement about blood or magic   
> > being made.  I'd say that the statement made (if there was 
> > one) was about death.

> >>a_svirn:
> I think it *is* about pure-blood mania, though. The great showdown 
> between Harry and Voldemort is about "mastering Death", yes. But   
> the controversy between Slytherin and the other houses, most       
> notably Gryffindor (not because Gryffindor is essentially different 
> from Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, but because it is the best among     
> them) is about this pure-blood thing. Slytherin is characterised in 
> the series as the house of bigotry.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, I totally agree that one of the (many!) bad things about 
Slytherin is their bigotry.  But I didn't get the sense that Harry 
(or Gryffindor) was too concerned about challenging that bigotry.  
The sense I got was that this was as a part of Slytherin as bravery 
was a part of Gryffindor.  So rather than something to be tackled and 
dealt with (as Voldemort was tackled and dealt with) it was just 
something that was.

I think that Gryffindor and Slytherin were great friends while 
Slytherin was a bigot (and Gryffindor was brave <g>) points to the, 
in the end, non-issue of that aspect of Slytherin.  I'm not saying 
that Gryffindors don't see the bigotry as bad (just as they see 
Slytherins' practicing "dark magic" as bad, or their "ambition" as 
bad).  It's just, I don't see it as the *source* of the rift.  It's 
not what they get into fights over in the halls.  Or into fights over 
in epic show-downs for that matter.

Betsy Hp




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Dec 14 22:25:00 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:25:00 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjuueb+23mj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjuvrs+iv9s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179872

> Betsy Hp:
> Yes, I totally agree that one of the (many!) bad things about 
> Slytherin is their bigotry.  But I didn't get the sense that Harry 
> (or Gryffindor) was too concerned about challenging that bigotry.  
> The sense I got was that this was as a part of Slytherin as 
bravery 
> was a part of Gryffindor.  So rather than something to be tackled 
and 
> dealt with (as Voldemort was tackled and dealt with) it was just 
> something that was.
> 
> I think that Gryffindor and Slytherin were great friends while 
> Slytherin was a bigot (and Gryffindor was brave <g>) points to 
the, 
> in the end, non-issue of that aspect of Slytherin.  I'm not saying 
> that Gryffindors don't see the bigotry as bad (just as they see 
> Slytherins' practicing "dark magic" as bad, or their "ambition" as 
> bad).  It's just, I don't see it as the *source* of the rift.  
It's 
> not what they get into fights over in the halls.  Or into fights 
over 
> in epic show-downs for that matter.

Magpie:
I think I see what you mean. Slytherins suck in many ways. They're 
bigoted, but they are also petty, cowardly, mean, often ugly, vain, 
cruel, and interested in dark magic (in the bad way). Using the 
worst ethnic slur and wanting wands taken away from deserving 
Wizards like Hermione is just yet another way they show themselves 
to be awful.

You can't really separate out the bigotry from any of their other 
bad qualities or show that it's at the root of it, since bigotry 
doesn't make you any of these things. Bigots can be charming. The 
books also aren't looking at bigotry in itself and getting to the 
roots of it or trying to change it. There are some Slytherins who, 
especially if they've been spending time with Gryffindors, change 
some of their uglier ways of behaving when it comes to that subject, 
but there's no storyline of how someone actually learns they were 
wrong about this sort of thing, or what the beliefs mean to them to 
begin with. (According to JKR Snape even thinks he can impress his 
Muggleborn love by being the biggest baddest DE wannabe there is.)

Many have noted that bigotry appears throughout the books, that in 
fact the WW has different types of sentient beings who think and 
speak--which puts them at human level--institutionally treated 
differently according to their "race" or species if you want to call 
it that than Muggle Britain does, but this isn't a problem. When the 
good guys slip up and say something a little bigoted it really 
doesn't matter, because they're not DEs, they haven't joined the 
Slytherins. There's no moment where it's important for them to 
recognize this in themselves. It just makes them "real" or not goody-
goody or wonderfully flawed. It's not a danger sign. There's no 
corruption here. At base everyone agrees on the idea of superiority 
of some groups over others, the difference is in how you treat your 
inferiors. If the Gryffindors are the bright shiny face of Wizarding 
society, the Slytherins are the ugly side of it that needs to be 
regularly and symbolically beaten. 

Symbolically, since Slytherin House as a whole leaves before the 
battle. They aren't needed for the House to play its assigned part. 
They don't battle the rest of the school and get killed, nor do they 
recognize where their own best interests lie and battle their own to 
change what they stand for. Slytherin ends the series in exactly the 
same position it was in when Tom Riddle got to school. They're at 
peace, but why would they be friends? Every reason Harry heard for 
not being friends with Slytherins was proved in the book. The 
originally founding story, intriguing as it is, repeats itself. What 
does it mean that Slytherin is included as a founder of the school, 
and then symbolically walks away to achieve peace? The hat talks 
about being "sad" at Slytherin's leaving, but we never see any 
reason why we honestly should be so. Slytherin is the House that's 
not really a House. Having the absent founder is just yet another 
way that Slytherin is defined completely by negatives.

-m




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 22:40:00 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:40:00 -0000
Subject: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fjut6k+jqmq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjv0o0+nra9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179873

> >>Carol:
> > Authorial intention is problematic for a number of reasons, among
> > them that much of the writing process is unconscious,

> >>a_svirn:
> Is it though? I wonder how it can be possible.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
A scene or an event bubbles up from the unconscious, the author 
writes it down, and then it somehow ties into the whole in a way 
unplanned or looked for.  Sarah Monette describes that happening with 
a scene that turned out to be pivotal, though at first it seemed a 
strange diversion when she and her editor were discussing it.

> >>Carol:
> > so an author is not always aware of her own intentions, not to   
> > mention that the intentions may change as she writes. Even if    
> > she's aware of her own intentions, she may not have succeeded in 
> > conveying them to the reader.

> >>a_svirn:
> Here you give three contradictory statements at once.

Betsy Hp:
I think they're all true however.  That's the glory of literature (or 
any art I suppose), in my opinion.  The best stuff has wonderful 
layers to it, and I think some of it can surprise the artist 
themselves.

> >>a_svirn:
> The first one seems to me rather patronising ? obviously you exempt 
> literary critics from the charge of not knowing one's own          
> intentions. It's only poor authors who are at mercy of their       
> subconscious and cannot account for theirs.

Betsy Hp:
Well, of course the author is more at the mercy of their subconscious 
than the reader.  The author is the one doing the creating after 
all.  Readers are just observing, but the writers are putting 
themselves out there. (Though I will say, a reader's subconscious can 
certainly play a role in their response to books.  Certain characters 
may warm or repulse a reader for subconscious reasons.)

> >>a_svirn:
> <snip>
> The second statement suggests that authors do know their intentions
> (hooray!), but their natures are notoriously fickle ? they change
> constantly. This has certainly been known to happen, but it does   
> not ? normally ? mean that the final product is incoherent.

Betsy Hp:
Neil Gaimen, when asked about a certain reading of his "Beowulf" 
movie, responded that he couldn't (or wouldn't) say because (among 
other things) he had drafts and rewrites in his mind that the viewer 
never got a glimpse of.  IOWs, his view was skewed by his own 
changing intentions.  The viewer would therefore have a purer view of 
the finished project.

> >>a_svirn: 
> <snip>
> The change of an author's intentions is not something unimportant   
> it is what makes their works even more interesting to contemplate.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, of course!  And I agree it can be fascinating to see what the 
author was trying to, or thought they did, achieve. (JKR's statements 
about Dumbledore being such a great guy, for example.)  However, the 
author's view doesn't (and I think shouldn't) count heavier than the 
readers view.  The author said what they were going to say in their 
work.  The work should ultimately speak for itself.

> >>a_svirn:
> Unlike the first two of your statements your third suggestion is not
> so much a general statement on literary work, but an assertion that
> it can be at times unsatisfactory. *Shrug* . Obviously it can. But 
> it doesn't mean that an author's intentions don't count. Even to   
> state that Rowling has failed to make Ginny "spunky and funny",    
> you'd have to recognise that she had this intent in the first place 
> and presumably was aware of it in her own mind. Otherwise we can't 
> even hold her responsible for her own failure.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but to say the reader should see Ginny as "spunky and funny" 
because in an interview JKR said this was how Ginny was supposed to 
be is, IMO, to give far too much power to JKR.  And she's already in 
a powerful position to begin with what with being the one who wrote 
the book.  If she wasn't able to convince me of the "spunky and 
funny" nature of Ginny by what's in the book, I'm not going to be 
convinced because of something she said in an interview.  And that's 
how I see JKR's intent or opinion as not mattering.

Yes, I can certainly agree that JKR had a certain intent with regards 
to Ginny.  The intent is clear within the books and on top of that, 
JKR has shared her intentions in various interviews.  But JKR's 
intent doesn't trump or invalidate my interpertation.

Betsy Hp (obviously not speaking for Carol -- just to be clear <g>)




From angellima at xtra.co.nz  Sat Dec 15 01:18:09 2007
From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:18:09 +1300
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/Werew
Message-ID: <001f01c83eb8$5b51a100$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 179874

> lealess
>
> Speculation part: Dumbledore must have asked Snape what Voldemort
> was up to, so he must have known that Voldemort was holding a
> wandmaker, that Voldemort had taken Lucius Malfoy's wand, that
> Voldemort was traveling all over the world on some kind of quest.
> What about the escape of Ollivander from the Malfoy mansion? Do
> you think Snape didn't hear about that and report it to Dumbledore?
> <snip>

Alicia
OK, a lot of what you say makes sense but how could Snape have told DD
about Olivander's escape from the Malfoy mansion, DD was dead at the
end of HBP and the escape happens in DH. 

Angel:
this makes me barf but Severus had been speaking with the Albus portrait remember, as it was the portrait who came up with:
1 manipulating Mundungus, 2 the 7 HPs, 3 when and how to give Harry the sword etc... barf barf barf ... the way Albus ran the school posthumously, he could have started on "his next adventure" years earlier... 

 Lealess:
> > Dumbledore could have warned Snape about the Elder Wand at any 
> > time... but he didn't. He coldly kept his secrets and sacrificed 
> > Snape to Voldemort's whim. No matter how the Elder Wand 
> > ownership fell, Snape could not have won.

> Pippin:
> If Snape could not have won no matter who owned the wand, then
> what use would a warning be? Voldemort's belief that he had to
> kill Snape was delusional, since Voldemort knew that mastery
> of the wand had passed from Grindelwald to Dumbledore while
> Grindelwald was still alive. Dumbledore could predict that 
> Voldemort would delude himself into believing the Elder Wand
> would give victory to whoever had it, but how could he predict
> what form that delusion would take? 


Angel:
You captured the tragedy that is Severus Snape right there.  No matter how brilliant, how selfless, no one gives him his due.  Despite his brilliance it was Lily's praises the new potions master force fed us with arrgghh!

Who was Dumbledore anyway to judge if Snape was good enough to win against Voldemort???  

Power-hunger was a fault of Albus', there is no indication that Severus shared the same lust for power but of course Albus knew best and judged where he saw fit.
And while we're on the subject...Dumbledore killed others too not just Severus, maybe not as many as Voldemort, maybe not as directly and cruelly as Voldemort, but kill as effectively as Voldemort - yes.  

I suspect Aberforth's explanations of Albus' faults and "learning secrets at our mother's knee" line was not to be taken too in depth but the man truly understood Albus, who in the end was nothing more than a computer anti-virus...more troublesome and deadly than the actual virus.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From angellima at xtra.co.nz  Sat Dec 15 01:29:02 2007
From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:29:02 +1300
Subject: MBC**/ Twins
Message-ID: <002601c83eb9$e047e8a0$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local>

No: HPFGUIDX 179875

zanooda: 

They should have stayed together even when Fred was still alive, and 
shouldn't have separated under any circumstances, IMO. Bad things only 
happen to them when they are apart. The first ever time they go 
different ways - and George looses his ear, the second time they get 
separated - and Fred dies. They just had to stay together on both 
missions - somehow I'm sure nothing would have happened to them in this 
case. They were like lucky charms to one another ...


Angel:
That never occurred to me.  But quite right, as twins, they would have protected each other at all costs with almost precognitive senses.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 15 01:46:27 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:46:27 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/Werew
In-Reply-To: <001f01c83eb8$5b51a100$a164a8c0@ezybuycar.local>
Message-ID: <fjvblj+dq1c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179876

Angel:
<SNIP>
And while we're on the subject...Dumbledore killed others too not just 
Severus,
maybe not as many as Voldemort, maybe not as directly and cruelly as 
Voldemort,
but kill as effectively as Voldemort - yes.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Whom?





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 15 02:16:02 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:16:02 -0000
Subject: Whom did Dumbledore torture and killed? WAS: Re: re:Scrimgeour/Werew
In-Reply-To: <fjvblj+dq1c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjvdd2+3h1o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179877

> Angel:
> <SNIP>
> And while we're on the subject...Dumbledore killed others too not 
just 
> Severus,
> maybe not as many as Voldemort, maybe not as directly and cruelly 
as 
> Voldemort,
> but kill as effectively as Voldemort - yes.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Whom?
>

Alla:

Sorry for replying to myself, but I just want to clarify before I 
will 
get the responses that I just asked question for a sake of asking, 
since I am not accepting answers like Morphin and Hokey :).
For the purpose of this question I am really not interested in 
hearing 
whom Dumbledore **maybe** killed, whom people **think** Dumbledore 
killed, etc.
I read the above statement as absolute statement of fact. I mean, 
this 
statement did not have any - I think Dumbledore killed, or 
Dumbledore 
maybe killed, or it is my opinion that Dumbledore killed, right?

So I take it you know for a fact that Dumbledore killed people. I 
really want to know whom Dumbledore killed for a **fact**. 



Thanks,

Alla






From bartl at sprynet.com  Fri Dec 14 20:15:14 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:15:14 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do you think Ginny was....
In-Reply-To: <fjsue6+qm81@eGroups.com>
References: <fjsue6+qm81@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4762E452.3070903@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179878

Tandra wrote:
> I will have to read HBP again to find clues for Ginny's awareness of
> Harry's liking of her...if any.
>
> Do you have any clues or thoughts about it? 
>   
Bart:
The way I see it, very little got past Hermione, and Hermione was 
Ginny's adviser. Therefore, Ginny almost certainly knew about it before 
Harry did.

Bart




From apetersonhanson at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 14 20:43:52 2007
From: apetersonhanson at yahoo.com (apetersonhanson)
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:43:52 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjujmo+kdtd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjupu8+amjl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179879

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jaschenka" <jaschenk at ...> wrote:
>
> > -alicia
> >
> > And I wanted Harry to kill Bellatrix Lestrange, or have
> > Neville do it, not Molly Weasley!!!!!
>
>
> Jaschenka:

> And I loved that Molly killed Bellatrix!
>



I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix!  Harry should have to get back at
her for killing Sirius, or Neville to get back at her for torturing
his parents with the cruciatus curse.  If my memory serves me
correctly I think that Bellatrix killed Fred which would explain Molly
saying "she's mine" like she does in DH before she finally dispenses
Bellatrix, but I still think Harry or Neville should have got the
privledge.  They certainly had to wait long enough to see her die.

-alicia




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Dec 15 03:58:01 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:58:01 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjuqla+m672@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjvjc9+n2p7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179880


> 
> bboyminn:

> 
> Plus, if they sent the Patronus to a specific person, how
> could they be sure that person was in a secure situation
> so they could receive the message? Mr. Weasley could be
> standing in the hall of the Ministry talking to DE's when
> the Patronus arrived and delivered its message. That would
> be bad for everyone. 
> 
Potioncat:
So really, the DEs' dark marks or Hermione's fake galleons are better 
communication devices than the Messenger Patronuses.

Carol asked why Ron wouldn't have been taught the charm (as I had 
suggested Hermione was taught the spell as part of being an Order 
member.) I'll have to look at the chapter again to come up with an 
answer. But I'm sticking to my main belief---JKR is inconsistent wtih 
how the Patronus Charm works.
 
> bboyminn:

> 
> If the objections is to how a troll like Umbridge could 
> come up with the happy memory necessary to cast a Partonus,
> as someone else already pointed out, the memory only has
> to be uniquely happy to Umbridge. She could have conjured
> the Patronus with happy memories of torturing Harry with
> the Cutting Quill. Horrific to everyone else, but probably
> a happy memory for Umbridge.

Potioncat:
I went looking for the quote that I had in mind. At JKR's site she 
says the Patronus makes a good messenger because it is an "Anti-Dark 
Arts device and was resistant to interfernce." (paraphrased somewhat) 
So it's hard for me to understand how an anti-Dark arts device can be 
used by a witch for dark purposes.

But then, by the end of DH the definition of Dark Arts became more 
blurred than ever. And I suppose an anti Dark Arts device could be 
used in the same way a Drug dealer might use a drug sniffing dog.
> 
 
 
> bboyminn:
> Which brings up the question, exactly what was Snape searching
> for? Certainly his secondary objective was to find things
> related to Lily, nothing important, just mementos and keep-
> sakes. But what was his primary objective? What could have
> possibly been left in the house by the Order that they 
> would so disregard as to leave behind, and yet would be so
> valuable that Snape would seek them out? 

Potioncat:
I started to go in that direction too---except in chapter 9, Harry 
doesn't know the other parts of the house have been searched. The 
Trio just notice some signs on that main level.

So at this point, an intruder has been hinted at, we see Anti-Snape 
jinxes which may make us think Snape hadn't been in, and may make us 
think of him as really on LV's side. 

As for Snape's objective, I think he went there looking for a memento 
of Lily. It must have been within hours of his killing DD, because 
JKR said it was before Moody cast the jinx. I think at that time, 
having left all his possessions behind, having killed DD, he needed 
something tangible to hold onto.

(You don't want to ask me if I think this holds up. I'm just 
reporting what I think is happening, or supposed to be happening.)





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 15 04:44:05 2007
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:44:05 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjupu8+amjl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fjvm2l+1sa7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179881

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson" 
<apetersonhanson at ...> wrote:

> If my memory serves me correctly I think that Bellatrix 
> killed Fred 


I think Fred died when a portion of a wall fell on top of him, and it 
always seemed strange to me that Bellatrix even knew about his death. 
How could she find out? Actually, I find it strange that she would know 
Fred's name at all :-).

zanooda




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 15 09:06:37 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 17:06:37 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjujmo+kdtd@eGroups.com>
References: <fjujmo+kdtd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4763991D.7010003@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179882

jaschenka blessed us with this gem On 15/12/2007 02:57:

> I think there's still room for another story about the hallows,

The Hallows should have been another story all along. JKR spent an 
entire book setting up the horcrux plotline, then all but abandons it in 
the seventh to the Hallows.  Harry spends half the book wandering around 
trying to decide between the one and the other and by the time he makes 
up his mind JKR has so little time left she has to locate half of them 
at Hogwarts just so the Trio can find them in time, and then she STILL 
has to destroy some of them off-page.

The whole of book seven would have been much better served had JKR 
simply chosen one plotline rather than trying to shoehorn in two. 
Especially since, in the end, the only thing the Hallows plotline 
contributed was Harry's hopelessly confusing Who's-the-Master monologue. 
The pacing would have been tighter, the storyline more focused, and we 
wouldn't have had to sit through the Trio's long, boring wanderings in 
the wilderness.

Just my opinion :-)

CJ




From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com  Sat Dec 15 09:07:32 2007
From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:07:32 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters?
In-Reply-To: <fi5vej+lr6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8CA0D110F57B604-4A4-2441@MBLK-M03.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179883

I know that I'm terribly late on this topic, but I had to respond:

I *hate* DH.

I think that JKR took the easiest possible route with every single loose end left.? What was Severus' motive?? LOLLIPOPS.? I put the book down for twenty minutes after I read about that.? I was so incredibly disappointed by it.? Lupin's not happy?? Kill him!? Kill him like she killed the rest of his generation.? No one likes Slytherin House?? Let's not have anyone learn any kind of lesson and just have them be ever so evil.

What was the point of that?? She spent 6 books writing incredibly and making beautiful plot lines (I could ignore all the holes til DH), but honestly, DH feels like she gave up.? I feel like she rushed through DH to give the readers a product.

The epilogue?? I could write an entire other email about how awful that thing is.

I think JKR learned a thing or two from her fan Stephen King.? That man can write a story but endings escape him..."and the sun came up and the monster was dust!? Yay!" is his style.? JKR gave us an incredible story but had no idea how to end it.

Oryomai

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From biancawatanabe_123 at yahoo.com.ph  Sat Dec 15 06:33:02 2007
From: biancawatanabe_123 at yahoo.com.ph (biancawatanabe_123)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:33:02 -0000
Subject: Cho Chang
Message-ID: <fjvseu+bnek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179884

The night when Harry, Ron and Hermione went to Hogwarts to find the
lost diadem, why was Cho eager to go with Harry to the Ravenclaw's
common room? Was it because her feelings came back for him or was it
because she just wanted to go with him because now that Harry is
famous?

biancawatanabe_123




From jaschenk at hotmail.com  Sat Dec 15 09:41:05 2007
From: jaschenk at hotmail.com (jaschenka)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:41:05 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjupu8+amjl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk07fh+7ptc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179885

> > > -alicia
> I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix!

Jaschenka:
I loved it because Molly throughout the books is sort of a 'stay-at-
home mum'. Always taking care of her family (including Harry) but
never really going out to fight. In the end she steps up and kills the
worst death eater of them all, something not even Sirius was able to
do!

I think Harry gets his 'revenge' by killing LV himself.

And Neville plays a crucial part in killing Nagini right in front of
LV! So I feel they get their share, Molly should get her chance to
show what she's worth.




From jaschenk at hotmail.com  Sat Dec 15 09:52:54 2007
From: jaschenk at hotmail.com (jaschenka)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:52:54 -0000
Subject: Cho Chang
In-Reply-To: <fjvseu+bnek@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk085m+tr6q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179886

biancawatanabe_123:
> The night when Harry, Ron and Hermione went to Hogwarts to find the
> lost diadem, why was Cho eager to go with Harry to the Ravenclaw's
> common room? Was it because her feelings came back for him or was it
> because she just wanted to go with him because now that Harry is
> famous?

Jaschenka:
I think she just wants to help. Like the rest of them she's been
waiting a long time for this 'final stand' and she's eager to join the
fight. Of course Ginny is scared Cho and Harry will rekindle the flame
between them :-)




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Dec 15 11:41:26 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:41:26 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE polyjuice - Time Release Polyjuice
References: <fjsdnc+nu1l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <014601c83f0f$6dbde540$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179887

> bboyminn:
> Next, regarding the one hour time limit. In a still unwritten
> fan fiction, one of Harry's friends, on Harry's behalf,
> approach Snape with a novel concept. They bring Snape a muggle
> time release cold capsule, the kind that are filled with
> little colored beads and explains the concept of the coating
> on the beads taking a certain time to dissolve and release
> the medicine. That way, a 4 hour medicince can be extended
> over 12 hours. They then ask Snape to apply that to Polyjuice
> potion, only instead of 4 hour increments of coatings, they
> use one hour increments.

Shelley:
Except that this wouldn't work, as you needed to take the ready-made 
polyjuice potion and then mix it with the "essence of Crab"- the hair or the 
toenail or whatever else- the part of the person you wanted to become. The 
time release capsule could only be made AFTER you mixed that essence of that 
person ingredient in, making that potion very specific in nature. What might 
be sold in stores could only be the base potion, without that second step 
that the user would need to alter further before use. And, the base potion 
might be able to last for months, but then is that also true of the added 
ingredient mixture? I would think that it might go bad or ineffective faster 
once it was in it's completed form, but that's just a guess. 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Dec 15 11:52:52 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:52:52 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why down on all the characters?
References: <8CA0D110F57B604-4A4-2441@MBLK-M03.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <018701c83f11$070a0430$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179888

From: <SnapesSlytherin at aol.com>

>I know that I'm terribly late on this topic, but I had to respond:
>
> I *hate* DH.
>
> I think that JKR took the easiest possible route with every single loose 
> end left.? What was Severus' motive?? LOLLIPOPS.? I put the book down for 
> twenty minutes after I read about that.? I was so incredibly disappointed 
> by it.? Lupin's not happy?? Kill him!? Kill him like she killed the rest 
> of his generation.? No one likes Slytherin House?? Let's not have anyone 
> learn any kind of lesson and just have them be ever so evil.
>
> What was the point of that?? She spent 6 books writing incredibly and 
> making beautiful plot lines (I could ignore all the holes til DH), but 
> honestly, DH feels like she gave up.? I feel like she rushed through DH to 
> give the readers a product.
>
> The epilogue?? I could write an entire other email about how awful that 
> thing is.
>
> I think JKR learned a thing or two from her fan Stephen King.? That man 
> can write a story but endings escape him..."and the sun came up and the 
> monster was dust!? Yay!" is his style.? JKR gave us an incredible story 
> but had no idea how to end it.
>
> Oryomai

Shelley:
You are far from alone in your thinking. DH gets the most criticism of the 
series because it is the worst in the series for many people, myself 
included. Yes, I hate DH for all the reasons you mentioned, and more. I 
still stand by the argument that I think initially she had certain endings 
planned, and then wrote this book with those endings in mind, but then 
didn't go back and edit it to match the actual story that she had told 
in-between that initial beginning and those pre-planned endings. Had she 
gone back and reread actually what she wrote, I think she would have edited 
the book to be more consistent with the rest of the series, and we wouldn't 
be arguing about the inconsistencies in polyjuice potion rules and other 
obvious errors where she's twisting things to meet a goal without the common 
sense of does it read well that way. Harry's cloak can't have been ordinary 
for 6 books and suddenly a Hallow in this book. The polyjuice potion 
couldn't have lasted for only one hour for 6 1/2 books and then suddenly get 
to be a one-shot deal. Editing would have caught those errors, and things 
could have been fixed if she has just taken more time to reflect back on the 
series to catch herself before final publication. I think she was unwise 
with this one to stick with a publisher deadline, and instead she should 
have taken a month off and then edited herself for content on all the major 
plot points. Certainly, the fans gave her plenty of checklists of things 
they wanted to see resolved. 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Dec 15 11:57:40 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:57:40 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: horcruxes
References: <fk07fh+7ptc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <019a01c83f11$b25b2210$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179889

>> > > -alicia
>> I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix!
>
> Jaschenka:
> I loved it because Molly throughout the books is sort of a 'stay-at-
> home mum'. Always taking care of her family (including Harry) but
> never really going out to fight. In the end she steps up and kills the
> worst death eater of them all, something not even Sirius was able to
> do!

Shelley:
I loved it because it fits Molly's character- she was a good person, loving 
and caring, but that you would get her ire most if you attacked directly one 
of her family. Her reaction was not only funny with the verbal line that 
accomplished it, and you could just see Molly wanting nothing more than 
wanting to kill the person who so recklessly just attempted to kill her 
daughter right in front of her. You have to mean the dark curses, and 
certainly Molly meant business right there and then! That scene is one of my 
favorites. 




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Dec 15 12:22:06 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:22:06 -0700
Subject: Why Bella dies
References: <fk07fh+7ptc@eGroups.com> <019a01c83f11$b25b2210$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <000601c83f15$1bed51a0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179890

>>> > > -alicia
>>> I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix!

Shelley:
I know some have taken offense to why Molly uses a curse to kill someone, 
and in thinking about it, I have come up with a very simple explaination of 
why Bellatrix's death at that moment make perfect sense.

Rule #1 of common sense basics for a killer:
If you are going to kill an underaged wizarding child, don't do it in the 
presence of it's parent.

You think Bellatrix might have learned this lesson from her master, Lord 
Voldemort. The last time he tried to kill an underaged wizard (Harry), 
things went very badly for him indeed. Because even seemingly unarmed 
parents have weapons.

But no, she isn't paying attention when she is just trying to kill children, 
and who happens to be standing there but Molly to see what she just tried to 
do to Ginny. Oops!





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 15 15:50:07 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:50:07 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjuvrs+iv9s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk0t3f+1sb2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179891

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > I think that Gryffindor and Slytherin were great friends while 
> > Slytherin was a bigot (and Gryffindor was brave <g>) points to 
> > the, in the end, non-issue of that aspect of Slytherin.  I'm not 
> > saying that Gryffindors don't see the bigotry as bad (just as    
> > they see Slytherins' practicing "dark magic" as bad, or          
> > their "ambition" as bad).  It's just, I don't see it as the      
> > *source* of the rift.  
> > <snip>

> >>Magpie:
> I think I see what you mean. Slytherins suck in many ways. They're 
> bigoted, but they are also petty, cowardly, mean, often ugly, vain, 
> cruel, and interested in dark magic (in the bad way).
> <snip> 
> You can't really separate out the bigotry from any of their other 
> bad qualities or show that it's at the root of it, since bigotry 
> doesn't make you any of these things. Bigots can be charming. The 
> books also aren't looking at bigotry in itself and getting to the 
> roots of it or trying to change it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  I mean, I doubt the Sorting Hat's song will have changed 
much when it comes time to define the houses.  Slytherin will still 
be the house of the ambitious, cunning and bigoted.  Of course, as it 
was during most (if not all) of Harry's time at Hogwarts, the 
Slytherins won't be allowed to let their bigotry run *rampant*. But 
it will still be a defining characteristic.  After all, there's 
nothing in DH to suggest that would ever change.  It certainly wasn't 
part of Harry's "quest".

> >>Magpie:
> At base everyone agrees on the idea of superiority of some groups   
> over others, the difference is in how you treat your inferiors. If 
> the Gryffindors are the bright shiny face of Wizarding society, the 
> Slytherins are the ugly side of it that needs to be regularly and   
> symbolically beaten. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The WW is founded on bigotry and xenophobia; that's what makes it so 
dark and totalitarian, IMO.  Our first two introductions to wizards 
include a sneering at Muggles (McGonagall and then Hagrid).  So yes, 
absolutely the bigotry of the WW runs deep.  Slytherins are the shiny 
tip of the iceberg, which enables other characters to pat themselves 
on the back and congratulate each other on their openmindedness.  
Gryffindor is only bright when held up against Slytherin darkness.  
Which is why it's an impossible task to try and change that aspect of 
Slytherin.  It would involve a rather painful look into a mirror.  
And honestly, I'd say the same could be said for "dark magic". 

> >>Magpie:
> Slytherin ends the series in exactly the same position it was in   
> when Tom Riddle got to school. They're at peace, but why would they 
> be friends? Every reason Harry heard for not being friends with    
> Slytherins was proved in the book. The originally founding story,   
> intriguing as it is, repeats itself. What does it mean that         
> Slytherin is included as a founder of the school, and then         
> symbolically walks away to achieve peace? The hat talks about      
> being "sad" at Slytherin's leaving, but we never see any reason why 
> we honestly should be so. Slytherin is the House that's not really 
> a House. Having the absent founder is just yet another way that    
> Slytherin is defined completely by negatives.

Betsy Hp:
It's kind of hard to picture that wonderful friendship between 
Slytherin and Gryffindor before whatever went wrong went wrong, isn't 
it?  

[Cue dreamy aside] The best I can come up with is some version of the 
Snape/Lily debacle.  Perhaps Gyrffindor trudged through a fen, 
stumpled upon Slytherin doing some neat-o potion stuff and asked him 
to join with his buds, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, to form a school.  
And for a while Slytherin was properly thankful and ingratiating 
towards Gryffindor for rescuing him from his swamp.  But then he got 
too big for his britches, and obviously had to go. [/dreamy aside]

I also get the feeling that the hat desperately wishes to be in a 
different story.  The hat doesn't like sorting the kids and the hat 
urged the school to work together.  Unfortunately, no one pays all 
that much attention to the hat. (Okay, now I'm picturing the hat in 
flames thinking, "Finally!" and then being horribly disappointed at 
its rescue.)

But yes, Slytherin is left in the basement, their founder in the 
catacombs, their presence and their beliefs never examined.  Always 
pushed away and rejected and happy to be so.  Literally the shadow 
house.

Betsy Hp




From bobjtc at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 15 13:44:59 2007
From: bobjtc at yahoo.com (Bob Connors)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS:  Re: horcruxes
Message-ID: <218656.2224.qm@web52811.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179892

alicia:

I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix! Harry should have to get back at 
her for killing Sirius, or Neville to get back at her for torturing 
his parents with the cruciatus curse. If my memory serves me 
correctly I think that Bellatrix killed Fred which would explain Molly 
saying "she's mine" like she does in DH before she finally dispenses 
Bellatrix, but I still think Harry or Neville should have got the 
priviledge. They certainly had to wait long enough to see her die.

Bob:
Maybe so, I really do see the reasoning, but did Harry ever really 'kill' anyone?  No forbidden curses, all disarming, stunning, binding etc.

Maybe she just did not want to have Harry kill anyone, keep him sort of pure?

Bob





From bawilson at citynet.net  Sat Dec 15 16:05:31 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:05:31 -0500
Subject: Failed Friendships / JKR's Opinion (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAMEE6WzQbh0uBftMSjG1OxgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 179893

"Betsy Hp:
...will be exactly the same. After all, they have the exact same 
issues passing between them: cut-throat quidditch games and way too 
serious attention paid to house points and all. Slytherin and 
Gryffindor will never be friends. The rift has won."


Not necessarily.  We have been told very little about what has happened between
the end of DH and the epilog.  That the House system is still in place we know,
but not much else.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man.  Other forms of
transport grow daily more nightmarish.  Only the bicycle remains pure in
heart."--Iris Murdoch





From jaschenk at hotmail.com  Sat Dec 15 16:19:33 2007
From: jaschenk at hotmail.com (jaschenka)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:19:33 -0000
Subject: horcruxes / Hallows
In-Reply-To: <fjujmo+kdtd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk0uql+a5cb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179894

> > -alicia
> >Also, Does anyone else think JKR should expand the series, this time
> > telling the story of Ron & Hermione's and Harry & Ginny's kids?
> > Maybe they can face a new evil, not LV he should stay dead.

> Jaschenka:
> I think there's still room for another story about the hallows,
> because they were NOT destroyed.

Jaschenka:
I've been thinking a little bit more about this. Does anybody else
feel it's suspicious that all the hallows survive? I mean, Harry keeps
the cloak and hides the wand. But he just loses the stone (it's not
like he left it in the woods on purpose).

I'm sure you're familiar with 'the lord of the rings': the ring was
lost, but then was found! As I'm sure the stone will be! Maybe one of
Draco's offspring finds it when they come to Hogwarts. And then what
will happen...

Can it bring back LV? I think not, because he's not really dead is he?
But maybe Bellatrix returns and goes looking for the other hallows
(I'm just letting my mind wander...). The trail would lead to Harry's
offspring, because they would have the cloak.

And the wand? If Harry has to be alive to have it taken from him, he
could be the new headmaster of Hogwarts. You see, in my opinion lots
of possibilities for new stories :-) or am I going overboard with this?







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Dec 15 16:51:15 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:51:15 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships / JKR's Opinion (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjuies+a514@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk10m3+lu5t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179895


> > >>Pippin:
> > 
> > Wh-at?? So, in your opinon the S/G hatred is about Quidditch and   
> > House Points and has nothing to do with the fear of dark magic or   
> > pureblood mania?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> That's correct.  I'm somewhat surprised to see you think 
> differently.  I thought the books ended with the idea that there's 
> not really such a thing as "dark magic" and I didn't see much made 
> about "pureblood mania" either.  The final battle took place between 
> two guys of a similar blood background and with similar views on 
> magic use. 

Pippin:

Similar views on magic use?
I must have missed the part where Harry desecrated corpses, burst
out of the back of someone's head, convinced people there was no 
good and evil, slaughtered unicorns, drank their blood and instituted 
wholesale use of the Unforgivables. 

Do you  "see no difference" between the flawed and the 
monstrous? 

As for the pureblood mania, I didn't noticed Harry using anyone's
blood status to determine how powerful a wizard they might be or
whether they were worthy to study magic. Ron says Grandad
Weasley will never forgive anyone who marries a pureblood -- 
of course that's a joke, since Arthur made a pureblood marriage
himself. 

> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > But if so then all the Houses should be at each other's throats,
> > and they're not. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Aren't they?  I mean, when the other Houses have a chance, they root 
> for their House as shown in GoF with Hufflepuff Cedric. 

Pippin:
Of course there's House rivalry, but it's friendly for the most part.
People are disappointed if their house loses, but not frightened. It
isn't the end of the world. 

> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > Besides which nobody cares much about House Points past third year  
> > (we don't even find out who won the cup) and being too keen on      
> > Quidditch as a grown up is viewed as slightly pathetic -- look at   
> > Bagman. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Doesn't the WW quite like Bagman?  Arthur doing him favors and juries 
> cooing over him as he's put on trial for being a death eater, etc.?  
> And if no one cares about House Points, why was Harry ostracized in 
> PS/SS?  And who was doing all the cheering when Gryffindor pulled it 
> out in the end?

Pippin:
They like Bagman, but they don't respect him. Harry's case in
PS/SS is special because he raised expectations and then not
only didn't deliver, he made things incomparably worse. Then
of course he pulls off  a spectacular save. People are going
to respond to drama like that. 

But the twins lose points all the time, according to Ron,  and 
nobody cares. 

> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > OTOH, at the end of DH dark magic has been defeated.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Huh?  *Voldomort* was defeated at the end of DH.  I suspect 
> Unforgivables would still work.

Pippin:
They work, but it's been shown that using them to take over 
the WW won't.

> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > Scorpius has surely been raised to think he has enemies, but I      
> > doubt he's been raised to think dark magic is cool.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I'm quite positive James thinks it's cool since his mom and dad 
> thought it cool. (Though only if used for the greater good, of 
> course. <eg>) 

Pippin:

Surely James knows that he was named for a man who taught
people they should choose what is right over what is easy? 

The one who said,  "I should have asked myself why I did not feel 
more disturbed<snip> I should have recognized that I was too happy" 
(OOP 37).

That's the answer we've been looking for, I think. If what
can only be justifed as for the greater good does not disturb the
characters, if it made them too happy, if they thought it was
cool, if it was  *easy*-- then it wasn't the greater good at all.

We do not see Harry question his use of the cruciatus curse or the
expulsion of the Slytherins. But his elation shows us that he should
have. 

We don't see him question his feeling okay with the condition
of the maimed babything -- but we did see him go back and try to
save Voldemort from making that choice anyway. 

Pippin




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Dec 15 21:06:21 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:06:21 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjuueb+23mj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk1fkd+ievg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179896

> Betsy Hp:
> Yes, I totally agree that one of the (many!) bad things about 
> Slytherin is their bigotry.  But I didn't get the sense that Harry 
> (or Gryffindor) was too concerned about challenging that bigotry.  

Pippin:
Harry and Gryffindor do not challenge Slytherin's beliefs, they
challenged Slytherin and Voldemort's attempts to enforce them on
everybody. This was what the original rift was about according to
Binns in CoS 9. Slytherin wanted Hogwarts to be for purebloods
only, he disliked taking students of Muggle parentage because
he believed they were untrustworthy. This was his opinion, and 
though I disagree with it, he had a right to have it, IMO, and
evidently the other founders agreed.

It may have seemed at the time that he had a point. Education of 
Muggleborn wizards in the pre-Hogwarts era was no doubt 
highly uneven. It would  have been hard to tell whether any 
problems came from nature or nurture. 

According to the hat, all the founders were partial to certain
students and this was the origin of the house system. Slytherin
had the power to select students for his own house on any basis
he liked. But trouble arose, according to Binns, because  Slytherin    
wanted Muggleborns banned from the school as a whole and Gryffindor
opposed him.  The hat says that all the founders began to seek 
power for themselves and to fear each other. 

Although canon does not go into details it's clear to me why the
compromise broke down. Each founder thought that 
his/her own students would naturally prove superior -- when 
that  didn't happen, they began to suspect each other of deceit, and
that led both to more deceit and to aggressive measures to counter 
deceitfulness. 

When Slytherin left, peace returned --apparently the others, including 
Slytherin's students, preferred the compromise originally invented by the 
Founders to open strife. But distrust of Slytherin House remained. The
problem, as I see it, is that while courage, cunning, loyalty and wisdom
do confer advantages, there was, contrary to what Slytherin thought,
no innate advantage in being pureblooded.  In so far as Slytherins
are dedicated to maintaining a false belief, they're  dysfunctional.

There is no doubt that canon presents courage as the superior
quality in a leader and that therefore only the brave can be trusted
with power. But it also shows that courage without loyalty 
is Pettigrew, courage with out wisdom is Sirius at his worst, 
courage without cunning is helpless against a more powerful foe,
like James at then end. So the qualities of all the Houses (except
pure blood) are shown to be necessary, while Luna, Cedric 
and many Slytherins show that courage cannot be defined by House 
alone. 

As for what the corridor fights are about, I seem to recall Draco
insulting Harry's mother on account of her birth, telling Hermione 
not to touch his hand because  he'd just washed it, telling Harry
there was a wrong sort and he'd be wise not to associate with it,
and so on. 

It's true nobody's contesting Draco's right to hang out with other
purebloods if he wants to. Canon doesn't see separate but equal
as a big problem if it's voluntary, though it may be hard for some of us 
with a melting pot mythology to embrace that point of view.

Pippin




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 15 22:15:44 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:15:44 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk10m3+lu5t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk1jmg+mjbm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179897

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > The final battle took place between two guys of a similar blood   
> > background and with similar views on magic use. 
> > <snip>

> >>Pippin:
> Similar views on magic use?
> I must have missed the part where Harry desecrated corpses, burst
> out of the back of someone's head, convinced people there was no 
> good and evil, slaughtered unicorns, drank their blood and         
> instituted wholesale use of the Unforgivables. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
You're pointing out the difference between a psycho and a non-
pyscho.  But there's not really a difference in the the type of magic 
used, as in one uses dark magic and the other does not.  Both 
Voldemort and Harry are quite pragmatic about what magic they use I 
think, each choosing to use what works.  And if it takes an 
Unforgivable, as we've seen, Harry is willing and able.  So yeah, I 
didn't see any sort of overall condemnation of "dark magic" in the 
end there.  (Which is handy since "dark magic" is never really 
defined as has been discussed before.)

> >>Pippin:
> As for the pureblood mania, I didn't noticed Harry using anyone's
> blood status to determine how powerful a wizard they might be or
> whether they were worthy to study magic.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, but obviously, neither was the half-blood Voldemort.  I mean, 
not really.  The whole blood thing was more pasted on and not 
something Voldemort dedicated his life to.

> >>Pippin:
> Of course there's House rivalry, but it's friendly for the most    
> part.

Betsy Hp:
Until it's not.

> >>Pippin:
> People are disappointed if their house loses, but not frightened. It
> isn't the end of the world. 

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with anything.  The house rivalry 
still exists and is still important and a Slytherin and a Gryffindor 
are never going to be friends.

> >>Pippin:
> > OTOH, at the end of DH dark magic has been defeated.
> > <snip>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Huh?  *Voldomort* was defeated at the end of DH.  I suspect 
> > Unforgivables would still work.

> >>Pippin:
> They work, but it's been shown that using them to take over 
> the WW won't.

Betsy Hp:
Okay.  But that's also meaningless.  Using polyjuice to take over the 
WW doesn't work either.  Doesn't mean there's been a defeat of 
polyjuice.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> We do not see Harry question his use of the cruciatus curse or the
> expulsion of the Slytherins. But his elation shows us that he should
> have. 

Betsy Hp:
Well, *I* think so, but I don't see anything to suggest JKR wanted us 
to think so.  And since Harry doesn't ever question or think about 
his ease with dark magic, any questioning or challenging of dark 
magic does not occur.  Ergo, the end of the series has little to 
nothing to say about dark magic and has nothing to do with defeating 
it.

> >>Pippin:
> We don't see him question his feeling okay with the condition
> of the maimed babything -- but we did see him go back and try to
> save Voldemort from making that choice anyway. 

Betsy Hp:
In a very half-assed and flippant way.  Which is fine because it was 
lost cause anyway.  You don't "cure" a psycho by asking them to 
rethink things.  However, we do walk away from the books with the 
image of our hero not attempting to succor a pained and crying 
infant, which was an interesting choice on JKR's part.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179863

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Yes, I totally agree that one of the (many!) bad things about
> > Slytherin is their bigotry. But I didn't get the sense that Harry
> > (or Gryffindor) was too concerned about challenging that bigotry.

> >>Pippin:
> Harry and Gryffindor do not challenge Slytherin's beliefs, they
> challenged Slytherin and Voldemort's attempts to enforce them on
> everybody.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Wait a minute, I thought you thought Slytherin didn't side with 
Voldemort. <rbeg>  

Again, Harry isn't worried about the whys and wherefores of the 
(incredibly easy) destruction of the WW under Voldemort's (far too 
fast to be belived) coup.  He just wants Voldemort dead.  And he 
achieves that.  There's no attempt to change the viewpoints of the WW 
when it comes to muggles and muggleborns.  I mean, Hermione woes a 
bit about being a victim and takes a moment or two to relate to 
Griphook (before taking full advantage of being a member of 
the "superior" race).  But there's no attempt to *really* look at and 
tackle the bigotry of the WW.  It's just one more bad thing about 
Slytherins.  One of the bad things that can't be fixed, apparently.

> >>Pippin:
> Canon doesn't see separate but equal as a big problem if it's      
> voluntary, though it may be hard for some of us with a melting pot 
> mythology to embrace that point of view.

Betsy Hp:
I've never been a fan of the prime directive, so yeah, I'm not going 
to embrace your bigoted world, JKR, sorry. <eg>  Separate is 
absolutely business as usual in the WW.  Their very world is 
*defined* by separating themselves out.  Oh, and they don't get too 
hung up on that "but equal" tag line.  We've seen time and again that 
there's a definite pecking order.  And it's a pecking order that 
Harry embraces.  (Naturally since he's on the top.)

Since I'm a big fan of the melting pot (though I think 'mythology' an 
odd word to use) and not a big fan of the whole "I'm okay -- you 
suck" mindset of the WW, I'm not going to be giving the Potter series 
world view a big hug.  Too many cooties. <bg>

Betsy Hp




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sun Dec 16 00:02:47 2007
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:02:47 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA3bO6KU520UGjJeDEIXPFuAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA3bO6KU520UGjJeDEIXPFuAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <2795713f0712151602j1af094edo786179ca106003a8@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179898

montims:
I'm not convinced that he doesn't. Unfortunately, JKR dropped his storyline
in a very frustrating way. We have no idea what happens from when he goes
off with Snape to the end, except for a few cameos which we see in a skewed
way (pre Harry's Snape and DD revelations).

Lynda:

I think we see a real change of heart in Draco. I wasn't frustrated by his
lack of a storyline--its not his story, but Harry's, but from the little
that we see, he is obviously only doing what Lord Thingy and his cronies
want because his family are hotages. He has no choice. That does not mean
that he and Harry will ever be best pals, but there was at least a kind of
grudging respect from both of them to each other in the epilogue. Not
something we had ever seen before on either part.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 00:17:48 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:17:48 -0000
Subject: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fjv0o0+nra9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk1qrc+5fk0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179899

> Betsy Hp:
> A scene or an event bubbles up from the unconscious, the author 
> writes it down, and then it somehow ties into the whole in a way 
> unplanned or looked for.  Sarah Monette describes that happening 
with 
> a scene that turned out to be pivotal, though at first it seemed a 
> strange diversion when she and her editor were discussing it.

a_svirn:
Oh, yes, a scene or an event can "babble" from out the subconscious 
(at least, I think you meant SUBconscious, rather than UNconscious), 
but in order to fit it into your plot, in order to make the whole 
thing work, you'd have to work pretty consciously. Moreover, the very 
process of writing up of whatever has just bubbled from the depth of 
your subconscious you'd have to impose some structure on it, and this 
is a sort of work where your mind is involved pretty closely. At 
least, it should be, or it wouldn't make sense. I expect Sarah 
Monette didn't just discuss the scene in question with her editor, 
because they exhausted other conversational gambits. 

 
> Betsy Hp:
> Well, of course the author is more at the mercy of their 
subconscious 
> than the reader. 

a_svirn:
Why "of course"? Can't a reader be at the mercy of his or her own 
subconscious, rather than an author's? And hasn't the history of 
literary criticism proved that poor authors can be at the mercy of 
critics' (or more broadly readers') subconscious? 

> Betsy Hp:
 The author is the one doing the creating after 
> all.  
 
a_svirn:
So? You can't DO anything with your subconscious; at best (or worst) 
you can make Freudian slips when it starts to play tricks with you. 
In order to write (or paint, or compose etc.) you'd need to have a 
pretty clear idea of what you are doing. 

> Betsy Hp:
Readers are just observing, but the writers are putting 
> themselves out there.
(Though I will say, a reader's subconscious can 
> certainly play a role in their response to books.  Certain 
characters 
> may warm or repulse a reader for subconscious reasons.)

a_svirn:
It's not just characters. It's pretty much everything. You respond to 
everything you experience (works of art including) in a certain way 
because of what you are, and that includes both your conscience and 
your subconscious. Why do you think that you can control the latter 
better than authors you read? 

> 
> > >>a_svirn:
> > <snip>
> > The second statement suggests that authors do know their 
intentions
> > (hooray!), but their natures are notoriously fickle ? they change
> > constantly. This has certainly been known to happen, but it 
does   
> > not ? normally ? mean that the final product is incoherent.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Neil Gaimen, when asked about a certain reading of his "Beowulf" 
> movie, responded that he couldn't (or wouldn't) say because (among 
> other things) he had drafts and rewrites in his mind that the 
viewer 
> never got a glimpse of.  IOWs, his view was skewed by his own 
> changing intentions.  The viewer would therefore have a purer view 
of 
> the finished project.

a_svirn:
I haven't seen the film, but judging by what you've said, it was a 
failure (at least in your view, sorry if I misunderstood what you are 
saying). Failures happen. What exactly does it prove? I'd say it is 
counterproductive to judge creative process by failures. 


> Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, but to say the reader should see Ginny as "spunky and funny" 
> because in an interview JKR said this was how Ginny was supposed to 
> be is, IMO, to give far too much power to JKR.  

a_svirn:
Who exactly is saying it? I know I didn't. I said that in order to 
say "Rowling failed to make Ginny funny and spunky" you'd have to 
acknowledge that she had the intention of doing so, and that it 
wasn't just a half-formulated something that bubbled in her 
subconscious, but a very clear idea of what Harry's mate should be 
like. Only then you can say that she failed to meet her objective. 
But that would mean that her intent matters very much indeed. If it 
hadn't there wouldn't have been the sense of failure, as far as 
Ginny's funniness and spunkiness are concerned.   

> Betsy Hp:
> Yes, I can certainly agree that JKR had a certain intent with 
regards 
> to Ginny.  The intent is clear within the books and on top of that, 
> JKR has shared her intentions in various interviews.  But JKR's 
> intent doesn't trump or invalidate my interpertation.

a_svirn:
Why should it? But your interpretation is based on Rowling's intent. 
Remove the intent, and there won't be anything left to interpret. You 
can't say that Rowling failed to convince you that Ginny is funny, if 
you don't know that she wanted you to think Ginny funny. 

a_svirn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 00:53:54 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:53:54 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjuvrs+iv9s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk1sv2+h6j3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179900

> Magpie:
> Slytherins suck in many ways. They're 
> bigoted, but they are also petty, cowardly, mean, often ugly, vain, 
> cruel, and interested in dark magic (in the bad way). 


a_svirn:
I agree that bigotry is by no means the only failing of the House in 
question, but I think that it is supposed to be absolutely the worst 
one. You can be ambitious and be a good guy ? look at Harry. You can 
practice the Dark Arts and be a good guy ? look at Harry. You can 
even attempt a murder of your school-mate for no better reason, that 
he is too nosy (in every sense of the word) and *still* you can be a 
good guy ? look at Sirius. But you can't be anti-Muggle and good. 

> Magpie:
> Symbolically, since Slytherin House as a whole leaves before the 
> battle. They aren't needed for the House to play its assigned part. 
> They don't battle the rest of the school and get killed, nor do 
they 
> recognize where their own best interests lie and battle their own 
to 
> change what they stand for. Slytherin ends the series in exactly 
the 
> same position it was in when Tom Riddle got to school. They're at 
> peace, but why would they be friends? Every reason Harry heard for 
> not being friends with Slytherins was proved in the book. The 
> originally founding story, intriguing as it is, repeats itself. 
What 
> does it mean that Slytherin is included as a founder of the school, 
> and then symbolically walks away to achieve peace? The hat talks 
> about being "sad" at Slytherin's leaving, but we never see any 
> reason why we honestly should be so. Slytherin is the House that's 
> not really a House. Having the absent founder is just yet another 
> way that Slytherin is defined completely by negatives.

a_svirn:
Yes, I agree. It drives me mad, because the situation where a quarter 
of students sorted into some sort of ghetto instead of a normal house 
is absolutely insupportable. Why didn't they disband the house, after 
Slytherin left? The Hat has been picking students according 
Slytherin's own guidelines, which means that it singles out bigots 
and helps them to form an entity. Has been on and on for thousand 
years. What for? To ensure that the history would repeat itself? 




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 01:11:57 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:11:57 -0000
Subject: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk1qrc+5fk0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk1u0t+fg3i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179901

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > A scene or an event bubbles up from the unconscious, the author 
> > writes it down, and then it somehow ties into the whole in a way 
> > unplanned or looked for.  Sarah Monette describes that happening 
> > with a scene that turned out to be pivotal, though at first it    
> > seemed a strange diversion when she and her editor were          
> > discussing it.
 
> >>a_svirn:
> Oh, yes, a scene or an event can "babble" from out the subconscious 
> (at least, I think you meant SUBconscious, rather than             
> UNconscious)...

Betsy Hp:
Yes, subconscious, sorry. <g> 

> >>a_svirn:
> ...but in order to fit it into your plot, in order to make the     
> whole thing work, you'd have to work pretty consciously.
> <snip>
> I expect Sarah Monette didn't just discuss the scene in question   
> with her editor, because they exhausted other conversational       
> gambits. 

Betsy Hp:
Well, that's actually what I'm talking about.  The scene occurred to 
Monette, she wrote it (which is obviously a conscious undertaking) 
and her editor queried it because it seemed unnecessary to the plot 
of the first book.  It was a diversion, and Monette recognized that.  
But she felt, for some reason, that it was important and fought to 
keep it.  It wasn't until she was writing the second book that she 
realized how it fit into the plot there.  So that's an example of the 
subconscious and conscious working together in the creative process.  
A conscious plot outline is important, but allowing for organic 
growth (which often comes more subconsciously, I think) is also 
important.  A good author, I think, allows for both.
  
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Well, of course the author is more at the mercy of their 
> > subconscious than the reader. 

> >>a_svirn:
> Why "of course"?

Betsy Hp:
Because they're doing the creating.  And I think part of the creative 
process is taping into your subconscious, allowing that organic 
flow.  (I think that's where JKR screwed up, honestly.)

A reader doesn't have to engage like that if they don't want to, but 
I feel like the author must to a much deeper extent.

> >>a_svirn:
> <snip>
> And hasn't the history of literary criticism proved that poor      
> authors can be at the mercy of critics' (or more broadly readers') 
> subconscious? 

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, not that I've seen, really.  Could you provide some examples?  
(I'm asking this honestly and without malice.  I'm not sure I 
understand what you're saying here, so an example or two would be 
helpful.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > (Though I will say, a reader's subconscious can certainly play a 
> > role in their response to books.  Certain characters may warm or 
> > repulse a reader for subconscious reasons.)

> >>a_svirn:
> It's not just characters. It's pretty much everything. You respond 
> to everything you experience (works of art including) in a certain 
> way because of what you are, and that includes both your conscience 
> and your subconscious. Why do you think that you can control the    
> latter better than authors you read? 

Betsy Hp:
Because I don't have as much invested as the author.  Not if the 
author is any good anyway.  So I feel I can detach from the text in a 
way the author should not be able to.  (Though a good author will try 
and detach I think before doing a rewrite.  Give themselves the space 
to take a clear-eyed view of what they've written to make sure 
there's conscious order to their creation.)  As a reader, I don't 
need to become that attached in the first place.  (Though as a reader 
I *want* to become attached.  But that's before I try and think 
critically about the text.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Neil Gaimen, when asked about a certain reading of his "Beowulf" 
> > movie, responded that he couldn't (or wouldn't) say because      
> > (among other things) he had drafts and rewrites in his mind that 
> > the viewer never got a glimpse of.  IOWs, his view was skewed by 
> > his own changing intentions.  The viewer would therefore have a   
> > purer view of the finished project.

> >>a_svirn:
> I haven't seen the film, but judging by what you've said, it was a 
> failure (at least in your view, sorry if I misunderstood what you   
> are saying).

Betsy Hp:
On the contrary, I enjoyed the film. <g>

> >>a_svirn:
> Failures happen. What exactly does it prove? I'd say it is 
> counterproductive to judge creative process by failures. 

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  That's why I used the above examples as they are of works I 
enjoyed.  I think Monette's a brilliant writer, tackling issues JKR 
wishes she had the strength to take on, and creating characters with 
a depth of soul that make Harry so much cardboard.  And I think a big 
reason for that is Monette's willingness to allow for organic 
growth.  But *also* Monette's willingness to rewrite and rewrite and 
rewrite.  So there's the combination of subconscious and conscious 
there. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Hmm, but to say the reader should see Ginny as "spunky and funny" 
> > because in an interview JKR said this was how Ginny was supposed 
> > to be is, IMO, to give far too much power to JKR.  

> >>a_svirn:
> Who exactly is saying it? I know I didn't.

Betsy Hp:
The original poster that prompted my post.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179857
> >>Lesley:
> <snip>
> I am sure plenty of people will disagree, even knock
> Ginny, but I love the H/G ship. I think they are perfect
> for each other, as did the author of the books. And it is
> her opinion that counts.

Betsy Hp:
I'm saying that the author's opinion counts least, because she can't 
properly judge whether or not her attempt to put a certain character 
across in a certain way actually worked.  That's the readers' job.

> >>a_svirn:
> I said that in order to say "Rowling failed to make Ginny funny and 
> spunky" you'd have to acknowledge that she had the intention of    
> doing so, and that it wasn't just a half-formulated something that 
> bubbled in her subconscious, but a very clear idea of what Harry's 
> mate should be like. Only then you can say that she failed to meet 
> her objective. But that would mean that her intent matters very     
> much indeed. If it hadn't there wouldn't have been the sense of    
> failure, as far as Ginny's funniness and spunkiness are            
> concerned.   

Betsy Hp:
Ah yes, this I agree with.  

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > But JKR's intent doesn't trump or invalidate my interpertation.

> >>a_svirn:
> Why should it? But your interpretation is based on Rowling's       
> intent. Remove the intent, and there won't be anything left to     
> interpret. You can't say that Rowling failed to convince you that   
> Ginny is funny, if you don't know that she wanted you to think      
> Ginny funny. 

Betsy Hp:
Right.  It's JKR's opinion that doesn't matter.

Betsy Hp




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 01:17:38 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:17:38 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk1sv2+h6j3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk1ubi+tavr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179902

> >>a_svirn:
> I agree that bigotry is by no means the only failing of the House    
> in question, but I think that it is supposed to be absolutely the    
> worst one.
> <snip>
> But you can't be anti-Muggle and good.

Betsy Hp:
You're absolutely correct. But, bizarrely enough, you can give a muggle 
a pig's tail, choke them with poisoned candy, invade their homes, bop 
them repeatedly in the head with a mead glass, remove their memories, 
and not be classified as anti-Muggle.

The ethical standards of this series give me a headache.

Betsy Hp




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 01:51:17 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:51:17 -0000
Subject: Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk1u0t+fg3i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk20al+3lfn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179903

> >>a_svirn:
> I haven't seen the film, but judging by what you've said, it was a
> failure (at least in your view, sorry if I misunderstood what you
> are saying).

Betsy Hp:
On the contrary, I enjoyed the film. <g>

Alla:

OOOOOO, run from this movie a_svirn, run. I am kidding of course, 
maybe you will enjoy it as much as Betsy did, and I hated it very 
much.

But that I am just sticking here to make sure you know that the 
opinions on that movie differ, lol and the main reason I am replying 
is the Sarah Monette work v JKR.

> >>a_svirn:
> Failures happen. What exactly does it prove? I'd say it is
> counterproductive to judge creative process by failures.

Betsy Hp:
I agree. That's why I used the above examples as they are of works I
enjoyed. I think Monette's a brilliant writer, tackling issues JKR
wishes she had the strength to take on, and creating characters with
a depth of soul that make Harry so much cardboard. And I think a big
reason for that is Monette's willingness to allow for organic
growth. But *also* Monette's willingness to rewrite and rewrite and
rewrite. So there's the combination of subconscious and conscious
there.


Alla:

So, as Betsy knows I am in love with Sarah Monette works as well. I 
do think that she is a brilliant writer, but having read three books 
of hers I do have to take a rather strong exception to her 
characters' organic growth. Unless she changes her mind, the next 
book is supposed to be a last one, is it not?

So, the series are three quarter done, and what do I see in the main 
protagonists? Okay, series start and I see Mildmay as an assassin 
for hire, who wants to get out of it, but who has no problems IMO to 
kill when it is needed to solve his problems.

Felix is.... Well, Felix is half crazy most of the book, so I guess 
we cannot evaluate much of his character. Second book shows us Felix 
as um, being a manipulator, liar and somebody who has no problem to 
force his half brother into killing to give Felix his revenge.

Oh, oh and it looks like Felix feels really bad that he forced his 
half brother to do it and being hurt really badly.

BUT here we go third book, and Felix wants revenge for his lover's 
death. Anybody wants to guess? He is trying to manipulate his half 
brother into killing again. I mean, only this time the guy is able 
to resist the compulsion and Felix does it again.

I am sorry Betsy, I see **no growth whatsoever** in Felix character 
so far.

Mildmay, well, I think it is way past due for him to realize that 
his brother is not going to treat him decently, IMO. So I am not 
sure I see any growth in that department either.

I would love to be proven wrong here though.


Um, yes back to Potterverse finally. I see growth in Harry, I 
definitely do. I see him being able to see grayness in the world and 
people - that he was able to forgive Snape of all people, that he 
was able to forgive Dumbledore of all people IMO. I see growth in 
Harry that he was shielding everybody including Narcissa when he 
came back.

I see it as rather organic growth, but what is most important to me 
is that I would much rather **hang out** with Harry than Monette's 
characters. I may feel for them on the "hurt-comfort" level, just as 
I feel for Harry in a different way, but I would run as fast as I 
can from the assassin for hire and guy who does not hesitate to kill 
with magic, when he wants revenge, no matter how justified it may be.

Harry does not kill, even when Lupin scolds him. It is a very big 
plus in my book at least.
Having said that, I think to compare those books is to compare apple 
and oranges. I did not notice any fairy tales origins in Monette's 
story and I think JKR's story has a lot.

JMO,

Alla





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Dec 16 02:04:58 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:04:58 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk1sv2+h6j3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk214a+5ssg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179904

> > Magpie:
> > Slytherins suck in many ways. They're 
> > bigoted, but they are also petty, cowardly, mean, often ugly, 
vain, 
> > cruel, and interested in dark magic (in the bad way). 
> 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I agree that bigotry is by no means the only failing of the House 
in 
> question, but I think that it is supposed to be absolutely the 
worst 
> one. You can be ambitious and be a good guy ? look at Harry. You 
can 
> practice the Dark Arts and be a good guy ? look at Harry. You can 
> even attempt a murder of your school-mate for no better reason, 
that 
> he is too nosy (in every sense of the word) and *still* you can be 
a 
> good guy ? look at Sirius. But you can't be anti-Muggle and good. 

Magpie:
Actually, I think you can be anti-Muggle to a certain degree and be 
good--everybody in the WW is pretty anti-Muggle if by that we mean 
they think Muggles are inferior. Believing you're better than Muggles 
is totally unexceptional. What you can't do is believe in genocide, 
which ultimately not all Slytherins do either. 

The central question in Slytherin when it comes to bigotry isn't 
about Muggles, but about Muggle-borns. Those are the ones you can't 
be bigoted against and truly good. Slytherins think Muggleborns are 
Muggles, and that's bad, as opposed to Gryffindors, who think they 
are Wizards. The most important tolerance question in the series is a 
cultural one that applies oly applies to Wizards. It's not that 
everybody's equal, it's whether or not this fictional group is in the 
top group or not.

I do agree that their bigotry is supposed to be the worst of the 
Slytherins' qualities, but I also think there's a reason that comes 
across as a superficial thing for many (me included). To me it seems 
like it's the worst because in the age the books are written 
tolerance is an important value. Meanwhile in terms of the way the 
story works dramatically it's cowardice that seems more repulsive to 
the actual characters. The good guys can slip up and make an off-hand 
ignorant remark about non-Wizards but I can't remember them every 
slipping up and being cowardly. What pushes Snape, Regulus and 
Slughorn over the edge isn't their tolerance (if any or all of them 
even acheive that) but their bravery. That's what defines Gryffindor, 
and Harry's last word on the subject is about bravery, not tolerance. 

It's one thing to slap bigotry onto the characters as a signpost that 
they're really bad and to write a story that examines the badness of 
bigotry. (This series ultimately doesn't even get across to me how 
bigotry against Muggleborns worked in the minds of Slytherins.) I 
think it comes across as their worst trait because by the values of 
our world it is their worst trait. But not one that's changed for 
them any more than is their belief in being bullies.

What weakens it even more is that so much of the WW harkens back to 
a "good old days" that are intolerant by today's standards.  

 
> > Magpie:
> > Symbolically, since Slytherin House as a whole leaves before the 
> > battle. They aren't needed for the House to play its assigned 
part. 
> > They don't battle the rest of the school and get killed, nor do 
> they 
> > recognize where their own best interests lie and battle their own 
> to 
> > change what they stand for. Slytherin ends the series in exactly 
> the 
> > same position it was in when Tom Riddle got to school. They're at 
> > peace, but why would they be friends? Every reason Harry heard 
for 
> > not being friends with Slytherins was proved in the book. The 
> > originally founding story, intriguing as it is, repeats itself. 
> What 
> > does it mean that Slytherin is included as a founder of the 
school, 
> > and then symbolically walks away to achieve peace? The hat talks 
> > about being "sad" at Slytherin's leaving, but we never see any 
> > reason why we honestly should be so. Slytherin is the House 
that's 
> > not really a House. Having the absent founder is just yet another 
> > way that Slytherin is defined completely by negatives.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, I agree. It drives me mad, because the situation where a 
quarter 
> of students sorted into some sort of ghetto instead of a normal 
house 
> is absolutely insupportable. Why didn't they disband the house, 
after 
> Slytherin left? The Hat has been picking students according 
> Slytherin's own guidelines, which means that it singles out bigots 
> and helps them to form an entity. Has been on and on for thousand 
> years. What for? To ensure that the history would repeat itself?

Magpie:
That's the big question, isn't it? Because what do we make of that 
founding story? Somehow Slytherin and Gryffindor were friends--Betsy 
compared that to Snape/Lily but I can also imagine a 
Dumbledore/Grindelwald affair where Gryffindor was temporarily swayed 
by intelligence or power but wised up. We're interestingly told that 
all the houses were fighting, but that Slytherin leaving left them in 
peace. And then that happens again and again. OotP completely replays 
that split with the DA bringing the other houses together while 
Slytherin stands apart or against them. When the school is attacked 
the attacker specifically identifies with Slytherin, tries to make 
that house swallow the whole school. But the kids that make up the 
house are removed from the action, not killed or changed, and then 
the house goes on just the way it always has.

Seems to me Slytherin is clearly wanted in the form that it's in. The 
author's answer to this question was just as vague on that. They keep 
them around in some vague hope of unity that doesn't seem ever likely 
to happen. And that doesn't seem like anything that's particularly 
bad. In fact the idea is sometimes dismissed as completely 
unrealistic (which I find odd). It's like the Slytherins were created 
to be this so they can't be anything else. If they stop being 
cowardly (the opposite of our brave house) or stop being bigoted 
(their worst quality even though the world is rife with strict 
hierarchies of groups) or stop being bullies (giving our heroes 
someone to fight in their protector mode) or stop loving the Dark 
Arts (which Gryffindors really hate) they'd be something other than 
Slytherins.

> >>a_svirn:
> Oh, yes, a scene or an event can "babble" from out the subconscious
> (at least, I think you meant SUBconscious, rather than
> UNconscious)...

Betsy Hp:
Yes, subconscious, sorry. <g>

Magpie:
I say unconscious. I read somewhere that's more accurate according to 
something-or-other. It means the same thing. If you're not conscious 
of something it's unconscious. 

-m




From auriga79 at rstarmail.com  Sun Dec 16 02:48:31 2007
From: auriga79 at rstarmail.com (acelticgoddess)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:48:31 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjvm2l+1sa7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk23lv+gdai@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179905

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...>
wrote:
<SNIP>
>> I think Fred died when a portion of a wall fell on top of him, and
it
> always seemed strange to me that Bellatrix even knew about his
death.
> How could she find out? <SNIP>


Bellatrix knew legilimency. Don't forget that she was Draco's
teacher for occlumency. Stands to reason she would use her mind-
reading talents to uncover the reason... and name... for Molly's
emotional anger, distress, et al.

auriga79





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec 16 03:46:19 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:46:19 -0000
Subject: Draco/Draco/Worst Magic  (with more Draco)/Did Albus torture?/Youth Potion
Message-ID: <fk272b+d6j9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179906

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179789>:

<< I don't think Draco ever had the opportunity to take Dumbledore's
side. The offer of sanctuary in HBP ("The Lightning-Struck Tower")
never materialized and I doubt that he believed DD when it was
offered. >>

Dumbledore was a great talker. He could sell refrigerators to Eskimos,
as the old saying goes. If he'd had a few more minutes before Fenris &
Co interrupted, Draco would have believed the offer of sanctuary. And
if he accepted it, Snape could have materialized it. And Draco might
have accepted it, as Dumbledore had offered to include his parents.

As things worked out, much as he hated serving Voldemort, he wouldn't
have taken an opportunity to run away and hide, nor to run away and
join the good guys, because of what punishment Voldemort would do on
his parents. Protecting his parents was a very high priority to him.
What if he had been in a situation of save himself OR save Lucius?

Of course, he would give his life to save his mother, regardless
whether she deserves it -- that's conventional good behavior. But to
save his father? The one who got him into this mess in the first
place? That plot bunny (take it out of fanfic entirely, make it
terrorists in a totally non-magic world) could hop in a lot of
different directions.

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179860>:

<< Scorpius has surely been raised to think he has enemies, but I
doubt he's been raised to think dark magic is cool. Everyone saw the
greatest dark wizard who ever existed beaten by an Expelliarmus. >>

Scorpius may have been raised to think that Dark Magic is cool but not
all-powerful. Those who revere power received a demonstration of the
Power of Love, and should have since then been trying to figure out
how to fake Love, exploit Love, and generally benefit from this
powerful type of magic.

Scorpius's father can teach him that it was conquest and mass murder
that got Voldemort in trouble (not Dark Magic) and therefore he should
steer clear of people who view murder as an enjoyable hobby, or even
as an effective means to gain wealth and power.

I wonder if Draco, as adult, regarded his own inability to murder as a
weakness that he would rather shove out of his mind, or as a clue that
life is valuable, so that he can preach that ideology to his son if
not his rich adult friends. If Snape had survived, he could have
preached it to Draco!

Mike Crudele wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179790>:

<< What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books? (snip) I
guess while we're at it, we could include the Worst Piece of Magic. >>

The worst is Quodpot. 

I understand that it's just a little joke about American football, but
I take these things too seriously and am irritated by the presentation
that the wizarding world has to be exactly like the muggle world. Poo.

Second worst magic: all that stuff about wands, not just the Elder
Wand, switching their allegiance to the person who conquered their
owner. We  had such lovely theories about the wand try-out scene in
the first book, that the wand has to be attuned to some characteristic
of the wielder, like it 'receives' on the same 'frequency' that he/she
'sends' on. So it makes sense that some stupid thug's blackthorn wand
didn't work for the reasonably intelligent and reasonably peaceful
Harry, and I hate the idea that it would have worked for him if only
he had been the one to disarm the stupid thug. Then Draco's former
wand working for him would have been a clue to Draco not being that
bad at heart.

Mike Crudele wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179793>:

<< One must stand the canonical Dumbledore on his head to conclude
that he is also capable of torture and murder of innocents. >>

I personally don't believe that Dumbledore extracted Hokey and
Morfin's memories in a painful and destructive way (altho' calling
Morfin an innocent just because he didn't murder those Muggles struck
me as odd). But I don't share your certainty that he is as incapable
of it as Draco is of killing a human.

It appears that Dumbledore really did believe in 'the greater good',
not just as a slogan to excuse a power grab. So the first question
would be, could he get those memories without torturing and murdering
innocents? And how badly did he think he needed those memories to
defeat Voldemort?

You can have a situation in which a good man, believing that torture
and murder of an innocent is needed to save many thousands of
innocents, calls on all his willpower to be able to force himself to
do something so repugnant to him. In real life situations, I'm not
necessarily agreeing that it was the moral or good thing for this man
to do, but I respect his sincerity and good intentions and willpower
(as demonstrated by the PTSD he suffers from having done such things).
But then, I can't assert that it was always the immoral and bad thing
to do unless I accept some kind of deontological absolute commandment:
"Do not torture". 

I don't know how viscerally repugnant doing torture and murder to an
innocent would be to Albus Dumbledore -- did he have visceral feelings
at all, or was everything purely intellectual to him, and everything
from a good meal to chamber music was an act he put on to appeal
'normal'? Even so, it could be intellectually repugnant, an affront to
everything he had syllogized about Love and Kindness.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179799>:

<< why would a Shrinking Solution turn Trevor into a tadpole rather
than a smaller toad? It's not a Youth Potion! >>

Maybe it is a Youth Potion, but its inventor (Rowling or Hector
Dagworth-Granger or Damocles Belby or whoever) was addicted to
alliterative names, even if that distorted the meaning... well, he
could have called it Juvenality Juice...





From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 07:05:04 2007
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:05:04 -0000
Subject: Do you think Ginny was....
In-Reply-To: <fjsue6+qm81@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk2in0+23gd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179907

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" <tkjones9 at ...> wrote:
>
> bewildered and totally taken by surprise when Harry kissed her in HBP
> or do you think she already had a good idea that Harry fancied her 
and was waiting for him to make the first move?  I will have to read 
HBP again to find clues for Ginny's awareness of Harry's liking of 
her...if any.
> 
> Do you have any clues or thoughts about it?

In my mind's eye, I had always pictured Hermione giving her advice 
which she followed(go out and live your own life etc..etc...)..

I think Ginny hoped, but never expected..

One of the major reasons I came down to this is because Ginny does 
tell Harry that she took Hermione's advice...

Also, I love the fact that Hermione gave the advice she was living 
herself...but it wasn't working with Hermione's interactions with 
Ron...hence desparate measures....resulting in Ginny telling the twins 
about said book Ron NEEDED..(sorry I always thought Ron's book in DH 
was Ginny's suggestion to the twins..)

Beyond this happy soap opera positioning..I also think 1. Harry needed 
time to separate the poor little girl he rescued; and  2. looking upon 
Ginny as a sister and realizing there was something "more" 
there...Also, 3.  Harry truly needed to separate Molly and Ginny in 
his mind..I also think Harry was hesitant because he truly didn't want 
to ruin the only family who wanted him and who he wanted to be a part 
of...

I don't think either of them were waiting for one or the other to make 
the "first move" per se...for me, I just wondered who would make the 
first move, and if said move would be reciprocated. I believe both had 
delayed initiating said relaionship for the same psychological reasons.

Actually I appreciate Harry's relationship with Ginny more than his 
relationship with Cho...Harry notices both right away...but in all 
honesty like it or not...Ginny did prove herself more than cho ever 
did..

Also, given JKR's epilogue, Ginny may well have been a superior seeker 
to Harry all along..

Doddie,
(who wonders if Lily or Snape were on their propsective Quidditch 
teams) 





From stephab67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 16:37:20 2007
From: stephab67 at yahoo.com (stephab67)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:37:20 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjkvq7+lr36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk3k80+8fd1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179908

Juli, thanks again for a great summary!

1. When you first read this chapter, what did you think it was
that tipped the Death Eaters off to the Trio's whereabouts? Did you
happen to think that the Name was jinxed? Or, like me, you thought
that the trace was simply still active?

I didn't have a clue. I was just as surprised as the Trio.  

2. Were you ever a Boy (or Girl) Scout? If so, what do you think
of Hermione's "Always prepared"? Do you think she would have made a
good Girl Scout?

I was a Girl Scout, got as far as Juniors.  Hermione would have made a
good Girl Scout as long as she was the only one in the troop. I could
see her telling everyone else what to do.

3. Why do you think The Trio didn't want to kill the Death Eaters?
They are 'good', we all get that, but they are in a war, and at
those times killing is allowed. Do you agree?

No.  There was no need to kill the DEs, as Hermione had oblivliated
them.  That would have been sinking down to Voldie's level.

4. How does Hermione know how to produce a speaking Patronus? This
isn't taught in any book at all, only the Order knows how to. Has
Tonks perhaps been teaching her? Or another Member? Who do you think
would be willing to teach her Order-Restricted incantations?

I don't think anyone taught her, she did it herself.  Wouldn't they
have taught Ron as well, as it was probably common knowledge by then
that they both could do the Patronus charm?  In any case, if Hermione
just Accio'd books out of DD's office without permission, I'm sure she
would have no problem finding a way of learning a spell she wasn't
supposed to learn.  I do have doubts whether she would have been able
to pull it off, as Harry mentions later that the Patronus is the one
charm that Hermione has trouble doing.
 
5. What do you think were Harry's feelings as he entered 12
Grimmauld Place, that dreaded place where his godfather once lived,
and is greeted by the ghost of his mentor?

Upset and a bit freaked out, I'd think.

6. The Trio see signs that someone has been at 12 GP. What did you
think this meant? Did you think it had been Snape, and if so, how did
you think he got past Moody's jinxes?

Yes, I did think it had been Snape.  I don't think he would have had a
big problem getting past the jinxes, if the Trio could do it.

7. Do you think Draco regrets not taking Dumbledore's side? Do
you think he would be better off on 'The Good Side'?

I don't know if he regrets taking DD's side, but I'll bet he certainly
regretted getting involved to the level he did.  I do have to wonder
how much of it was his choice, though.  There had to have been a
certain amount of pressure on him from Lucius to join.  He didn't have
a good idea of what to expect, though, and was clearly way in over his
head even at the point of Slughorn's Christmas party.

8. What do you think of Harry's emotions towards Draco? Is it OK
to pity him despite all he's done? Or is this what makes Harry such a
remarkable person?

Harry was possibly sympathetic toward Draco as I think he recognized
that Draco wasn't really in any more control over his destiny as Harry
was.  Even though Draco was on a power trip about being a DE, that was
before he really knew what he had signed up for, and as I stated
above, I don't think that Draco really had a choice.  Harry saw that
Draco, even though he's a big jerk, isn't really evil.








From jnferr at gmail.com  Sun Dec 16 16:47:51 2007
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:47:51 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Failed Friendships / JKR's Opinion (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fjub5q+s8lq@eGroups.com>
References: <fju0nv+hbqm@eGroups.com> <fjub5q+s8lq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40712160847l2999022fiab370e75f8b58609@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179909

>
> > Betsy Hp:
> > ...will be exactly the same.  After all, they have the exact same
> > issues passing between them: cut-throat quidditch games and way too
> > serious attention paid to house points and all.  Slytherin and
> > Gryffindor will never be friends.  The rift has won.
>
> Pippin:
>
> Wh-at?? So, in your opinon the S/G hatred is about Quidditch and House
> Points and has nothing to do with the fear of dark magic or pureblood
> mania?


montims:

I read different books than you - I see rivalry (like Oxford v. Cambridge,
like City v. United), not hatred (like communists v. fascists, like
republican v. unionist), and if a reader doesn't get all those references,
they cannot read HP without imposing their own standards, IMO.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 16:54:51 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:54:51 -0000
Subject: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk1u0t+fg3i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk3l8r+it50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179910

> > >>a_svirn:
> > <snip>
> > And hasn't the history of literary criticism proved that 
poor      
> > authors can be at the mercy of critics' (or more broadly 
readers') 
> > subconscious? 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, not that I've seen, really.  Could you provide some examples?  
> (I'm asking this honestly and without malice.  I'm not sure I 
> understand what you're saying here, so an example or two would be 
> helpful.)

a_svirn:
Oh, just think about all those changes of scholarly fashion: Marxist 
criticism, feminist criticism, deconstructivism, Freudian criticism 
etc. If you read proponents of these schools you learn as much (and 
very likely more) about their own views and beliefs than about 
authors they analyze. And when I read something like, say, "Bestial 
Buggery in A Midsummer Night's Dream" I feel sure that I get a 
glimpse into the critic's own subconscious rather than that of 
Shakespeare's. (Or *unconscious* as someone-or-other would say, no 
doubt a wise person). 

> Betsy Hp:
> Because I don't have as much invested as the author.  Not if the 
> author is any good anyway.  So I feel I can detach from the text in 
a 
> way the author should not be able to.  

a_svirn:
Funny you should say that. When many members of this very list have 
spent literally *years* discussing the HP books, sometimes at the 
rate of five posts a day. I call a pretty heavy investment. 

> Betsy Hp:
(Though a good author will try 
> and detach I think before doing a rewrite.  Give themselves the 
space 
> to take a clear-eyed view of what they've written to make sure 
> there's conscious order to their creation.)  As a reader, I don't 
> need to become that attached in the first place. <snip> 

a_svirn:
You don't *need* to, but here we all are ? discussing Rowling's works 
and intents. For years on end. 


> a_svirn:
> > I haven't seen the film, but judging by what you've said, it was 
a 
> > failure (at least in your view, sorry if I misunderstood what 
you   
> > are saying).
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> On the contrary, I enjoyed the film. <g>

a_svirn:
Oops! Beg pardon. 


a_svirn




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Dec 16 17:10:18 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:10:18 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk1jmg+mjbm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk3m5q+ric0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179911

> > >>Pippin:
> > Similar views on magic use?
> > I must have missed the part where Harry desecrated corpses, burst
> > out of the back of someone's head, convinced people there was no 
> > good and evil, slaughtered unicorns, drank their blood and         
> > instituted wholesale use of the Unforgivables. 
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> You're pointing out the difference between a psycho and a non-
> pyscho.  But there's not really a difference in the the type of magic 
> used, as in one uses dark magic and the other does not. 

Pippin:
 Nobody in the books uses the term 'psycho'  so I'm not sure how it
differs from 'dark'.   'Dark' seems to be, in part,  the way  the wizards
understand what we would call psychosis or sadism. In that case, 
there may be no dark magic in the sense that there's magic only
psychotics or sadists can use. But there may be magic that makes
the human who uses it psychotic or sadistic, especially over time.
In practice the distinction would blur, would it not?

The unforgivables are condemned many times by various people
in the text, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying they're never
condemned. Harry doesn't condemn himself for using them, but
people hardly ever condemn themselves in the Potterverse. When
it comes to confessing guilt, Lupin and Dumbledore stand almost 
alone. Remorse, says Hermione, is so painful that it could destroy
you -- it's no wonder wizards don't go in for it much. 

> Betsy Hp:
> Yeah, but obviously, neither was the half-blood Voldemort.  I mean, 
> not really.  The whole blood thing was more pasted on and not 
> something Voldemort dedicated his life to.
> 

Pippin:
I wouldn't say that. 
He murdered his father and grandparents. He didn't want to believe
in pureblood superiority but IMO, he was desperately afraid that it might 
be true and he dedicated his life to trying to prove that it
wasn't by bringing all of the WW under his control and the Muggle
world as well. 
 
> Betsy Hp:
> Yeah, but that's got nothing to do with anything.  The house rivalry 
> still exists and is still important and a Slytherin and a Gryffindor 
> are never going to be friends.

Pippin:
Slughorn was friends with Dumbledore, Hagrid, and Lily. HBP!Harry
thinks that Gryffindor students are supposed to hate Slytherin students
on sight, and vice versa, but in DH the Snape/Lily story taught him that 
things didn't have to be that way, and in the epilogue we see people
trying to effect change. It might be a losing battle...but what's new
about that? 


> > >>Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > We do not see Harry question his use of the cruciatus curse or the
> > expulsion of the Slytherins. But his elation shows us that he should
> > have. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Well, *I* think so, but I don't see anything to suggest JKR wanted us 
> to think so. And since Harry doesn't ever question or think about 
> his ease with dark magic, any questioning or challenging of dark 
> magic does not occur. 
 Ergo, the end of the series has little to 
> nothing to say about dark magic and has nothing to do with defeating 
> it.

Pippin:
Codswallop, in my opinion <g>.
Harry puts aside the Elder Wand. At the end of the series,  he's still not
using it. Why not use it, except that he's afraid it would make doing
dark magic too easy? How did he come to fear that, except by
learning how easy it already was? 

 
> > >>Pippin:
> > We don't see him question his feeling okay with the condition
> > of the maimed babything -- but we did see him go back and try to
> > save Voldemort from making that choice anyway. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> In a very half-assed and flippant way.  Which is fine because it was 
> lost cause anyway.  You don't "cure" a psycho by asking them to 
> rethink things. 

Pippin:
But this is like saying motorcycles can't fly. This
is a world where love can be trapped behind a door, and soul
fragments can be stashed in a bank vault. To quote my favorite
wizard, the usual rules don't seem to apply. 


Dark wizards can repent. They can put their souls back together, if 
they're willing to risk the pain. Grindelwald apparently did so.  Voldemort 
had this one chance, despite having damaged his soul much more badly
than Grindelwald did, because of Harry's magical blood. The text
goes out of its way to point out that Harry is not being flippant,
that Voldemort is shocked more than by a taunt or a revelation. He
chooses to treat it as a taunt: "You dare--"  

And Harry says he dares because Dumbledore's last plan didn't
backfire on him, it backfired on Riddle. He offered Riddle that 
last chance not because he wanted to himself, but because 
Dumbledore would have wanted him to do it. 

Betsy_Hp
 However, we do walk away from the books with the 
> image of our hero not attempting to succor a pained and crying 
> infant, which was an interesting choice on JKR's part.

Pippin:
Yes. It suggests that the instinctive source of evil is also the
instinctive source of pity, and that Harry, seeing himself apart
from the id, or being a creature of pure soul, however you want
to interpret what's happening, had lost the instinct to care for
a child. He's moved for Dumbledore, whom he knows and loves,
 but his soul, pure though it is, is only human, and not, as it 
seems, large enough to care about suffering in the abstract.

JKR does not tell us what about the child is so repellent. She
does not want us repelled, she wants us very aware of our
instinctive need and how this differs from a choice. IMO,
of course. 


> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179863
> 
> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > Yes, I totally agree that one of the (many!) bad things about
> > > Slytherin is their bigotry. But I didn't get the sense that Harry
> > > (or Gryffindor) was too concerned about challenging that bigotry.
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > Harry and Gryffindor do not challenge Slytherin's beliefs, they
> > challenged Slytherin and Voldemort's attempts to enforce them on
> > everybody.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Wait a minute, I thought you thought Slytherin didn't side with 
> Voldemort. <rbeg>  

Pippin:
Sorry, I was referring to the wizards Gryffindor and Slytherin, 
not the Houses. 

Betsy_Hp: 
> Again, Harry isn't worried about the whys and wherefores of the 
> (incredibly easy) destruction of the WW under Voldemort's (far too 
> fast to be belived) coup.  He just wants Voldemort dead.  And he 
> achieves that.  There's no attempt to change the viewpoints of the WW 
> when it comes to muggles and muggleborns.

Pippin:
But that would be a different book. This book is about Harry
learning that there needs to be a change, that fighting
evil isn't just a matter of getting rid of the psychos/dark wizards.

I don't think the coup was too fast to be believed. Voldemort
had been laying the groundwork for it since his return, many of
his servants were already ministry employees, and he could
use the Imperius curse on the rest. Plus there hasn't been 
effective anti-dark arts training for anybody but Aurors or the
DA for something like thirty years, so most people haven't
learned how to resist it. 
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > Canon doesn't see separate but equal as a big problem if it's      
> > voluntary, though it may be hard for some of us with a melting pot 
> > mythology to embrace that point of view.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I've never been a fan of the prime directive, so yeah, I'm not going 
> to embrace your bigoted world, JKR, sorry. <eg>

Pippin:
Funny, I think the bigoted world view is the one where 
cultural imperialism is a good thing. We agree to disagree, I guess.

Considering two thousand years of people trying to melt my culture into 
the dominant one, sometimes with actual fire, I'm more in favor of letting 
people find their own way to unity. But that's just me.

Pippin




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Dec 16 17:17:38 2007
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:17:38 -0000
Subject: Newsweek says Deathly Hallows Best Book of the Year
Message-ID: <fk3mji+9h5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179912

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/12/16/newsweek-names-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-best-book-of-the-year




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 18:26:29 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:26:29 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk214a+5ssg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk3qkl+3ngk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179913

> > a_svirn:
> > I agree that bigotry is by no means the only failing of the House 
> in 
> > question, but I think that it is supposed to be absolutely the 
> worst 
> > one. <SNIP>

> Magpie:
> Actually, I think you can be anti-Muggle to a certain degree and be 
> good--everybody in the WW is pretty anti-Muggle if by that we mean 
> they think Muggles are inferior. Believing you're better than 
Muggles 
> is totally unexceptional. What you can't do is believe in genocide, 
> which ultimately not all Slytherins do either. 

a_svirn:
Yes, you are right, I meant anti-Muggle-born, of course. 

> Magpie: 
> I do agree that their bigotry is supposed to be the worst of the 
> Slytherins' qualities, but I also think there's a reason that comes 
> across as a superficial thing for many (me included). To me it 
seems 
> like it's the worst because in the age the books are written 
> tolerance is an important value. 

a_svirn:
There is that.


> Magpie: 
Meanwhile in terms of the way the 
> story works dramatically it's cowardice that seems more repulsive 
to 
> the actual characters. The good guys can slip up and make an off-
hand 
> ignorant remark about non-Wizards but I can't remember them every 
> slipping up and being cowardly. What pushes Snape, Regulus and 
> Slughorn over the edge isn't their tolerance (if any or all of them 
> even acheive that) but their bravery. That's what defines 
Gryffindor, 
> and Harry's last word on the subject is about bravery, not 
tolerance. 

a_svirn:
Yes, well, that's true, of course. But I think that it's more a 
consequence of being bad, rather than something that defines anyone's 
badness. Cowardice, after all, can't be a regarded as a virtue even 
by cowards themselves, and therefore it is not something that holds 
Slytherin together as an entity. It is not cowardice that makes 
students aspire to be Slytherins, but other traits they regard as 
virtues. And out of Slytherin's virtues ? ambition, cunningness, 
arrogance and the disregard for rules, fascination with the Dark Arts 
and bigotry, only the latter is absolutely irredeemable. Even the 
Dark Arts can come in handy, but if you are a pure-blood fanatic you 
are *really* bad. And if you are really bad you are very probably 
cowardly as well.

> Magpie:
> It's one thing to slap bigotry onto the characters as a signpost 
that 
> they're really bad and to write a story that examines the badness 
of 
> bigotry. (This series ultimately doesn't even get across to me how 
> bigotry against Muggleborns worked in the minds of Slytherins.) I 
> think it comes across as their worst trait because by the values of 
> our world it is their worst trait. But not one that's changed for 
> them any more than is their belief in being bullies.

a_svirn:
Yes, I agree absolutely. 

a_svirn




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 20:57:10 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:57:10 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk3m5q+ric0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk43f6+hn1d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179915

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > You're pointing out the difference between a psycho and a non-
> > pyscho.  But there's not really a difference in the the type of   
> > magic used, as in one uses dark magic and the other does not. 

> >>Pippin:
>  Nobody in the books uses the term 'psycho'  so I'm not sure how it
> differs from 'dark'.   'Dark' seems to be, in part,  the way  the   
> wizards understand what we would call psychosis or sadism.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I disagree.  I don't think there is such a strong defining of "dark" 
in these books.  I wasn't using "psycho" as a stand-in for anything, 
I was labeling Voldemort's driving characteristic.  If he hadn't been 
a wizard he'd have probably been a serial killer.

There have been plenty of posts about what exactly "dark arts" are, 
and what differentiates between "dark magic" and regular old magic.  
That's not what I'm discussing here: mainly because I think there's 
no clear definition and the discussions (IMO) tend to become a bit 
like a dog chasing it's tail.

What I *am* saying is that Harry never clearly states that there is 
magic he just will not use.  He does not clearly state that there is 
a specific form of magic he's fighting against.  And Voldemort 
doesn't make any such statements either.  So this idea that the 
series ends with a definitive statement about magic, I don't see 
where it's coming from.

> >>Pippin:
> The unforgivables are condemned many times by various people
> in the text, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying they're never
> condemned. Harry doesn't condemn himself for using them, but
> people hardly ever condemn themselves in the Potterverse.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And Harry uses Unforgivables to save the day.  Twice.  Which is 
pretty much the opposite of "condemning" stuff.  The magic just is.  
If Harry needs to use it, he will.  And only fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-
muds will kick up a fuss.  (What, you want Harry to be a saint?)

So again, no definitive statement against "dark magic".
  
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > The house rivalry still exists and is still important and a      
> > Slytherin and a Gryffindor are never going to be friends.

> >>Pippin:
> Slughorn was friends with Dumbledore, Hagrid, and Lily. HBP!Harry
> thinks that Gryffindor students are supposed to hate Slytherin     
> students on sight, and vice versa, but in DH the Snape/Lily story   
> taught him that things didn't have to be that way, and in the      
> epilogue we see people trying to effect change.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No we don't.  The epilogue shows our heroes living their happy lives, 
no change required.  Yes, I agree, if a Slytherin recognizes his own 
lack of worth and properly ingratiates himself to the nearest 
Gryffindor, then friendly terms occurr.  But I wouldn't ever 
catagorize Slughorn's and Dumbledore's relationship as one of 
equals.  Nor would I the relationship between Lily and Snape.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > And since Harry doesn't ever question or think about his ease    
> > with dark magic, any questioning or challenging of dark magic     
> > does not occur. Ergo, the end of the series has little to 
> > nothing to say about dark magic and has nothing to do with       
> > defeating it.

> >>Pippin:
> Codswallop, in my opinion <g>.
> Harry puts aside the Elder Wand. At the end of the series,  he's    
> still not using it. Why not use it, except that he's afraid it      
> would make doing dark magic too easy? How did he come to fear that, 
> except by learning how easy it already was? 

Betsy Hp:
Two leaps too many, sorry.  Where does it say that Harry put aside 
the Elder Wand because he was worried about using dark magic?  Where 
do we see Harry frightened by his use of dark magic?

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> This is a world where love can be trapped behind a door, and soul
> fragments can be stashed in a bank vault. To quote my favorite
> wizard, the usual rules don't seem to apply. 
> Dark wizards can repent. They can put their souls back together, if 
> they're willing to risk the pain. Grindelwald apparently did so.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Again with the leaping.  Tom Riddle and Grindelwald are two 
completely different men, from what little we've seen.   And we do 
see so little of Grindelwald, comparing the two is an exercise in 
fantasy, IMO.  So no, I don't think there was anything to show that 
Voldemort's repentence was possible.  If there had been, we'd have 
needed to see it through an action of Voldemort's, not some other 
guy's.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > There's no attempt to change the viewpoints of the WW when it    
> > comes to muggles and muggleborns.

> >>Pippin:
> But that would be a different book.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly! <bg>  As I say, this is not a series *about* bigotry and the 
challenging thereof.

> >>Pippin:
> This book is about Harry learning that there needs to be a change, 
> that fighting evil isn't just a matter of getting rid of the       
> psychos/dark wizards.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Where does Harry learn that?

> >>Pippin:
> Funny, I think the bigoted world view is the one where cultural    
> imperialism is a good thing. We agree to disagree, I guess.

Betsy Hp:
Where we disagree is what we see in the books.  Because I would say, 
based on my reading, that JKR adores cultural imperialism.  But 
that's obviously not what you see.  And I doubt we're ever going to 
meet on that.

> >>Pippin:
> Considering two thousand years of people trying to melt my culture 
> into the dominant one, sometimes with actual fire, I'm more in      
> favor of letting people find their own way to unity. But that's    
> just me.

Betsy Hp:
And I grew up in NYC. <g>  Yeah, finding your own way is good, but 
that's not what the WW is about.  And they're certainly not 
interested in unity.  At all.  Except in the kind where all 
the "lesser than's" unite at their feet to worship and adore.

Betsy Hp




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 21:19:47 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:19:47 -0000
Subject: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk3l8r+it50@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk44pj+binc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179916

> >> a_svirn:
> > <snip>
> > And hasn't the history of literary criticism proved that 
> > poor authors can be at the mercy of critics' (or more broadly 
> > readers') subconscious? 

> >> Betsy Hp:
> > Hmm, not that I've seen, really.  Could you provide some         
> > examples?  
> > <snip>

> >> a_svirn:
> Oh, just think about all those changes of scholarly fashion:        
> Marxist criticism, feminist criticism, deconstructivism, Freudian   
> criticism etc. If you read proponents of these schools you learn as 
> much (and very likely more) about their own views and beliefs than 
> about authors they analyze.

Betsy Hp:
Ah, okay, I understand.  And sure, readers do bring their own issues 
to the yard. But they don't *have* to.  The writer doesn't have a 
choice, IMO. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Because I don't have as much invested as the author.  Not if the 
> > author is any good anyway.  So I feel I can detach from the text 
> > in a way the author should not be able to.  

> >>a_svirn:
> Funny you should say that. When many members of this very list have 
> spent literally *years* discussing the HP books, sometimes at the 
> rate of five posts a day. I call a pretty heavy investment. 

Betsy Hp:
It *can* be, but it doesn't *have* to be.  Also, readers can focus in 
on specific stuff that floats their boats.  The writer has to cover 
it all.  So I still think the author has more invested in general.  
(Plus, there's the more vulgar issue of income. This was JKR's 
living, while HPfGUs is a hobby for its members.)

> >>a_svirn:
> > <snip> ...I think you meant SUBconscious, rather than
> > UNconscious)...

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Yes, subconscious, sorry. <g>

> >>Magpie:
> I say unconscious. I read somewhere that's more accurate according 
> to something-or-other. It means the same thing. If you're not      
> conscious of something it's unconscious.

Betsy Hp:
Gah!  Just when I thought I had it all straight... :P

Betsy Hp




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 21:59:29 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:59:29 -0000
Subject: Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk20al+3lfn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk4741+ihrq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179917

> >>Betsy Hp:
> I agree. That's why I used the above examples as they are of works I
> enjoyed. I think Monette's a brilliant writer, tackling issues JKR
> wishes she had the strength to take on, and creating characters with
> a depth of soul that make Harry so much cardboard. And I think a big
> reason for that is Monette's willingness to allow for organic
> growth. But *also* Monette's willingness to rewrite and rewrite and
> rewrite. So there's the combination of subconscious and conscious
> there.

> >>Alla:
> So, as Betsy knows I am in love with Sarah Monette works as well. I 
> do think that she is a brilliant writer, but having read three     
> books of hers I do have to take a rather strong exception to her 
> characters' organic growth.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I wasn't thinking specifically of characters (though I do think 
Monette's characters are more real than JKR's).  I was talking about 
the organic unfolding of the story.  Letting the story move along the 
route it *wants* to go, even if it's not exactly what the author had 
first planned.

***MAJOR MONETTE SPOILERS TO FOLLOW***

> >>Alla:
> Okay, series start and I see Mildmay as an assassin for hire, who   
> wants to get out of it, but who has no problems IMO to kill when it 
> is needed to solve his problems.

Betsy Hp:
Well, no.  Mildmay has *already* gotten out of being a killer for 
hire at the opening of the series.  He faces a poverty that nearly 
kills him rather than going back to that life.  Yes, he has no 
physical problems killing in that he's well trained and it comes 
easily.  But psychologically?  It's not easy, and even a death caused 
in self-defense bothers the crap out of him.  (Goodness, even a death 
caused by a *storm* bothers the heck out of him.  Mildmay isn't very 
cool with people dying around him.  Even the ones he dislikes.)

> >>Alla:
> Felix is.... Well, Felix is half crazy most of the book, so I guess 
> we cannot evaluate much of his character.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
To my mind, we had to meet Felix when he was cracked open.  Otherwise 
we'd have never gotten a clear glimpse of his true character because 
his shields are so darn thick.  And also sharp.

> >>Alla:
> <big snip>
> I am sorry Betsy, I see **no growth whatsoever** in Felix character 
> so far. 
> Mildmay, well, I think it is way past due for him to realize that 
> his brother is not going to treat him decently, IMO. So I am not 
> sure I see any growth in that department either.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I do see growth in both men.  Felix acknowledges and even befriends 
Vincent, for example.  Mildmay says no (which is actually, huge for 
him) but at the same time finally accepts the bond.

> >>Alla:
> Um, yes back to Potterverse finally. I see growth in Harry, I 
> definitely do. I see him being able to see grayness in the world   
> and people - that he was able to forgive Snape of all people, that 
> he was able to forgive Dumbledore of all people IMO. I see growth   
> in Harry that he was shielding everybody including Narcissa when he 
> came back.

Betsy Hp:
And to me it's all same old, same old.  Harry does his saving people 
thing, and he's cool with those who are cool with him.  I didn't see 
much gray in the books, so I don't see much gray in Harry or in his 
world-view.

> >>Alla:
> I see it as rather organic growth...

Betsy Hp:
Ah, yes, I totally disagree with that. Hermione's house-elf thing is 
an example.  It was JKR's something unexpected and it led nowhere.  
Where as Monette's something unexpected (the scene with the lost city 
of Nera) not only led us somewhere, it furthered the story, both 
character-wise and plot-wise.

> >>Alla:
> ...but what is most important to me is that I would much rather    
> **hang out** with Harry than Monette's characters.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Boy am I the opposite! <bg>  Harry, Hermione and yes, even Ron, would 
bore me to tears.  And also be really, really annoying.  Whereas, I 
think I could hang with Mildmay all day long swapping stories and 
just, being.  And even Felix, who I think I'd find exhausting, would 
be interesting and highly entertaining.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Harry does not kill, even when Lupin scolds him.

Betsy Hp:
As Mildmay would say, them's weasel words. <g>  Harry does what he 
thinks he has to do.  He's just incredibly, amazingly, sheltered 
compared to either Mildmay or Felix.  Harry had options neither 
Mildmay nor Felix had.  And in the end, dead is dead, and Voldemort 
is dead because of actions Harry took.

But what it mainly comes down to is that I don't see Harry as a real 
boy.  Mildmay and Felix seem far more real, to me.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Having said that, I think to compare those books is to compare     
> apple and oranges. I did not notice any fairy tales origins in      
> Monette's story and I think JKR's story has a lot.

Betsy Hp:
Hee!
www.pantheon.org/areas/folklore/folktales/articles/melusine.html

Though, yeah, I'd say JKR puts a lot more obvious mythical creatures 
in her world than Monette does.  I think Monette was going for a lot 
more realism.  And that's where I'd agree with the apples and oranges.

Betsy Hp




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 16 22:26:53 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:26:53 -0000
Subject: Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk4741+ihrq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk48nd+dn1h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179918

Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
I wasn't thinking specifically of characters (though I do think
Monette's characters are more real than JKR's). I was talking about
the organic unfolding of the story. Letting the story move along the
route it *wants* to go, even if it's not exactly what the author had
first planned.

***MAJOR MONETTE SPOILERS TO FOLLOW***


Alla:

Ah, okay. I was primarily responding to the characters' growth, but 
I guess I wonder how do you know that JKR did not let the story go 
where it wanted to? 

I mean JKR was saying that she followed the outlines, but do we know 
how closely? We do know for example that she wanted to kill Arthur 
and could not, etc.

Do you seriously believe that Monette is writing a story with no 
outlines in mind? Or do you mean something totally different?


Betsy Hp:
Well, no. Mildmay has *already* gotten out of being a killer for
hire at the opening of the series. <SNIP>

Alla:

Sorry, yes he did, but then he became a killer when his brother 
needs him to be IMO. Yes, he is uncomfortable, I agree, but not just 
so uncomfortable IMO as not to kill when it helps them to get out of 
trouble. 

>>Alla:
> Um, yes back to Potterverse finally. I see growth in Harry, I
> definitely do. I see him being able to see grayness in the world
> and people - that he was able to forgive Snape of all people, that
> he was able to forgive Dumbledore of all people IMO. I see growth
> in Harry that he was shielding everybody including Narcissa when he
> came back.

Betsy Hp:
And to me it's all same old, same old. Harry does his saving people
thing, and he's cool with those who are cool with him. I didn't see
much gray in the books, so I don't see much gray in Harry or in his
world-view.


Alla:

Same old? Harry hates Snape initially and then Harry forgives Snape. 
I guess, it is very far from being same old for me. Snape hates 
Harry till very end and Harry still forgives him. Cool with those 
who are cool with him?


>>Alla:
> ...but what is most important to me is that I would much rather
> **hang out** with Harry than Monette's characters.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Boy am I the opposite! <bg> Harry, Hermione and yes, even Ron, would
bore me to tears. And also be really, really annoying. Whereas, I
think I could hang with Mildmay all day long swapping stories and
just, being. And even Felix, who I think I'd find exhausting, would
be interesting and highly entertaining.


Alla:

I find Harry and Ron to be very endearing despite all 
their "sometimes" stupidity, recklessness, arrogance, etc. I find 
Hermione to be extremely bossy and would probably want to slap her 
silly if she wants to start bossing me around. BUT I would totally 
know that those three would watch my back no matter what, no matter 
what it would cost them. If they were my friends, I would know that 
I could rely on them. And of course I would not want to be their 
enemies.

With the heroes of Sarah Monette, well I would be scared that they 
would kill me. Mildmay ? if Felix wishes him to and Felix, well, I 
do not know, just because.


>>Alla:
> <snip>
> Harry does not kill, even when Lupin scolds him.

Betsy Hp:
As Mildmay would say, them's weasel words. <g> Harry does what he
thinks he has to do. He's just incredibly, amazingly, sheltered
compared to either Mildmay or Felix. Harry had options neither
Mildmay nor Felix had. And in the end, dead is dead, and Voldemort
is dead because of actions Harry took.


Alla:

Yes, you are right. Them's weasel words. And the words are, in fact 
facts are that Harry is not a killer and Mildmay and Felix are 
killers. Harry has an option to use Avada Kedavra on DE and he does 
not, Harry has an option to use AK on Voldemort and he does not. He 
is sheltered from what? You think he had less chance to die in those 
situations?

I respect the character who does not want to kill even when he can 
die because of that. I respect Harry for that very much. IMO of 
course.

The bottom line for me is that sympathetic as I am to Sarah 
Monette's characters, I do consider them to be quite psychos. Yes, 
yes, I know bad childhoods. I do not think Harry had a cool 
childhood either, although sure they had it harsher. I do not need 
the characters like this to change much to enjoy the book, in fact 
if book 4 ends up with characters exactly as they are now, I 
certainly would not call Monette a bad writer.

BUT having said that, if I start reading a book about  the character 
whom I consider to be bad, there better be a point when some change 
occur in this character ? NOT because I need it to enjoy the 
writing, but because I need it to feel sympathy for the characters. 
At the end of book 3 Felix  STILL IMO abuses Mildmay, who is 
reaching out to him. I am almost at my breaking point of feeling 
sympathy for those guys. If they do the same crap all over again in 
book 4 I will hate them both. Book 2 gave me hope that they will 
change. OOPS.

It reminds me of situation with Snape in book 4. I was so hoping 
that he watching Harry, showing dark mark, means some change for the 
better as I see it. He still hated Harry in OOP and that is when my 
love/hate for this character turned into hate. I am very close to 
feeling same way about those two guys.


JMO,

Alla




From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au  Mon Dec 17 00:33:54 2007
From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:33:54 -0000
Subject: When
In-Reply-To: <007401c83c1e$b992cbf0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <fk4g5i+u28b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179919

> Shelley:
<SNIP>
> The Wizards clearly manipulated the Muggle environment with
> charms that meant to confound, hide and conceal the magical
> world, including the Dragons and Giants.


I find the explanations regarding the hiddeness of the WW
very unconvincing. Every magic person would spend every moment
clearing out every muggle. But, regardless of that, I don't
think I put my original question clearly. In the 1990s, we
had a very technological society. Yet reading HP, we see
virtually none of that. Especially in DH, it reminded me
of resistance fighters in WW2. I was really wondering if
other people had this impression. So, not the actual date
of the setting but the feeling of it. It could often be
medieval.

Barry



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 03:02:27 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:02:27 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fjupu8+amjl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk4os3+r9lo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179920

Alicia wrote:
> I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix!  Harry should have to get back at
> her for killing Sirius, or Neville to get back at her for torturing
> his parents with the cruciatus curse.  If my memory serves me
> correctly I think that Bellatrix killed Fred which would explain Molly
> saying "she's mine" like she does in DH before she finally dispenses
> Bellatrix, but I still think Harry or Neville should have got the
> privledge.  They certainly had to wait long enough to see her die.


Carol responds:

The privilege of killing? You make it killing for revenge sound like
some sort of reward. But unlike the film version of Neville,
Book!Neville was never out for revenge, and it's significant that even
when he fought (except for slaying the monster Nagini with the Sword
of Gryffindor), he did so with plants and not with weapons (a wand is
a weapon in the WW). As for Harry, the whole point of the Snape
episode (following on the Draco and Kreacher episodes) is that Harry
has learned forgiveness and understanding. He destroys Voldemort,
true, but only after offering him a chance at remorse and not by using
a Killing Curse (LV's curse, as before, rebounds on himself).

I'm not sure how I feel about Molly killing Bellatrix. At least, she's
protecting her cubs, erm, daughter and not fighting for revenge.
(AFAWK, Bellatrix had no direct connection to the falling wall that
killed Fred.)

BTW, I hope this post doesn't sound critical of your interpretation.
It's just the idea of vengeance as a good thing that I find both
disturbing and contrary to the lesson that Harry learns (finally) in DH.

Carol, very glad that neither Neville nor Harry "earned" the
"privilege" of killing anyone




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Dec 17 03:31:12 2007
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:31:12 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cho Chang
In-Reply-To: <fk085m+tr6q@eGroups.com>
References: <fjvseu+bnek@eGroups.com> <fk085m+tr6q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0712161931i31aae434n80bc9490b2c54520@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179921

biancawatanabe_123:
> The night when Harry, Ron and Hermione went to Hogwarts to find the
> lost diadem, why was Cho eager to go with Harry to the Ravenclaw's
> common room? Was it because her feelings came back for him or was it
> because she just wanted to go with him because now that Harry is
> famous?

Lynda:

I believe that that is something that JKR has left up to the individual
reader to decide for themselves.  She does, when she first arrives, go to
sit with Michael Corner, so that might indecate that she has no romantic
designs on Harry, but its left to the minds of the reader to decide.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Dec 17 04:31:39 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:31:39 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fj792g+pmgi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk4u3b+68gu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179922

In Post 179635  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
snipping the first part
> 
> But what if Harry had not learned this lesson the hard way? Don't be
> so secretive. Don't suppress key information. What if he had trusted
> people (not everyone, but the examples I listed will do for 
starters)
> with his secrets? What if Snape had trusted the Order members with 
his?
> 
> Yeah, I know. It would be a different book altogether. But somehow, 
I
> sense that secrecy is a bad thing in JKR's universe (unless you're
> keeping secrets from the enemy). We can see in the epilogue that 
Harry
> is giving his children information that was kept from him, whether
> it's that Slytherins can be admirable or that Thestrals are nothing 
to
> fear. If we examine all the suppressed information and distortions 
of
> the truth that shape Harry's perceptions throughout the books, it
> seems that a half-truth is as good (or rather, as bad) as a lie, as 
is
> well-intentioned misinformation. Unless, of course, you're Snape
> keeping secrets from Voldemort.
> 
> Carol, just tossing out this idea to see if anyone thinks it's worth
?? examining

Potioncat:

It's been a while since I first read that post, and yes, I do think 
it's an interesting line of thought. I hope it's not too late to 
reply.

Secrecy is a major theme throughout the entire series. Everyone seems 
to have secrets to hide. Petunia hides her magic relatives. Hagrid 
hides his wand. Remus hides his furry little problem. Snape hides his 
loyalty. Peter hides himself. Sirius is hidden in 12 GP. Draco hides 
his DE assignment from Snape. Ginny hides the diary. Fred and George 
hide their business plans. Arthur hides his magic car. Molly hides 
her fears. Ron hides his Quidditch dreams. Hermione hides a jinx.  LV 
hides Horcruxes. DD hides Hallows. All of the DADA teachers have 
secrets. The Whomping Willow hides a passageway. The castle itself 
has secrets and places for keeping secrets.

How many threads have we had on this list asking why Harry doesn't 
ask questions or why someone didn't tell Harry some very important 
detail?  The very first book starts out with secrets. The reader 
doesn't even know what's going on for the first few pages. Harry 
learns that Petunia has been keeping secrets from him and almost at 
once, Hagrid asks Harry to keep a secret.

I think JKR needed things to be hidden and secrets to be kept in 
order for there to be a story. She went to the trouble to give her 
characters good reasons to keep mum. 

Start with Dumbledore and his secret keeping.  It was a real play on 
words for DD to be a Secret-Keeper for the Order. JKR gave him a 
family history to explain why he doesn't share information easily. 
Even his mother seems to have secrets. I think his being gay is a 
part of JKR's building a secretive personality.

By making the Dursleys so horrible JKR gave Harry a back-story that 
made him secretive, and reluctant to ask questions. His history is 
very different from DD's, but just as conducive to keeping quiet.  I 
think it's interesting that DD reached a point where he advised Harry 
to tell Hermione and Ron some of the mission's details. That's 
farther than DD himself ever got. 

Snape and Tom Riddle were also given the types of childhood that 
would grow a secretive adult. Neither of them had much reason to 
trust others.  LV, like DD, didn't let his minions---erm associates--
know too much of The Plan. Snape was so good at keeping secrets, no 
one knew where his loyalties lay and everyone suspected he was not on 
their side. 

It's too bad that DD didn't reveal more information to both Snape and 
McGonagall; or that Headmaster Snape didn't bring McGonagall into his 
confidence. Some of us might have enjoyed a happier ending.

Now that I think of it, can anyone think of a character that didn't 
keep secrets?






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Dec 17 05:26:44 2007
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:26:44 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: When
References: <fk4g5i+u28b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002201c8406d$6ac5f3f0$6401a8c0@homemain>

No: HPFGUIDX 179923

>> Shelley:
> <SNIP>
>> The Wizards clearly manipulated the Muggle environment with
>> charms that meant to confound, hide and conceal the magical
>> world, including the Dragons and Giants.
>
>
> I find the explanations regarding the hiddeness of the WW
> very unconvincing. Every magic person would spend every moment
> clearing out every muggle. But, regardless of that, I don't
> think I put my original question clearly. In the 1990s, we
> had a very technological society. Yet reading HP, we see
> virtually none of that. Especially in DH, it reminded me
> of resistance fighters in WW2. I was really wondering if
> other people had this impression. So, not the actual date
> of the setting but the feeling of it. It could often be
> medieval.
>
> Barry

Shelley:
I do get that you were asking for a date, as in a year, in your original 
question. I was just trying to explain, in the series, of why technology 
didn't work with the wizarding magic, and so why Rowling would have felt 
free to ignore it almost completely.

But yes, I also get your point about the lack of technology mentioned "very 
unconvincing". Even Vernon saw many of the witches and wizards on the day 
that Harry survived- they didn't do very well to hide themselves that day, 
and I hardly think every Muggle had their memory wiped of that day. A 
satellite image would surely catch "holes" in the ground where a large 
wizarding place was, and would catch the commotion and movement of many 
witches and wizards toward it for the World Cup, even if those images 
couldn't detect just "where" those people went. Surely, the governments of 
the world knew that there was a Wizarding world, because our spy technology 
would catch the Wizards doing things. Dudders is always watching TV, but it 
might have been more convincing if he was attached to his game console, if 
the series was to be put in modern day. And the radio program did throw the 
series back a couple of decades, I felt. The actual dating of the books, I 
believe, is due to Sir Nicholas's Death Day Party, where it mentions how 
many years he had been dead, and that then dates the rest of the story. Many 
of us feel that she would have been much better leaving that out, so that 
the series was undated. Anyhow, she got her years totally screwed up with 
the starting of school on a Monday, and year after year Sept the 1st kept 
falling on a Monday. Even her moons were off, so Rowling clearly didn't 
write the series with a calendar in mind. 




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Dec 17 07:18:40 2007
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:18:40 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Bella dies
In-Reply-To: <000601c83f15$1bed51a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
References: <fk07fh+7ptc@eGroups.com> <019a01c83f11$b25b2210$6401a8c0@homemain>
 <000601c83f15$1bed51a0$6401a8c0@homemain>
Message-ID: <191320079.20071216231840@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179924

alicia:
> I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix!

Shelley:
> Rule #1 of common sense basics for a killer:
> If you are going to kill an underaged wizarding child, don't do it in the
> presence of it's parent.

Dave:
I thought there was a certain amount of poetic justice in the series'
most prominent surviving mother (Molly) finishing off its most
infamous "anti-mother" (Bellatrix).




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 08:42:52 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:42:52 -0000
Subject: When
In-Reply-To: <fk4g5i+u28b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk5cqc+vach@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179925

--- "Barry" <whealthinc at ...> wrote:
>
> > Shelley:
> <SNIP>
> > The Wizards clearly manipulated the Muggle environment with
> > charms that meant to confound, hide and conceal the magical
> > world, including the Dragons and Giants.

> Barry:
> 
> I find the explanations regarding the hiddeness of the WW
> very unconvincing. Every magic person would spend every moment
> clearing out every muggle. ...

bboyminn:

Why? It doesn't matter if muggles see wizards, it only matters
if they recognize them as magical beings. Wizards would 
walk down the street just like everyone else and would 
somewhat blend into the crowds. True their clothing styles
might be a bit odd, but if you live in London, New York, or
Los Angeles 'odd' clothing won't get you so much as a nod
of recognitions. 

We also know that there is only one truly all wizarding
village in all of the UK. The rest of the wizard live
mingling among muggles as in Godrics Hallow. 

As to others mention of the World Cup, muggle repelling charms
could include what I call 'Apathy' Charms, you see something
but you just don't care, so you ignore it. The presents of 
the World Cup doesn't necessarily mean that there would be a
big hole in a satellite image. It could just be out of focus,
or an area nearby could be transposed over it. 
 
Workable solutions are only limited by our imagination.


> Barry continues:
> ...In the 1990s, we had a very technological society. Yet 
> reading HP, we see virtually none of that. ...
> 
> Barry
>

bboyminn:

Well, as I've already pointed out, technology doesn't work
very well around heavy concentrations of magic. Someone
suggested that everyone should have cell phones and Internet,
but cell phone were not that common back then. As far as 
technology, every age sees itself as the height of technology.
At one time steam trains were the height of technology, but
technology changes. 

Also, what exists at a given time and what is common at a 
given time are very different things. True, reasonably fast
computers of the day may have existed, but at that time I
was in my basement with an 8086 with 1 Megabyte of memory
and a 1200 baud modem and no internet access. 

By 1998 things were looking up, but probably not for wizards.
They have alternate means other than technology. And it is
unlikely that Harry, Ron, or Hermione would have a cell phone
or wireless Internet access, and even if they did, what good
would it do them? It is unlikely that they could get any 
magic world news from them. And it is unlikely that there was 
anyone else they could call or contact. I don't think Mr.
Weasley had Internet. So, again, who are they going to call,
who are they going to email? No one. Which is why it's not
in the story.

Back to the 'hiddenness' of the wizard world, it's not really 
hidden, it's either unseen, unknown, or misunderstood. Legend
is full of wizard sightings. Legend is full of magical creature 
sightings. The world is full of unidentified flying objects.
We see these things, but we don't believe them so we make
up our own 'muggle worthy' excuses. When a breech of secrecy
becomes too extreme, yes, then memories are modified. But not
because you happened to pass an eccentric in the street.

On the day the Voldemort fell the first time and Vernon
saw wizards everywhere, he had no idea that they were wizards,
so he didn't need his memory modified. He thought they were
all just weirdos. 

The world is full of weirdos, we see them all the time, how
do we know they aren't really wizards? How do we know that
old lady who lives down the street and keeps to herself isn't 
spending her night drinking it up at the Leaky Cauldron? How
do you know that eccentric uncle you have isn't really a
wizards? 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Mon Dec 17 14:17:58 2007
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:17:58 -0000
Subject: Why Bella dies
In-Reply-To: <191320079.20071216231840@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <fk60em+o6i6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179926

> alicia:
> > I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix!
> 
> Shelley:
> > Rule #1 of common sense basics for a killer:
> > If you are going to kill an underaged wizarding child, don't do it 
in the
> > presence of it's parent.
> 
> Dave:
> I thought there was a certain amount of poetic justice in the series'
> most prominent surviving mother (Molly) finishing off its most
> infamous "anti-mother" (Bellatrix).
>
Aussie:
too true, Dave ... and also

Rule #2 basics for killers:
Don't remind the parent about the son her family has been mourning for 
the last hour. "...the same way as Freddie."
Molly's curses until then were sparring, then she had to stop this 
woman from killing anyone else's kids. "You will never touch our 
children again."
aussie




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 15:22:15 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:22:15 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fjvjc9+n2p7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk6477+es84@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179927

Potioncat wrote:
> I went looking for the quote that I had in mind. At JKR's site she 
says the Patronus makes a good messenger because it is an "Anti-Dark 
Arts device and was resistant to interfernce." (paraphrased somewhat)
So it's hard for me to understand how an anti-Dark arts device can be
used by a witch for dark purposes. <snip>
> 

Carol responds:

But she's not using it for a dark purpose. She's using her own spirit
guardian (JKR's description of a Patronus) to protect herself, Yaxley,
and the witch she thinks is Mafalda Hopkirk (really Hermione) from the
Dementors, which *are* Dark creatures and would as soon suck a Dark
witch's or DE's happiness as anyone else's (and their souls as well,
given the opportunity and the slightest excuse. In fact, probably the
only reason, aside from the Patronus, that they wouldn't suck
Umbridge's or Yaxley's soul is that those two provide them with
Muggle-borns as prey).  So the fact that Umbridge intends to deprive
the Muggle-borns of their wands and happiness and perhaps send them to
prison in the custody of the Dementors has nothing to do with her
Patronus's ability to protect *her* from the Dementors. Her Patronus
is still an anti-Dark device.

As for the Patronus messengers being resistant to interference (e.g.,
you can't conjure someone else's Patronus and send a message using
their voice even, presumably, if you're Polyjuiced to look and sound
like that person), that has nothing to do with Umbridge's ability to
cast a Patronus. (Whether she could use hers as a messenger to DEs and
other Voldemort supporters, I don't know. She isn't knowing how, for
one thing, since Dumbledore is the one who came up with the idea and
taught the Order members how to do it. (Evidently, he didn't give
lessons in person, or he'd have known that Snape's Patronus was a doe,
but maybe JKR didn't think about that.) I don't think that she
(Umbridge) could use her Patronus for such a purpose even though it's
her spirit guardian because an anti-Dark device probably couldn't be
used to communicate an evil message.

But, again, protecting herself and others from Dementors is not evil
even thought she and Yaxley are evil people. Even evil people are
entitled to defend themselves using good magic, apparently.

Carol, snipping the stuff on Snape but thinking that possibly he was
there on LV's orders to search for anything that could be used against
the Order and tearing the place up in case LV used Legilimency on him
so he could "prove" that he'd found nothing




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Dec 17 16:09:32 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:09:32 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fk6477+es84@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk66vs+nd24@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179928

 
> Carol responds:
> 
> But she's not using it for a dark purpose. She's using her own 
spirit
> guardian (JKR's description of a Patronus) to protect herself, 
Yaxley,
> and the witch she thinks is Mafalda Hopkirk (really Hermione) from 
the
> Dementors, which *are* Dark creatures and would as soon suck a Dark
> witch's or DE's happiness as anyone else's (and their souls as well,
> given the opportunity and the slightest excuse.


Potioncat:
Good point. Between her own "Darkness" and the fact that she seemed  
magically inept at Hogwarts, I was surprised she could cast and 
maintain a Patronus. 

Not to mention that I was highly offended that her Patronus was a 
cat. ;-)

>Carol 
snip
... since Dumbledore is the one who came up with the idea and
> taught the Order members how to do it. (Evidently, he didn't give
> lessons in person, or he'd have known that Snape's Patronus was a 
doe, but maybe JKR didn't think about that.)

Potioncat:
I thought he already knew Snape's Patronus was a doe; it was Snape's 
demonstration of his continued feelings for what's her name that 
moved DD.(Although, it should have been obvious to DD anyway.)

> 
> Carol, snipping the stuff on Snape but thinking that possibly he was
> there on LV's orders to search for anything that could be used 
against
> the Order and tearing the place up in case LV used Legilimency on 
him
> so he could "prove" that he'd found nothing


Potioncat:
That would make the story arc more creditible to me. But there's no 
hint in DH that Snape was sent there by LV. I think JKR intends us to 
believe that Snape went looking for a momento.


As for Hermione's being able to cast a Messenger Patronus. Ron calls 
it a talking Patronus thing. Oh, give me a break! You'd think he'd at 
least know the name for it--or to come up with one as good as ours. 
So it appears that if Hermione was being taught by someone--and I 
suspect she was---that Ron wasn't.

But why did JKR even bring it up if Hermione is never going to cast 
the charm?





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec 17 16:43:11 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:43:11 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk43f6+hn1d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk68uv+ada5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179929

Betsy_Hp
> What I *am* saying is that Harry never clearly states that there is 
> magic he just will not use.  He does not clearly state that there is 
> a specific form of magic he's fighting against.  And Voldemort 
> doesn't make any such statements either.  So this idea that the 
> series ends with a definitive statement about magic, I don't see 
> where it's coming from.
> 

Pippin:
But he does! "I won't blast people out of my way just because
they're there," said Harry. "That's Voldemort's job." (DH 5)
Harry will find this statement hard to live up to. But he makes
it. And giving up the EW proves he means it, IMO. 

Betsy Hp:
.  Yes, I agree, if a Slytherin recognizes his own 
> lack of worth and properly ingratiates himself to the nearest 
> Gryffindor, then friendly terms occurr.  But I wouldn't ever 
> catagorize Slughorn's and Dumbledore's relationship as one of 
> equals.  Nor would I the relationship between Lily and Snape.

Pippin:
Who ever had a relationship of equals with Dumbledore? And
what's that got to do with friendship anyway? Are you saying
you can only really be friends with the people in your 
section of the bell curve? Geez.

But as for Lily and Snape, oh my very dear: a relationship of equals
is just what they did have, IMO. That was their ruin.

 If Lily had been the sort of controlling person you seem
to think she was, she'd have told Snape that if he valued her
friendship he'd drop those freaks he was hanging out with.
And if he'd been the sort of slavish toady he's accused 
of being, he'd have done it. 

But he wasn't that sort of person. If he liked being kicked
around he'd've stuck with Voldemort. And neither was she.
Telling people not to hang out with freaks was Petunia's job.
YMMV.


> > >>Pippin:
> > Codswallop, in my opinion <g>.
> > Harry puts aside the Elder Wand. At the end of the series,  he's    
> > still not using it. Why not use it, except that he's afraid it      
> > would make doing dark magic too easy? How did he come to fear that, 
> > except by learning how easy it already was? 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Two leaps too many, sorry.  Where does it say that Harry put aside 
> the Elder Wand because he was worried about using dark magic?  Where 
> do we see Harry frightened by his use of dark magic?

Pippin:
He calls it "the world's most dangerous wand." He doesn't like the way
that Ron and Hermione look at it with reverence. (DH 36)

He's been told by Dumbledore about making the Hallows 
hard to find so that he wouldn't be tempted to use them thoughtlessly.
He's been told that Dumbledore made it difficult for himself to
interfere in wizarding affairs -- more difficult than it would have
been if he'd been Minister of Magic, anyway. 

It all goes to show that choosing what's right instead of what is easy
isn't only making yourself do what's right when you know it will
be difficult. It's stopping yourself from doing what's easy before
you've considered whether it would be right. Putting aside the
wand shows that Harry absorbed the lesson.

> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > Dark wizards can repent. They can put their souls back together, if 
> > they're willing to risk the pain. Grindelwald apparently did so.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Again with the leaping.  Tom Riddle and Grindelwald are two 
> completely different men, from what little we've seen.

Pippin:
What has that got to do with it? They're subject to the same laws
of magic. You tear a soul apart by murder, which Grindelwald
certainly did,  you put it together by remorse. Where in canon does 
it say that Voldemort can't feel remorse? 

In GoF, he noticed to his own surprise (and mine)
that he was becoming sentimental about his past. He even seemed
elated that his "true family" had returned and disappointed that
they hadn't been equally elated to join him. Those were the
early signs that Harry's blood had made a change in him.

In DH he begins by admitting that he's made mistakes. He's
unable to regret damage he's done to other people, but he's
quite able to regret damage he's done to himself. We know
through Harry's visions that Voldemort has a great ability to endure
pain. All he has to do is really feel the pain he's caused 
by tearing his soul.  

But we have seen that remorse makes people want to die, and IMO this
is why he rejected it, not because it was something he couldn't feel.

> > >>Pippin:
> > This book is about Harry learning that there needs to be a change, 
> > that fighting evil isn't just a matter of getting rid of the       
> > psychos/dark wizards.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Where does Harry learn that?

Pippin:
Mostly in OOP, where Dumbledore explains that the golden fountain
is a lie, that Kreacher is what wizards made him, that wizards have
exploited and oppressed their fellow creatures for too long, and they
are now paying a price for it. Harry didn't really understand it then.
He thought  Sirius was noble and deserved to be adored even by
the House Elf he mistreated. But in DH Harry learned better. 

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> And I grew up in NYC. <g>  Yeah, finding your own way is good, but 
> that's not what the WW is about.  And they're certainly not 
> interested in unity.  At all.  Except in the kind where all 
> the "lesser than's" unite at their feet to worship and adore.

Pippin:
Exactly. The fountain of magical brotherhood did reflect what
a lot of wizards would consider the ideal. But not only is reality
not like that,  Harry doesn't think it should be.  He realizes
that the witch and wizard in the fountain have a fatuous expression.
It's not a noble vision after all. 

Hopefully  the rapidity with which their supposedly noble 
society fell to Voldemort may have taught the WW something. At least
they put Kingsley in charge, and we know he believes that Muggle
lives are worth just as much as wizard ones. Ron and Harry took
driver's tests. That Ron cheats shows it wasn't just a lark -- they
needed to pass for some reason. Things have changed. 

We're shown that a change like that isn't made by magic. It's made
by people learning from their mistakes. And that's where the story
ends. I'd love to read a story by Rowling about people working for
social change, but you don't need the Potterverse for that. Educating
people about *why* there needs to be social change, OTOH, the
Potterverse did very well. IMO.  

Pippin




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 16:50:39 2007
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:50:39 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fk4u3b+68gu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk69cv+lu13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179930

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
Potioncat:
> Now that I think of it, can anyone think of a character that didn't 
> keep secrets?
>

Montavilla47:
Luna comes to mind.  Although, of course, she kept the secret of the 
D.A., I don't think she kept any personal secrets and Harry notes
that she has a way of speaking uncomfortable truths.

It is interesting that (almost) everyone keeps secrets in the series.  It's
quite true and one of the most important things about the WW is that
it be kept secret from the Muggles.  The defining document of the WW 
is the "Statute of Secrecy" and the whole purpose of the Ministry is to
enforce it.








From apetersonhanson at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 17:19:42 2007
From: apetersonhanson at yahoo.com (apetersonhanson)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:19:42 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fk4os3+r9lo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk6b3e+in7q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179931

Alicia wrote:
> > I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix!  Harry should have to get
> > back at her for killing Sirius, or Neville to get back at her for
> > torturing his parents with the cruciatus curse.

Carol responds:
> The privilege of killing? You make it killing for revenge sound
> like some sort of reward.
> Carol, very glad that neither Neville nor Harry "earned" the
> "privilege" of killing anyone


alicia responds:

I am entitled to my opinion and FYI, I don't know what you meant
by "unlike in the movie" because I have not seen any of the movies
except the first 3.  Anyway, Neville does want to kill Bella.  In
ootp the BOOK, he tells Harry that he will take care of her (not in
those exact words, but that is the gist of it).  Also, I wanted
badly to see Harry kill her. Or Neville.  Molly was the worst
character in the book and it was so anti-climactic to see her
dispatch Bella.

Bella was (IMO) the #1 DE with only LV above her.
She killed Sirius, tortured the Longbottoms, and killed Dobby
inadvertantly as she threw her knife at Harry when he and Dobby
disapperated from Malfoy mannor.  Those are just 3 horrible acts she
commited. Bella didn't kill Fred (as someone reminded me), she did
threaten Ginny but didn't do her any harm. It would have been much
better closure, and a much better climax for Harry or Neville, hell
even Neville's grandmother to kill her. Actually she didn't have to
be killed.  Even if Harry or Neville, or yes even his grandmother
captured her and made sure she was taken to Azkaban that would have
been a better result than Molly Weasley killing her.

It doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks the "lesson" was or what
Harry "learned", it matters to me what would have been
entertaining/a good story.  Harry, Neville, or Neville's gram
killing/arresting/capturing, even torturing Bella would have been a
better result than having Molly Weasley get the honors.  And yes, it
is an honor. Not necesarily a privlege or a reward or revenge, but
an honor. I would be honored to avenge my godfather or parents and I
am sure plenty of others would be too. I feel like JKR robbed Harry,
Neville or even Neville's gram of this honor.  But I really
shouldn't be suprised. As much as I love the HP books, after reading
all of them and then re-reading them again in order one after the
other, I feel like JkR left too many loose ends, was ultimately
disorganized, and contradicts herself too many times throughout the
series.





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 18:40:21 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:40:21 -0000
Subject: Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk48nd+dn1h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk6fql+k0gf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179932

> >>Alla:
> <snip> ...but I guess I wonder how do you know that JKR did not let 
> the story go where it wanted to? 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I know it from the books.  There are too many dangling plot lines, 
characters that pop up only to fade out, character issues that are 
quickly forgotten (or, possibly even worse, treadmilled through again 
and again and again), world-building issues that get brought up and 
then dropped.

Obviously this is just my opinion, but the series reads like a battle 
between the story and the author that the author (to the detriment of 
the story) won.

> >>Alla:
> Do you seriously believe that Monette is writing a story with no 
> outlines in mind? Or do you mean something totally different?

Betsy Hp:
I'm quite sure Monette has outlines.  I'm just equally sure she's not 
a slave to them. (Though of course I have to wait for her final book 
to get the definitive answer. <g>)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > And to me it's all same old, same old. Harry does his saving      
> > people thing, and he's cool with those who are cool with him. I   
> > didn't see much gray in the books, so I don't see much gray in   
> > Harry or in his world-view.

> >>Alla:
> Same old? Harry hates Snape initially and then Harry forgives       
> Snape. I guess, it is very far from being same old for me. Snape   
> hates Harry till very end and Harry still forgives him. Cool with  
> those who are cool with him?

Betsy Hp:
After finding out Snape dedicated his entire life to Harry's safety, 
Harry forgives him.  That forgiveness doesn't move me much.  It's not 
like it was hard, or anything.  Especially with Snape dead.  So no, I 
didn't see any moment of character growth for Harry here.  (I suspect 
this is something we plain old disagree on though. <bg>)

****MAJOR MONETTE SPOILERS TO FOLLOW****

> >>Alla:
> > <snip>
> > Harry does not kill, even when Lupin scolds him.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > As Mildmay would say, them's weasel words. <g> Harry does what he
> > thinks he has to do. He's just incredibly, amazingly, sheltered
> > compared to either Mildmay or Felix. Harry had options neither
> > Mildmay nor Felix had. And in the end, dead is dead, and Voldemort
> > is dead because of actions Harry took.

> >>Alla:
> Yes, you are right. Them's weasel words. And the words are, in fact 
> facts are that Harry is not a killer and Mildmay and Felix are 
> killers. Harry has an option to use Avada Kedavra on DE and he does 
> not, Harry has an option to use AK on Voldemort and he does not.

Betsy Hp:
Harry had options *other* than killing.  That's why I think the fact 
that Harry doesn't kill is something that sounds pretty while at 
heart means little to nothing (ie weasel words).  I've never killed.  
But it's not something I'd point to as a remark on my character.  I 
live in a civilized nation at a civilized time where kill or be 
killed has never been a question I've had to grapple with.

I'm not a pacifist.  I don't look askance at either soliders or 
police who have had to kill.  I'd like to think that if it came down 
to it I *could* kill to protect myself and/or my own.  But I 
seriously doubt I'll ever have to find out. (And I'm quite grateful 
for that.)

Felix and Mildmay live in a world that would eat Harry alive.  Under 
Felix's Keeper, Harry would have either drowned or burned.  Malker 
would have killed him if they'd ever clashed (though I seriously 
doubt Malker would've had much use for Harry).  Under Mildmay's 
Keeper...  Yeah, Harry would have killed or stolen or done whatever 
she wanted him to do, based on his behavior with Dumbledore.  And he 
would have screwed up in one of the myriad ways you could scew up in 
that lifestyle and either been killed or executed.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> The bottom line for me is that sympathetic as I am to Sarah 
> Monette's characters, I do consider them to be quite psychos.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Whereas I'd say both of them (yes, even Felix) are more moral than 
the Trio.  And I'd point to the rescue of Gideon, Benard and Van 
Mortan (I think is his name?) as an example of that.  You could also 
include Mildmay's rescuing that little prostitute from the boat guy 
and Felix rescuing the ghosts of Nera on the list.

The Trio did nothing to help the captured Luna until they were 
literally thrown in with her.  It didn't even cross their minds, 
IIRC.  And of course, we saw their total lack of action with the 
Ministry.  And with Snape for that matter.  Or the suffering students 
at Hogwarts.  Or the underground movement (such as it was) in the WW.

I think the Trio do what benefits them personally.  And, fortunately, 
what benefits them personally also benefits the WW.  But if it's 
nothing to do with them, they don't get involved.  Which is part of 
the reason I don't care for them all that much. <g>

Betsy Hp




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 19:41:45 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:41:45 -0000
Subject: Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk6fql+k0gf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk6jdp+55rd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179933

Betsy Hp:
<SNIP
Harry had options *other* than killing. That's why I think the fact
that Harry doesn't kill is something that sounds pretty while at
heart means little to nothing (ie weasel words). I've never killed.
But it's not something I'd point to as a remark on my character. I
live in a civilized nation at a civilized time where kill or be
killed has never been a question I've had to grapple with.

I'm not a pacifist. I don't look askance at either soldiers or
police who have had to kill. I'd like to think that if it came down
to it I *could* kill to protect myself and/or my own. But I
seriously doubt I'll ever have to find out. (And I'm quite grateful
for that.) <SNIP>

Alla:

But there is no maniac after you, right? I mean no evil overlord 
wants to kill you, etc? And you do not participate in battles where 
you have to fight for your life?

If there is nothing like that going on in your life, then yeah, I 
would not consider the fact that you never killed as something very 
special. I mean, I think it counts that you are  a normal person (to 
be clear, unless someone kills in self defense or someone is a 
soldier, or someone kills without meaning it - so called crime of 
passion, I do not consider those people to be normal), but nothing 
special sure.

But if you know that evil maniac and his gang are after you and you 
are fighting for your life AND for the life of WW, AND they are ready 
to kill you and you stun them instead, oh yeah, I consider it to be 
very special.

And the fact that you defend yourself instead of shooting of the 
killing curse against this maniac, yes to me it is special indeed.


Betsy Hp:
Felix and Mildmay live in a world that would eat Harry alive. <SNIP>

Alla:

I guess it is time to disagree for me.


Betsy Hp:
The Trio did nothing to help the captured Luna until they were
literally thrown in with her. It didn't even cross their minds,
IIRC.

Alla:

I thought it did cross their minds, but I have to check. I am pretty 
positive though, like 99% sure that while they run away from DE whom 
Luna's father sent on them, they made sure that DE saw Harry indeed, 
because they felt sorry for him. I am not sure this thought would 
have crossed my mind, frankly.

Betsy Hp:
 And of course, we saw their total lack of action with the
Ministry. 

Alla:

Huh? I thought they saved plenty people at the ministry.

Betsy Hp:
And with Snape for that matter. 

Alla:

I guess another time to disagree. I wish I could dig Zara's post, but 
I thought the fact that Harry did not leave meant that he did all he 
could and more for Snape.

Betsy Hp:
Or the suffering students
at Hogwarts. Or the underground movement (such as it was) in the WW.

Alla:

Without them finding horcruxes all students of Hogwarts AND WW will 
be doomed forever, so why does it not count?

Betsy Hp:
I think the Trio does what benefits them personally. And, fortunately,
what benefits them personally also benefits the WW.

Alla:

I guess what benefits the Trio is to drop out of school and to go on 
wild goose search for horcruxes and hallows. I guess what also 
benefits them is getting captured and tortured by DE and in the 
meantime almost killed by snake lady. Oh, and of course what benefits 
Ron and Hermione is to leave their families as well. Yeah, sorry, I 
do not see any personal benefits for Trio in anything they did in 
book 7.

Betsy Hp:
 But if it's
nothing to do with them, they don't get involved. Which is part of
the reason I don't care for them all that much. <g>

Alla:
The only reason I responded is because I wanted to disagree about 
Monette's characters being better people than Trio. I know you do not 
care for Trio, I am not trying to change your mind. I mean I cannot 
help but disagree with your interpretation of their actions, but as I 
said the only reason why I bothered is because of Monette's 
characters thing. But I am certainly thinking that Monette's 
characters for me in the same boat as Raskolnikov from the Crime and 
Punishment. I feel for him, I care for him as a character, but there 
is no way I would spare a second of my time in RL to a psycho who 
planned the killing of the old lady, even if he got awfully 
remorseful afterwards.

Trio on the other hand to me is ordinary kids thrown in extraordinary 
circumstances. As I said, I value friendship very much and I truly 
would be honored and proud to have friends like them, that's all.

Alla.





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 22:59:34 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:59:34 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
Message-ID: <fk6v0m+c46a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179934

> Betsy Hp:
> Also, readers can focus in on specific stuff that floats their 
boats.

Mike:
You betcha Betsy. The waters under my boat are asking me to focus on 
motivations, for the present.


>*****************

> Betsy Hp:
> I think that Gryffindor and Slytherin were great friends while
> Slytherin was a bigot points to the, in the end, non-issue of that
> aspect of Slytherin

Mike:
We know so little about the founders. Therefore this post will be 
heavy on speculation.

Do you really think Godric Gryffindor befriended Salazar Slytherin 
for reasons of expediency? That Godric said, 'Hey, this guy is good. 
We should get him onboard for this school thing. So he's a bigot, so 
what? We can work around that.' This is not the type of character I 
would ascribe to the premier icon in the Potterverse, that had the 
followers of his credo enthralled. I'm sure that his character was 
supposed to be better than that.

We don't know what the world was like in the 10th century 
Potterverse. Was there anti-magical bigotry? IOW, was there a real 
reason for Salazar to fear Muggleborn wizards? Were there Muggleborns 
that denied their own wizardness and instead sought to eradicate the 
magical from the world? I'm thinking of someone like Cypher from the 
Matrix movies. Someone that knew there was a different world, but 
wanted to deny it so badly that they actually sided with their 
erstwhile enemy to remove a cause of discomfort in their own lives. I 
can also picture an Elmer Gantry-type leader of the anti-wizard 
movement, knowing how suseptible people of that age were to 
charismatic leaders. (Hah, like we're so different today!)

My speculation here is that something changed in the world of the 
founders that impelled them to start a school. They may have been the 
four greatest witches and wizards of their age, but it seems logical 
that something motivated them to start Hogwarts besides just 
altruistic reasons. Why gather all the magical children in one 
school, why not leave them to their smaller schools that surely 
existed, or their informal education from travelling tutors?

So maybe Salazar's anti-Muggleborn philosophy was rooted in real fear 
of what was happening in the world around them. Maybe that was a part 
of the reason for Godric, Helga, Rowena and Salazar started Hogwarts. 
And while we're on them all, I would think that Helga would have been 
the most veheminently opposed to any anti-Muggleborn dictum. She was 
the one that would (paraphrasing here) 'take the lot and treat them 
all the same.' My guess, if the rift started over Muggleborns - and 
we have no way of knowing that it did - that it started between Helga 
and Salazar.

Now some will say, 'What about the Chamber of Secrets?' I have a 
number of thoughts on this that evolved out of conversations here on 
HPfGU. 

Let's start with who made it. Huh? Whaddaya mean, Salazar made it of 
course! Hold your horses, do we really know that? As Steve has tried 
to point out on a number of occasions with the whole Deathly Hallows 
story, there's the legend and then there's the real story. Death 
didn't make the Hallows, three talented brothers made them.

[Short Aside: The real invisibility cloak didn't hide one from Death, 
it was just this really well made cloak that didn't wear out like the 
others did. It didn't even hide Harry from Moody's magical eye, much 
less hide Ignotus from Death.]

Are we so sure that the Chamber was really around in the beginning? 
Was Myrtle's second floor loo, the entrance, even around? Back when 
the school started, populations were so much smaller, both wizard and 
Muggle. Would they really have built such a vast castle to house and 
teach what was probably a couple dozen kids or so?

Who makes a statue of themself with a mouth as the opening for the 
inner sanctum of a Basilisk? Yeah, I know, a real egotist. But then a 
real egotist would have a different place to have the giant snake 
emerge from than his mouth. <wink> Actually, to me, it seems quite 
plausible that a Slytherin heir or heirs built the Chamber as a 
misguided monument to their patriarch. They would have started the 
legends, because they had been conditioned to believe that Salazar 
was anti-Muggleborn and that the Chamber was a fitting tribute to his 
vision. The progression of the family line to the Gaunts, lends 
credence to the idea that Salazar's heirs were both extravagent and 
extreme.

Let's say that Salazar *did* build the Chamber himself, and stocked 
it with a Basilisk. I don't have a Fantastic Beasts book, how long 
are Basilisks suppose to live? Anyway, why a Basilisk? Where does it 
say that a Basilisk is the right weapon for one of his heirs to use 
against Muggleborns? If Ron had looked into the Basilisk's eyes, 
wouldn't it kill him? 

The point is, Salazar may have had a fight with the other three 
founders, built the chamber and left the school in a huff. I have no 
idea why he would install a Basilisk, but the whole idea that he did 
so for an eventual heir to rid the school of Muggleborns reeks of 
legend, not Salazar's true mindset. Salazar may have had a mistrust 
of Muggleborns, may have actually hated them and didn't want them in 
his school, but the Chamber of Secrets does not come across as a 
direct off-shoot of that hatred, for me. Since a Basilisk's sight or 
poison would kill Muggleborns, half-bloods, or pure-bloods equally as 
well.

So what am I trying to say? That Salazar's opinion may not have been 
singular with regards to Muggleborns. That there could have been a 
pervasive attitude of the times that fostered a fear of Muggles and 
Muggleborns. That legend superceded reality when it came to Slalzar's 
CoS. Basilisks aren't only Mudblood killers. Legend conflated the CoS 
with Salazar's perceived pure-bloodism.



> a_svirn:
> I think it *is* about pure-blood mania, though. The great
> showdown  between Harry and Voldemort is about "mastering Death",
> yes. But the controversy between Slytherin and the other houses,
> is about this pure-blood thing.


Mike:
Someone get the smelling salts, cuz this one is going to knock Betsy 
over. I agree with Betsy! This whole fight wasn't over pure-bloodism.

Voldemort was never about pure-bloods. How could he be, he wasn't one 
and he was the greatest wizard ever, just ask him. In the first book 
Quirrell told us who Voldemort was; "There is no good and evil, there 
is only power, and those too weak to seek it..." <PS/SS p. 291, US> 
There is no room for pure-bloodism in that equation. 

Voldemort used pure-blood mania as a red herring for his followers. 
How many DEs could he have recruited had he actually told them, 'this 
is all about power for *me*, and you all are just a bunch of toadies 
to be used and abused at my whim'? He had to give them a cause other 
than himself to fight for. Later, after they were inducted into the 
club, he would demand obsequious acquiescence to his personage. If we 
are to equate LV with Hitler, re the whole Nazi motif, Hitler 
demanded his followers to pledge obedience to *him* not to the 
fatherland.



> Betsy Hp:
> I mean, I doubt the Sorting Hat's song will have changed much when
> it comes time to define the houses.  Slytherin will still be the
> house of the ambitious, cunning and bigoted.  Of course, as it
> was during most (if not all) of Harry's time at Hogwarts, the
> Slytherins won't be allowed to let their bigotry run *rampant*.
> But it will still be a defining characteristic.  After all,
> there's nothing in DH to suggest that would ever change.  It
> certainly wasn't part of Harry's "quest".

Mike:
Keep them smelling salts handy, for the most part I agree again. 
Ambition and Cunning are characteristics that the Sorting Hat looks 
for. Bigotry is not. It is a learned trait that seems endemic to the 
type of families that favor the Slytherin credo. Young Slytherins 
learn it at their father's knee. They are possessed of their own 
superiority before they put the Hat on. 

We all know that the hat takes one's preferences into account. It 
must have for Crabbe and Goyle, since I see a distinct lack of 
cunning in either, though there may have been ambition in Crabbe. But 
I rather doubt that young Severus entered Hogwarts as a bigot. The 
House seems to have fomented that trait within him, and he seems to 
have curtailed that attituded in his later years. (Although it still 
surfaces when dealing with his life-long enemies, ::cough, Lupin, 
cough::). 

That Slytherin House is the Home of the Bigot, I have no problem 
with. Somebody had to be the bad guys in the story, and they had to 
have some bad traits or what's the point? There had to be a reason 
that the bad guys fell in with the bad overlord-wannabe. Voldemort 
hooked them with this pure-blood bigotry ruse.

And Betsy is also right about it not being on Harry's to-do list to 
wipe out bigotry. <hell, I'm on a role with agreeing with Betsy. ;)> 
Harry was on a quest to cut off one head of the Hydra. Snape's DADA 
openning remarks told us there were other heads waiting in the wings. 
Hopefully, Harry managed to get the most deadly head, and that 
another more deadly won't grow back in it's place.

But bigotry wasn't one of the heads, imo. Bigotry is not conquered, 
it is learned away. Killing a bigot does not kill bigotry. Teaching a 
bigot may reform him/her and thereby teach others of his/her ilk. 
Maybe Draco, with his bad experiences under the thumb of Voldemort, 
will have come to understand that pure-bloodism led him into that 
morass. So maybe he will have changed his tune when it came to 
teaching Scorpius what credos are worth following. That is where I 
garner hope for the future of the WW. Not from what Harry learned 
during his quest, from what Draco learned during his time in 
purgatory.

Mike




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 17 23:37:38 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:37:38 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH Ch 9, A Place to Hide
In-Reply-To: <fk66vs+nd24@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk7182+bumi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179935

---  "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Carol responds:
> > 
> > But she's not using it for a dark purpose. She's using 
> > her own spirit guardian (JKR's description of a Patronus)
> > to protect herself, ...
> > 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Good point. Between her own "Darkness" and the fact that she
> seemed magically inept at Hogwarts, I was surprised she could
> cast and maintain a Patronus. 
> 
> ...

bboyminn:

Here's the thing, as I have pointed out many times before much
to everyone's annoyance I'm sure, there is Dark and there is
dark, the two not necessarily being the same.

True Umbridge is a nasty rotten evil person, so in that sense
she could be called 'dark', but since she doesn't seem to be a
practitioner of the DARK ARTS, we can't really call her
'Dark'. 
> 
> > ...
> 
> > 
> > Carol, snipping the stuff on Snape but thinking that 
> > possibly he was there on LV's orders to search for anything
> > that could be used against the Order ...
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
>
> ...
> 
> As for Hermione's being able to cast a Messenger Patronus.
> Ron calls it a talking Patronus thing. Oh, give me a break!
> You'd think he'd at least know the name for it--or to come
> up with one as good as ours. So it appears that if Hermione
> was being taught by someone--and I suspect she was---that 
> Ron wasn't.

bboyminn:

Here is the difference between Hermione and Ron. Hermione
seeks out information, Ron on the other hand, simply accepts
information that comes to him. 

Hermione knows at least the theory behind the Messenger
Patronus because she sought out the information both in
her own brain and in the world around her.

Ron won't seek out the information. True, he will learn it
if someone offers to teach him, but he will not seek out
and ask to be taught. 

Consequently Hermione /thinks/ she knows how and Ron doesn't 
have a clue. Typcial day at the office.

> Potioncat:
> 
> But why did JKR even bring it up if Hermione is never going
> to cast the charm?
>

bboyminn:

Because if she hadn't brought it up in the books, we certainly
would have wondered why in our discussions. Keep the fans 
happy, or at least content.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn





From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Mon Dec 17 23:59:17 2007
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:59:17 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fjl6a1+ofnu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk72gl+f2v9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179936

> *Best Piece of Magic
> 
> What was the Best Piece of Magic JKR put in the books?
> 
Aussie:
Top list

1. Room of Requirements: DD nor the map didn't even know it's 
properties
2. Sorting Hat: 1000 years old and still comes up with the goods when 
you need them
3. Extendable Ears: Twins made them while still at school. That 
deserves another OWL each
aussie
 
> ///\\\////\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\
> 
> I guess while we're at it, we could include the Worst Piece of Magic.
> 
Aussie: (mainly they serve no other need than to get JKR out of a plot 
crisis - never used after nor spoken of being used before)

1. Voldemorts face on the back of Quirrel's head: (What the ...?)
2. Time Turner: It is almost like JKR got to the end of the book, then 
realised Harry couldn't make the stag straight away, and wanted him to 
have more time and motivation, so editted POA to include Hermione's 
extra classes to write in something never to be used again.
3. Giant's blood: I love Hagrid more than any other character and glad 
he is still scaring students with his cooking, but there has to be 
more to Hagrid's coat at least to save him from Umbridge attack 
(OOTP); Death Eater Curses (HBP); falls and spiders (DH).
aussie




From auriga79 at rstarmail.com  Tue Dec 18 03:29:56 2007
From: auriga79 at rstarmail.com (acelticgoddess)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 03:29:56 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fk6b3e+in7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk7erk+gc43@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179937

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "apetersonhanson" > alicia
responds:
>
.... Bella was (IMO) the #1 DE with only LV above her.
> She killed Sirius, tortured the Longbottoms, and killed Dobby
> inadvertantly as she threw her knife at Harry when he and Dobby
> disapperated from Malfoy mannor. ...

auriga79:

While very much a control freak, Bella would rather have died
herself than go against LV's directive -- which was to keep
Harry Potter alive. Dobby, on the other hand, she considered
a "dirty little monkey"; in other words, a base animal that
could no longer be controlled or trusted. So, Bella was actually
aiming to kill Dobby, not Harry, and when she threw that knife
at the elf, she did so with all the hatred and rage she could
muster.



From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 04:44:11 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:44:11 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fk6b3e+in7q@eGroups.com>
References: <fk6b3e+in7q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4767501B.1070100@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179938

Alicia wrote:
> I hated that Molly killed Bellatrix! Harry should have to get
> back at her for killing Sirius, 

Carol responds:
> The privilege of killing? You make it killing for revenge sound
> like some sort of reward.

alicia responds:

> I am entitled to my opinion ... I wanted badly to see Harry
 > kill her. Or Neville.

Yes, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. Sure, it would have 
been "poetic justice" for Harry or Neville to dispatch Bellatrix. 
However, I think I'm with Carol on this one. Killing may be a necessity, 
it may be an unavoidable duty, it may even, on occasion, be a relief. 
But it is never something we should desire, for any reason.

Yes, we are inundated with the message. When's the last time you've seen 
a movie in which the bad guy was arrested and sent to prison? Not good 
enough -- bad guys must die.

But I, for one, find the concept of poetic justice troubling, because it 
speaks much more to the poetic than it does to justice. Sure, there are 
good reasons (if there CAN be any good reasons) for Harry or Neville to 
want Bella dead. But any outcome intended to assuage feelings is 
perilous. In the end, I think poetic justice is a closer cousin to 
revenge than it is to jurisprudence.

Yeah, you're right. Give JKR a break -- it's just a story, for Pete's 
sake. But I tend to be of the opinion that our tastes in entertainment 
are clues to who we are as individuals.

> I feel like JkR left too many loose ends, was ultimately
> disorganized, and contradicts herself too many times throughout the
> series.

On this point, I agree. Even for the loose ends she did manage to tie 
up, the knots too often felt contrived. And DH was a model of 
disorganization. Too bad. I really enjoyed most of the series.

CJ



From kavi.0190 at yahoo.co.in  Tue Dec 18 07:56:08 2007
From: kavi.0190 at yahoo.co.in (kavi.0190)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:56:08 -0000
Subject: Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS:  Re: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <218656.2224.qm@web52811.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fk7ueo+knjb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179939

> Bob:
> Maybe so, I really do see the reasoning, but did Harry ever
> really 'kill' anyone?  No forbidden curses, all disarming,
> stunning, binding etc.
>
> Maybe she just did not want to have Harry kill anyone, keep
> him sort of pure?

kavi:

Yeah right.

Molly just would have wanted Harry to stay
pure.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 08:20:24 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Kai Wen Lee)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:20:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Newsweek says Deathly Hallows Best Book of the Year (NOT)
Message-ID: <814794.11357.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179940

Just wanted to point out that Newsweek does not call DH the best book of the year. The article is subtitled simply "Our critic chooses 15 of his favorite books from 2007".

CJ



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 10:37:08 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:37:08 -0000
Subject: Newsweek says Deathly Hallows Best Book of the Year (NOT)
In-Reply-To: <814794.11357.qm@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fk87sk+bqca@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179941

> CJ:
> Just wanted to point out that Newsweek does not call DH the best 
> book of the year. The article is subtitled simply "Our critic 
> chooses 15 of his favorite books from 2007".

Goddlefrood:

Given that this is the case one has to wonder how many books this 
critic had read throughout the year, 15 perhaps?





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 14:07:13 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:07:13 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk68uv+ada5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk8k6h+24n9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179942

> >>Betsy_Hp
> > What I *am* saying is that Harry never clearly states that there 
> > is magic he just will not use.
> > <snip>

> >>Pippin:
> But he does! "I won't blast people out of my way just because
> they're there," said Harry. "That's Voldemort's job." (DH 5)

Betsy Hp:
Harry's talking about stunning people who are far up enough in the 
air that the fall will kill them as well as AKs.  So this passage 
actually proves my point: this battle between Harry and Voldemort has 
nothing to do with a specific form of magic.

> >>Pippin:
> Harry will find this statement hard to live up to. But he makes
> it. And giving up the EW proves he means it, IMO. 

Betsy Hp:
I don't think the Elder Wand proves anything.  Harry can stun or AK 
with his regular wand.   The brother wand of Voldemort's for that 
matter, which drives home even more (IMO) that the battle is not 
about magic.

> >>Pippin:
> Who ever had a relationship of equals with Dumbledore? And
> what's that got to do with friendship anyway?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  So yes, Dumbledore is not your go-to-guy for an 
example of a friendship between a Gryffindor and a Slytherin. <eg>

> >>Pippin:
> But as for Lily and Snape, oh my very dear: a relationship of equals
> is just what they did have, IMO. That was their ruin.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, no they weren't.  Lily never begged Snape for forgiveness.  And 
their friendship started to unravel the moment they got sorted into 
different houses.  It did not survive the seperation.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Where does it say that Harry put aside the Elder Wand because he 
> > was worried about using dark magic?  Where do we see Harry       
> > frightened by his use of dark magic?

> >>Pippin:
> He calls it "the world's most dangerous wand." He doesn't like the 
> way that Ron and Hermione look at it with reverence. (DH 36)

Betsy Hp:
But there's nothing said specifically about dark magic.  And since 
dark magic is so ill defined within the series, I really need to see 
a specific reference made or I cannot follow the link.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> He's been told that Dumbledore made it difficult for himself to
> interfere in wizarding affairs -- more difficult than it would have
> been if he'd been Minister of Magic, anyway. 
> It all goes to show that choosing what's right instead of what is   
> easy isn't only making yourself do what's right when you know it   
> will be difficult. It's stopping yourself from doing what's easy   
> before you've considered whether it would be right. Putting aside   
> the wand shows that Harry absorbed the lesson.

Betsy Hp:
Okay.  But again, none of this has anything to do with dark magic.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Where in canon does it say that Voldemort can't feel remorse?
> <snip> 

Betsy Hp:
All those times he doesn't feel any. <g>  Even as an innocent child 
he has no remorse for those he's tortured.  (Seriously, JKR gave him 
so many of the characteristics of a budding serial killer.  I'd been 
expecting to meet a little boy who was about to be led wrong. Instead 
we met a child who just *was* wrong.  And about to enter a world 
least equipped to handle him.)

> >>Pippin:
> > This book is about Harry learning that there needs to be a       
> > change, that fighting evil isn't just a matter of getting rid of 
> > the psychos/dark wizards.
> > <snip>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Where does Harry learn that?
 
> Pippin:
> Mostly in OOP, where Dumbledore explains that the golden fountain
> is a lie, that Kreacher is what wizards made him, that wizards have
> exploited and oppressed their fellow creatures for too long, and    
> they are now paying a price for it.

Betsy Hp:
So in DH Harry makes Kreacher into the perfect slave, and exploits 
one of his fellow creatures.  His price is his happy little 
afterwords.  Pretty grim. <g>

> >>Pippin:
> Harry didn't really understand it then. He thought  Sirius was     
> noble and deserved to be adored even by the House Elf he           
> mistreated. But in DH Harry learned better. 

Betsy Hp:
Harry became a very good slave owner, giving the poor dear little 
trinkets and the like.  Let that be a lesson to you, kids!  If your 
slave seems down, some baubles or beads along with a kind word will 
do wonders and they'll be back in the kitchen, scrubbing your floors 
in no time.  (Thanks, JKR!)
 
> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Hopefully  the rapidity with which their supposedly noble 
> society fell to Voldemort may have taught the WW something.
> <snip>
> We're shown that a change like that isn't made by magic. It's made
> by people learning from their mistakes.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I don't think we're shown that at all.  At least I don't see Harry 
*ever* confronting the idea that he made mistakes and that he needs 
to learn from them.  Anytime it seems like he's circling that way, 
JKR undermines the lesson by assuring Harry that no, he really is 
that perfect.

Example 1: In OotP, Harry feels guilty for assuming that he's a 
better leader than Ron and should have been made Prefect.  He seems 
to get the lesson that it's okay for your friends to be better than 
you at something and to get recognized for it.

And then Dumbledore comes along at the end and says, oh no, Harry you 
really *are* the better leader than Ron.  It was totally correct (and 
clever!) of you to doubt his being made Prefect.  I only did it 
because I just love you to bits and bits.

Example 2:  In DH Harry learns that Snape was on his side all along.  
One would presume the lesson would be that Harry should no longer 
decide if someone's on his side based on how well they like him.  But 
that's undermined before it even gets off the ground by the 
revelation that Snape really was a nasty, pathetic man, unhealthly 
obsessed by Harry's mother, totally cognizant of his own nasty 
pathetic-ness and so devoting his life to Harry's.  IOWs, Snape was 
barely a man to begin with.  

That along with a side helping of Zach Smith the great big coward 
reinforces the idea that only people who properly appreciate Harry 
(ie, think he's *wonderful*) are really on his side.

So no, I don't think Harry learns anything, I don't think these books 
teach anything (good), and I don't think anything changes at all in 
the WW.  Voldemort dies.  That is all.

Betsy Hp




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 15:56:56 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:56:56 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fk6v0m+c46a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk8qk8+i67n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179943

> > a_svirn:
> > I think it *is* about pure-blood mania, though. The great
> > showdown  between Harry and Voldemort is about "mastering Death",
> > yes. But the controversy between Slytherin and the other houses,
> > is about this pure-blood thing.
> 
> 
> Mike:
> Someone get the smelling salts, cuz this one is going to knock 
Betsy 
> over. I agree with Betsy! This whole fight wasn't over pure-
bloodism.
> 
> Voldemort was never about pure-bloods. How could he be, he wasn't 
one 
> and he was the greatest wizard ever, just ask him. In the first 
book 
> Quirrell told us who Voldemort was; "There is no good and evil, 
there 
> is only power, and those too weak to seek it..." <PS/SS p. 291, US> 
> There is no room for pure-bloodism in that equation. 
> 
> Voldemort used pure-blood mania as a red herring for his followers. 
<SNIP>

a_svirn:
Seems to me you are agreeing with me rather than with Betsy, because 
that' exactly what I said. *Voldemort* himself didn't give a ... 
well, straw about muggle-borns, but his followers (most of whom where 
Slytherins) did, very much so. Which is precisely why he needed that 
particular Red Herring. And that is what I meant: the fight with 
Voldemort was about that mad "wrong immortality" stuff, but the 
Hogwarts Houses controversy was about pure-bloodism. 




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 16:56:09 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:56:09 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS: Re: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <218656.2224.qm@web52811.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <218656.2224.qm@web52811.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <571af6b80712180856w49be8956t5eddcb961dd53eb@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179944

On Dec 15, 2007 9:44 PM, Bob Connors <bobjtc at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Maybe so, I really do see the reasoning, but did Harry ever really 'kill'
> anyone? No forbidden curses, all disarming, stunning, binding etc. Maybe she
> just did not want to have Harry kill anyone, keep him sort of pure
> ?
>

Harry performed two of the three Unforgivables -- crucio'ing Carrow in the
Gryffindor Commons, and tossing Imperios around Gringott's like Christmas
candy -- and attempted the third against Snape at the end of book six. Harry
was far from pure. Not even particularly admirable.

CJ


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Dec 18 16:56:16 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:56:16 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk8k6h+24n9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk8u3g+must@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179945

 
> Betsy Hp:
> Harry's talking about stunning people who are far up enough in the 
> air that the fall will kill them as well as AKs.  So this passage 
> actually proves my point: this battle between Harry and Voldemort has 
> nothing to do with a specific form of magic.

Pippin:
Why does 'dark magic' have to refer to a specific form of magic and
not to the purpose for which it is used? OOP is practically devoted
to establishing that the same spells are used for offense and defense,
and therefore Umbridge, in order to make sure that Dumbledore
can't raise an army of students against Fudge, has to ban the 
teaching of defensive spells. 
 
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > Harry will find this statement hard to live up to. But he makes
> > it. And giving up the EW proves he means it, IMO. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I don't think the Elder Wand proves anything.  Harry can stun or AK 
> with his regular wand. 

Pippin:
Yes, and if he does, there will be other wizards who can
stop him without having to master the Elder Wand first. 

> Betsy Hp:
> I totally agree.  So yes, Dumbledore is not your go-to-guy for an 
> example of a friendship between a Gryffindor and a Slytherin. <eg>

Pippin:
I'm really disturbed by this idea that friendships can only be between
equals.  The powerful can't be friends with the weak? And the very
weakest and the most powerful can't have any friends at all, can they.

How sad that would be! Although I suppose if you are beautiful
and happy and well-adjusted and yet, for some reason, haven't
got any friends, you can always console yourself that it's because
nobody is in your class. <veg>

> Betsy Hp:
> Yeah, no they weren't.  Lily never begged Snape for forgiveness.  And 
> their friendship started to unravel the moment they got sorted into 
> different houses.  It did not survive the seperation.

Pippin:
So why does Slughorn think that Harry has Lily's gift for potions? They
must have been working together for a while, if Snape shared his
secrets with her.  What their friendship didn't survive was Voldemort's 
gift for spreading enmity and discord. Or do you think it was Snape's 
idea to make calling people 'mudblood' popular and recruit gangs of 
teenagers to beat up muggleborns?


> Betsy Hp:
> But there's nothing said specifically about dark magic.  And since 
> dark magic is so ill defined within the series, I really need to see 
> a specific reference made or I cannot follow the link.

Pippin:
There is universal agreement that Voldemort is a dark wizard.
Harry gave a definitive statement distinguishing his kind of magic
from Voldemort's. When he defeated Voldemort,  Harry's definition 
was given weight by the fact that he was the one who succeeded 
where so many others had failed. 

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> All those times he doesn't feel any. <g>  Even as an innocent child 
> he has no remorse for those he's tortured.  (Seriously, JKR gave him 
> so many of the characteristics of a budding serial killer.  I'd been 
> expecting to meet a little boy who was about to be led wrong. Instead 
> we met a child who just *was* wrong.  And about to enter a world 
> least equipped to handle him.)

Pippin:
Yet Dumbledore, who is after all not the innocent old man Harry
thought  he was, is sure that the power of love can alter Riddle,
make him into something different. Riddle, being a wizard, has
other ways to perceive love besides feeling it. He knows it exists.

Riddle tells Dumbledore that he has never seen anything to prove 
that love has such power as he says, but Diary!Riddle acknowledges 
Lily's sacrifice  would be strong enough to save Harry from death.

Yet even after Harry survives, Riddle continues to
reject love. In the WW that's a choice, not bad brain chemistry.

> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > > This book is about Harry learning that there needs to be a       
> > > change, that fighting evil isn't just a matter of getting rid of 
> > > the psychos/dark wizards.
> > > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> So in DH Harry makes Kreacher into the perfect slave, and exploits 
> one of his fellow creatures.  His price is his happy little 
> afterwords.  Pretty grim. <g>
> 
Pippin:
Talk about leaps! If we had Neville's thoughts for that night, they
might have been about seeing Mum and maybe she'd give him a 
gum wrapper.  And would that prove that Rowling is advocating
insanity and Neville is now the poster child for catatonia? 
Puh-leeze!

Kreacher is old, he's been ill for a long time, he's very like
Neville's parents in that he'd be a danger to himself if he
was freed. Harry was keeping that 'trinket' as you call it,
because it had huge sentimental value to him as well. It
was a meaningful gift, just like the gum wrapper. 

Lockhart derives some satisfaction from signing his
autograph in joined up letters, and Gladys Gudgeon no doubt is
very happy to get them. Should she be prevented from doing so
because Lockhart can't be properly compensated?
 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Harry became a very good slave owner, giving the poor dear little 
> trinkets and the like.  Let that be a lesson to you, kids!  If your 
> slave seems down, some baubles or beads along with a kind word will 
> do wonders and they'll be back in the kitchen, scrubbing your floors 
> in no time.  (Thanks, JKR!)

Pippin:
Er, really? JKR is addressing herself to kids who own slaves? 


> 
> Betsy Hp:
> 
> And then Dumbledore comes along at the end and says, oh no, Harry you 
> really *are* the better leader than Ron.  It was totally correct (and 
> clever!) of you to doubt his being made Prefect.  I only did it 
> because I just love you to bits and bits.

Pippin:
Another leap.
Dumbledore never says that Harry would have made a better
prefect than Ron. He never says that Harry would be a better leader.
He only says that Harry may have been wondering why he wasn't
made prefect and the reason was that Harry had enough burdens
already. Harry was, in other words, not kept from the job because
he wasn't qualified. That says nothing about whether Ron was as
qualified as he.

Betsy_Hp
> Example 2:  In DH Harry learns that Snape was on his side all along.  
> One would presume the lesson would be that Harry should no longer 
> decide if someone's on his side based on how well they like him.  But 
> that's undermined before it even gets off the ground by the 
> revelation that Snape really was a nasty, pathetic man, unhealthly 
> obsessed by Harry's mother, totally cognizant of his own nasty 
> pathetic-ness and so devoting his life to Harry's.  IOWs, Snape was 
> barely a man to begin with.  

Pippin:
I don't get this. The nastier and more pathetic Snape is, the stronger
the lesson that even a nasty pathetic person can be on your side.
The people Harry thought were nasty really were nasty. Harry's got a 
handle on nasty. The Dursleys made sure of that. What he didn't know 
was that nasty people could be worthy of honor, respect and positions
of power. He learned that. 


Pippin




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 17:10:35 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:10:35 -0000
Subject: Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS: Re: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <571af6b80712180856w49be8956t5eddcb961dd53eb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fk8uub+fc15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179946

CJ:
> Harry performed two of the three Unforgivables -- crucio'ing Carrow 
in the
> Gryffindor Commons, and tossing Imperios around Gringott's like 
Christmas
> candy -- and attempted the third against Snape at the end of book 
six. Harry
> was far from pure. 

Alla:

Sure, but he did not kill anyone and consciously tried not to - in my 
book that counts for something.

CJ:
Not even particularly admirable.

Alla:

That's your opinion. I do not need him to be pure to be admirable. In 
my 
opinion he tried to do right thing enough times to admire him for 
that. He failed a lot too of course.

JMO.

Alla.




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 18:51:13 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:51:13 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk6jdp+55rd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk94r1+rpsb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179947

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <SNIP
> > Harry had options *other* than killing. That's why I think the   
> > fact that Harry doesn't kill is something that sounds pretty      
> > while at heart means little to nothing (ie weasel words). I've    
> > never killed. But it's not something I'd point to as a remark on 
> > my character.
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> But there is no maniac after you, right? I mean no evil overlord 
> wants to kill you, etc? And you do not participate in battles where 
> you have to fight for your life?
> <snip>
> But if you know that evil maniac and his gang are after you and you 
> are fighting for your life AND for the life of WW, AND they are    
> ready to kill you and you stun them instead, oh yeah, I consider it 
> to be very special.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Specially stupid. <rbg>  I don't admire Harry for his decision to not 
kill.  I felt it was pasted on morality that only worked because the 
author was on his side.  There was no honest examination of Harry's 
decision, IMO, because Harry was never put into a position where his 
deciding not to kill would lead to another's death.  So you have this 
kid (this incredibly not bright kid, at that) deciding to take on an 
evil wizard and he's tied both hands behind his back.  (And also his 
legs, but we're not talking about Harry's inability to play well with 
others. <g>)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I think the Trio does what benefits them personally. And,        
> > fortunately, what benefits them personally also benefits the WW.

> >>Alla:
> I guess what benefits the Trio is to drop out of school and to go   
> on wild goose search for horcruxes and hallows. I guess what also 
> benefits them is getting captured and tortured by DE and in the 
> meantime almost killed by snake lady. Oh, and of course what       
> benefits Ron and Hermione is to leave their families as well. Yeah, 
> sorry, I do not see any personal benefits for Trio in anything they 
> did in book 7.

Betsy Hp:
And I did. <g>  School wasn't a refuge for Harry or the muggle-born 
Hermione.  Ron's family wasn't going to be safe in a Voldemort run 
world either.  Harry's hunt for the hallows was a purely selfish 
desire to better understand a dead guy who'd meant a lot to him.  And 
his hunt for the horcruxes, while a benefit to his world, also helped 
him seek vengence on the guy who killed his parents.  (Hmm, I will 
say Dumbledore did a bit of a mind-whammy on Harry and confused him 
about the hallows.  Harry may have thought his hunt for them would 
also bring about Voldemort's downfall.  But still, that's to Harry's 
benefit.)

I'm not saying that what benefited the Trio didn't also benefit their 
world.  But I am saying I didn't seem them do things for others that 
they did not see a gain in it for them as well. 

> >>Alla:
> The only reason I responded is because I wanted to disagree about 
> Monette's characters being better people than Trio. I know you do   
> not care for Trio, I am not trying to change your mind. I mean I   
> cannot help but disagree with your interpretation of their actions, 
> but as I said the only reason why I bothered is because of          
> Monette's characters thing.
> <snip>
> Trio on the other hand to me is ordinary kids thrown in             
> extraordinary circumstances. As I said, I value friendship very     
> much and I truly would be honored and proud to have friends like    
> them, that's all.

Betsy Hp:
I honestly do think that as characters, Felix and Mildmay are more 
real than the Trio.  But I also think they're just plain old better 
people.  They live in a harsher world, but despite that, they've 
shown more kindness, selflessness and compassion than I've seen out 
of Harry, certainly Hermione, and even Ron.

Betsy Hp




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 19:14:01 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:14:01 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fk6v0m+c46a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk965p+subg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179948

> >>Mike:
> We know so little about the founders. Therefore this post will be 
> heavy on speculation.
> Do you really think Godric Gryffindor befriended Salazar Slytherin 
> for reasons of expediency?
> <massive snip>
> So what am I trying to say? That Salazar's opinion may not have    
> been singular with regards to Muggleborns. That there could have    
> been a pervasive attitude of the times that fostered a fear of     
> Muggles and Muggleborns. That legend superceded reality when it    
> came to Slalzar's CoS. Basilisks aren't only Mudblood killers.      
> Legend conflated the CoS with Salazar's perceived pure-bloodism.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, Mike.  I had theories. Beautiful, beautiful theories.  And now 
they're *crap*! <rbg>  That was back in the day that I thought the 
rift between Slytherin and Gryffindor was something that needed to be 
dealt with.  Since it seems it was never meant to be I have no idea 
*why* Gryffindor and Slytherin were ever friends.  Cynically, I've 
determined it was mainly to get that particular house into the school 
in the first place.  You know, to provide bad guys. <g>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I mean, I doubt the Sorting Hat's song will have changed much when
> > it comes time to define the houses.  Slytherin will still be the
> > house of the ambitious, cunning and bigoted.
> > <snip>

> >>Mike:
> Keep them smelling salts handy, for the most part I agree again. 
> Ambition and Cunning are characteristics that the Sorting Hat looks 
> for. Bigotry is not.

Betsy Hp:
Doesn't one of the Sorting Hat's songs mention something about 
Slytherins being those whose blood is the "purest"?  Either way...

> >>Mike:
> It is a learned trait that seems endemic to the type of families   
> that favor the Slytherin credo.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's true.  And therefore I see nothing changing.  I mean, 
Dumbledore didn't even make the attempt, so I kind of get the idea 
that it's not possible.  In this world if you're a bigot at age 
eleven, then a bigot you shall remain.  You know, so that we can have 
bad guys. <eg>

> >>Mike:
> <snip>
> Maybe Draco, with his bad experiences under the thumb of Voldemort, 
> will have come to understand that pure-bloodism led him into that 
> morass. So maybe he will have changed his tune when it came to 
> teaching Scorpius what credos are worth following. That is where I 
> garner hope for the future of the WW. Not from what Harry learned 
> during his quest, from what Draco learned during his time in 
> purgatory.

Betsy Hp:
Or, he may have decided that what comes from trusting a half-blood. 
<veg>  I just get the impression that Draco isn't a character who 
learns much.  He's just one more bad guy for Harry to pit himself 
against, but not a living, breathing character in his own right who 
suffers and grows.  I think purgatory is his place.

Betsy Hp (enjoyed the agreement and the smelling salts! <g>)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 19:20:01 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:20:01 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk94r1+rpsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk96h1+3ab0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179949

Betsy Hp:
Specially stupid. <rbg> I don't admire Harry for his decision to not
kill. I felt it was pasted on morality that only worked because the
author was on his side. There was no honest examination of Harry's
decision, IMO, because Harry was never put into a position where his
deciding not to kill would lead to another's death. So you have this
kid (this incredibly not bright kid, at that) deciding to take on an
evil wizard and he's tied both hands behind his back. (And also his
legs, but we're not talking about Harry's inability to play well with
others. <g>)


Alla:

Well, that's major difference between your position and mine. Because 
I do admire Harry for his decision not to kill.

What does it mean his deciding not to kill would lead to another's 
death? I am talking about Harry deciding to spare people, whom he 
could not spare if he chose so. To me it is admirable.

You mean that nobody was dead because Harry spared somebody or do you 
mean something different?

Only in that situation you would respect Harry for not killing???

Betsy Hp:
And I did. <g> School wasn't a refuge for Harry or the muggle-born
Hermione. Ron's family wasn't going to be safe in a Voldemort run
world either. Harry's hunt for the hallows was a purely selfish
desire to better understand a dead guy who'd meant a lot to him. And
his hunt for the horcruxes, while a benefit to his world, also helped
him seek vengeance on the guy who killed his parents. (Hmm, I will
say Dumbledore did a bit of a mind-whammy on Harry and confused him
about the hallows. Harry may have thought his hunt for them would
also bring about Voldemort's downfall. But still, that's to Harry's
benefit.)

I'm not saying that what benefited the Trio didn't also benefit their
world. But I am saying I didn't seem them do things for others that
they did not see a gain in it for them as well.

Alla:

Yes, I got that from your earlier argument ? you are saying that Trio 
did selfish things that also benefited WW. And I am asking what 
exactly Trio got for themselves during horcruxes hunt and hallow hunt 
that benefited them first and foremost? Hermione would have much 
preferred to stay in Hogwarts and study, no? Ron would have at least 
preferred to be with his family, not in the forest. They did it to 
support Harry, so what is selfish about it?

I find the idea that Harry's horcrux hunt is selfish mind boggling 
and do not even know how to reply to it. I mean, he puts himself in 
the face of death and this is selfish?

I guess I want to know what did Trio get for themselves during book 7 
What personal benefits?

Betsy Hp:
I honestly do think that as characters, Felix and Mildmay are more
real than the Trio. But I also think they're just plain old better
people. They live in a harsher world, but despite that, they've
shown more kindness, selflessness and compassion than I've seen out
of Harry, certainly Hermione, and even Ron.

Alla:

They would not stop before taking a life, if they need it to help 
themselves. Sorry, not my idea of the better people. And if Mildmay 
really did not want to be a killer, I think he should have tried 
harder not to kill.

He is oh so very upset, but he kills on the ship anyways, no? He was 
not even in the mortal danger, or am I mixing things up now? But he 
is well, upset. Harry on the other hand, does not want to 
do "Voldemort's job"

I am just again cannot put in my mind the idea that killer and 
emotional abuser of somebody who seemed to love them so much (IMO) 
are better people than Trio. They are great characters, sure, but 
better "people"? Not to me.

But I think I am starting to parrot myself.  I will try to restrain 
my fingers from next reply, since I think we are entering tennis 
match zone.





From jaschenk at hotmail.com  Tue Dec 18 19:03:25 2007
From: jaschenk at hotmail.com (jaschenka)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:03:25 -0000
Subject: BPoM*
In-Reply-To: <fk72gl+f2v9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk95ht+lcfe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179950

> >Worst Piece of Magic.
> >
> Aussie: (mainly they serve no other need than to get JKR out of a
> plot crisis - never used after nor spoken of being used before)
>
> 2. Time Turner: It is almost like JKR got to the end of the book,
> then realised Harry couldn't make the stag straight away, and wanted
> him to have more time and motivation, so editted POA to include
> Hermione's extra classes to write in something never to be used again.


Jaschenka:
Were the time turners not destroyed at the end of 'the Order of the
Phoenix'? In the fight at the ministry.





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 01:07:20 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:07:20 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fk965p+subg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fk9qs8+c1lj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179951


> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, Mike.  I had theories. Beautiful, beautiful theories.  And now 
> they're *crap*! <rbg>  That was back in the day that I thought the 
> rift between Slytherin and Gryffindor was something that needed to 
> be dealt with.  Since it seems it was never meant to be I have no 
> idea *why* Gryffindor and Slytherin were ever friends.

Mike:
I guess since I enjoyed the series *including* the finale so much 
more than you, I still want to explore these kind of things. That 
was one of the things I enjoyed about JKR's writing, she's left it 
to me explore aspects of the characters and entertain myself with 
speculating about what happened, after providing me with the basics.

I got the founders, then I got the Gaunts, then I got the Peverell 
brothers. From there, I got to piece together what felt like the 
most plausible backstory on my own. I feel like I understand the 
characters and the story well enough to make an educated guess for 
that backstory.

BTW, is <rbg> "really big grin"? Or "received bad genomes"? ;)


> Betsy Hp:
> Cynically, I've determined it was mainly to get that particular
> house into the school in the first place.  You know, to provide 
> bad guys. <g>

Mike:
Worked, didn't it! <g>



> Betsy Hp:
> Doesn't one of the Sorting Hat's songs mention something about 
> Slytherins being those whose blood is the "purest"?  Either way...

Mike:
Ah yes, the Hat's infamous call for pure-bloods. Excepting, all 
pure-bloods don't go into Slytherin. And excepting at least two 
half-bloods did get in. Now Riddle was a descendant, so I suppose 
he had to go into Slytherin. But young Severus wasn't and he got in.

Now that I think on it, didn't Sirius say that all the pure-blood 
families are somehow related. So wouldn't every pure-blood have some 
ties to Salazar. It seems Harry did through Ignotus Peverell, and 
Harry's only half-blood. What made Tom Riddle's blood connection so 
special?

It seems the Hat's practice didn't match that particular stanza 
quite so strictly. And in any case, being a pure-blood did not 
necessarily make one a bigot. Howsoever, it seemed having Slytherin 
parents was a good indicator of a propensity towards bigotry. And if 
that didn't do it, living in Slytherin House for seven years would 
probably remove all your inhibitions for using the word "Mudblood".

Still, that's a cultural thing, not a characteristic for sorting.



> > Mike:
> > [Bigotry] is a learned trait that seems endemic to the type of 
> > families that favor the Slytherin credo.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> That's true.  And therefore I see nothing changing.  I mean, 
> Dumbledore didn't even make the attempt, so I kind of get the idea 
> that it's not possible.  In this world if you're a bigot at age 
> eleven, then a bigot you shall remain.  You know, so that we can 
> have bad guys. <eg>

Mike:
I'm not too hot on our dear departed headmaster just now, so don't 
expect me to defend him too vigorously. Truthfully, I can't figure 
out what he did to "[help] hone young minds" from up there in his 
passworded hideaway. Other than Harry's of course, he had to keep 
his fingers on those strings. He certainly didn't seem to be making 
an effort to curb the enthusiastic urges of the more dark leaning 
amongst his charges.

That said, yeah, JKR needed bad guys. And Slytherin fit the bill. 
And if you're a bigot at age eleven, it's up to you to see the error 
of your ways. I remember using some very bigoted terms when I was in 
elementary school, they were part nad parcel of our normal speech 
growing up. But I learned to stop using those terms. Also, I learned 
that those terms were derogatory, not descriptive nor predictive. 
Along the way, I've made many friends amongst the same group that I 
used to callously write off in my youth. 

That's what the Dracos had not learned. Maybe the Scorpiuses will 
learn it. 


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179943

>> a_svirn:
Seems to me you are agreeing with me rather than with Betsy, because
that' exactly what I said. *Voldemort* himself didn't give a ...
well, straw about muggle-borns, but his followers (most of whom where
Slytherins) did, very much so. Which is precisely why he needed that
particular Red Herring. And that is what I meant: the fight with
Voldemort was about that mad "wrong immortality" stuff, but the
Hogwarts Houses controversy was about pure-bloodism. <<

Mike:
Sorry, I guess I confused who was saying what. I think I'm partially 
agreeing with both of you, because I don't think you're too far apart 
on this topic. Possibly, Betsy thought the school rivalries weren't 
pure-bloodism based and you countered that hypothesis? I'd say that 
the displayed bigotry of the Slytherins definitely played a part in 
the school animosities. It was not the only thing, though. Between 
Harry and Draco, I'd say that personality had as much bearing on 
their enmity as Draco's pure-blood leanings. I also think that early 
on, Harry rightfully perceived Draco's willingness to join Team 
Voldemort. That wasn't helpful in forging friendly ties. ;)


> Betsy Hp:
> Or, he may have decided that what comes from trusting a half-blood.
> <veg>  I just get the impression that Draco isn't a character who 
> learns much.  He's just one more bad guy for Harry to pit himself 
> against, but not a living, breathing character in his own right who
> suffers and grows.  I think purgatory is his place.

Mike:
I think Draco learned alot during his time in purgatory (under LV's 
thumb). He was certainly depicted as being disgusted with what he was 
being made to do. He seems quite removed from that boastful boy on 
the train in HBP. Whether he's learned that pure-bloodism is a false 
prophet, eh, who can say? He seemed to be bright enough to realize 
that his parents chosen path wasn't the best way to go. I suppose I'm 
counting on him to be able to add 2 + 2 and make it all the way to 4.

I do think the thrust of the story was the defeat of ole snakeface, 
and that that removed a mighty big temptation for the bigots to act 
out their disfunctional yens. I'm hoping that all that disgust we saw 
on Draco's face foreshadowed his change of heart, not just his change 
of actions.



> Betsy Hp (enjoyed the agreement and the smelling salts! <g>)

Mike, can I get you a comfy cushion <g>




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 03:29:51 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:29:51 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fk69cv+lu13@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fka37g+93ac@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179952

> Montavilla47:
<snip>
> It is interesting that (almost) everyone keeps secrets in the 
series.  It's
> quite true and one of the most important things about the WW is 
that
> it be kept secret from the Muggles.  The defining document of the 
WW 
> is the "Statute of Secrecy" and the whole purpose of the Ministry 
is to
> enforce it.

lizzyben:

Yeah, the whole wizarding world is based on "secrets and lies", so 
it shouldn't be so surprising that everyone in it tells lies to 
others and themselves. I think alot of the wizarding world's 
dsyfunction is a result of that founding "statute of secrecy." The 
wizards basically hide themselves out of sight & ran away from the 
wider world. And in order to keep their society a secret, they've 
got to employ tons of "Oblivators" to erase the memories of all non-
wizarding people who happen to see something they shouldn't. When 
you think of it, Memory Charms are really a horrible thing to do to 
anyone - it erases your memory, your experiences, a part of your 
identity. It can even cause real brain damage if done incorrectly. 
(Jorkins). It's an awful thing to do to another human being; which 
is why it becomes easier for wizards to think of non-wizards 
as "Muggles", an inferior species. EVERYONE agrees that Muggles are 
inferior, & wizards superior; even Arthur Weasley takes a 
patronizing attitude towards those silly Muggles. 

And if they think of Muggles as inferior, they can also lie to 
themselves about something else. Wizards didn't *hide* from the 
Muggles, they didn't *run away*, oh no. They are just superior 
beings who chose not to associate with an inferior race. Wizards 
would never, ever run away! They are courageous, brave, noble, 
warriors! And so the obsession with courage & manliness arises as a 
kind of reaction formation to the fact that they basically ran 
screaming from the real world. So the WW as a whole begins operating 
on these fundamental neurotic bases - "We are superior, we are 
better, we are courageous". And then they start turning that 
viewpoint against each other. The whole Gryf/Slyth thing reads to me 
like Slytherin/pure-bloods saying "We're superior to YOU!" and 
Gryffindors saying, "no, WE'RE superior to YOU!" And so they get 
into this death match for superiority, on the Quidditch field or the 
battlefield. The idea of equality doesn't seem to occur to anyone. 

And I know that Gryffs are the good guys because they're not 
prejudiced against Muggle-borns, but that always seemed a bit 
bizarre to me, because they ARE prejudiced against Muggles. It's 
like someone telling an immigrant that they accept him, even though 
they think his foreign parents & family are a totally inferior 
species. Ugh. Prejudice against Muggles won't go away because the 
wizards have this deep-seated need to believe that they are superior 
to & stronger than Muggles; so the prejudice against Muggle-borns 
will remain as well. IMO the prejudice against Muggle-borns is a 
natural result of the way this society has been set up. It's 
inevitable & it won't go away. Because this is a society that is 
rotten at its core, created and based upon a foundation of secrecy & 
lies. 


lizzyben




From snapes_witch at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 05:32:21 2007
From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:32:21 -0000
Subject: Why Harry did not kill Bella WAS:  Re: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fk7ueo+knjb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkaad5+odp0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179953

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kavi.0190" <kavi.0190 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Bob:
> > <snip>
> > Maybe she just did not want to have Harry kill anyone, keep
> > him sort of pure?
> 
> kavi:
> 
> Yeah right.
> 
> Molly just would have wanted Harry to stay
> pure.
>

Of course Bob can speak for himself, but I'll just bet the 'she' he's 
referring to is JKR! ;-)

Snape's Witch





From kavi.0190 at yahoo.co.in  Wed Dec 19 10:04:27 2007
From: kavi.0190 at yahoo.co.in (kavi.0190)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:04:27 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fjptrk+ck27@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkaqbb+87nq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179954

I hated the character of Dolores Umbridge. The way she made Harry
to write lines in the detention was really cruel...and she annoyed
me most when she told lies about the locket she took from Mundungus.
And having Mad Eye's eye stuck in  the door !!!!!!!! really bad !
And even Percy's character was a little annoying.

kavi.0190



From kavi.0190 at yahoo.co.in  Wed Dec 19 10:17:28 2007
From: kavi.0190 at yahoo.co.in (kavi.0190)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:17:28 -0000
Subject: Help! Quotes
In-Reply-To: <fiutfv+60ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkar3o+hs81@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179955

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jelly92784" <jelly92784@> wrote:
<SNIP>
> > I met the actors who play Fred and George at a theater for
> > the opening of the OOP movie and so I wanted a quote that
> > epitomized Fred and George too!

kavi.0190:

Well I might be posting a bit late here... but anyway thought
that I would make one.

I liked:

"Prefect!!! Thats everyone in our family!", Molly said.
"Who are me and Fred, next door nieghbours ?".



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Dec 19 11:42:06 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:42:06 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fkaqbb+87nq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkb02e+uct1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179956

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kavi.0190" <kavi.0190 at ...> wrote:
>
> I hated the character of Dolores Umbridge. The way she made Harry
> to write lines in the detention was really cruel...and she annoyed
> me most when she told lies about the locket she took from Mundungus.
> And having Mad Eye's eye stuck in  the door !!!!!!!! really bad !
> And even Percy's character was a little annoying.
> 
> kavi.0190
>

Geoff:
I woul disagree with you about listing Dolores Umbridge as your MAC* 
nominee. 

Why? Because that is for the most annoying character and Umbridge 
is just beyond annoying. Perhaps we should have a subset -  MLC* - 
Most loathsome character.

By the way, anyone know why the asterisk is there?




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Dec 19 13:09:13 2007
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:09:13 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fkb02e+uct1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkb55p+4ckg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179957

kavi.0190 wrote:
> > I hated the character of Dolores Umbridge. 
 
Geoff:
> I woul disagree with you about listing Dolores Umbridge as your 
> MAC* nominee. 
> 
> Why? Because that is for the most annoying character and Umbridge 
> is just beyond annoying. Perhaps we should have a subset -  MLC* - 
> Most loathsome character.

SSSusan:
Most loathesome character -- good one!  I wonder how many nominees 
we'd get beyond Dear Dolores, Moldy Voldy and Trixie, though?  Maybe 
Vernon Dursley?  I'm sure someone would nominate my beloved twins, 
too.  I'd probably go with Dolores myself.  


Geoff: 
> By the way, anyone know why the asterisk is there?

SSSusan:
Sure.  I do.  When I started this thread, I put MAC* in the subject 
line and then began the post with what the acronym stood for:
*Most Annoying Character

:)

Siriusly Snapey Susan






From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 13:22:43 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MLC
In-Reply-To: <fkb55p+4ckg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <968811.50091.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179958

cubfanbudwoman <susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:          kavi.0190 wrote:
> > I hated the character of Dolores Umbridge. 

Geoff:
> I woul disagree with you about listing Dolores Umbridge as your 
> MAC* nominee. 
> 
> Why? Because that is for the most annoying character and Umbridge 
> is just beyond annoying. Perhaps we should have a subset - MLC* - 
> Most loathsome character.

SSSusan:
Most loathesome character -- good one! I wonder how many nominees 
we'd get beyond Dear Dolores, Moldy Voldy and Trixie, though? Maybe 
Vernon Dursley? I'm sure someone would nominate my beloved twins, 
too. I'd probably go with Dolores myself. 

   
  ***Katie:
  I just love all these threads! OK, Most Loathsome Character...
   
  Umbridge definitely makes my short list. She's just vile. I have to say, however, that she is one of my absolute favorite characters to read. I love her sickeningly sweet veneer and her robot-like devotion to the MoM, and her truly black and evil soul. I love her tittering laugh and her froggy face. In the Medium the Must Not be Named, I thought the filmakers nailed her, and I love every minute she's on screen. So, while she's undoubtedly loathsome, she's the character I love to hate!
   
  Bellatrix Lestrange would be number two for me. And unlike Umbridge, I just flat out hate her. Her fawning over Voldemort made me sick, and her delight in death and cruelty was abjectly horrible to me. I find her the ultimate bully - a coward, a follower, someone with little or no mind of their own. I really find her Loathsome with a capitol "L".
   
  And topping out the top three would probably be Luna Lovegood's father, whose first name escapes me at the moment. I just thought he was disgusting. There's nothing I hate more than a traitor. And after all those years running the Quibbler and taking on the MoM...he just gives in and gives up Harry and Hermione (was Ron there?) for dead. It made me nauseus. He was so weak and pathetic. I know his daughter was missing, and possibly dead, but he couldn't have thought that Luna would relish the idea that he had given up her dearest friends to the forces of evil. I just found him the kind of guy I want to smack across the face and say,  "Get a backbone, man!" Blech. In thinking about it...I might actually hate him more than Bellatrix or Umbridge. 
   
  Fun game! I'll think of some others....: ) Katie 



  .

 
                         

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From salgal513 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 14:19:32 2007
From: salgal513 at yahoo.com (salgal513)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:19:32 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk94r1+rpsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkb99k+mcrk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179959

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, 
 
> Betsy Hp:
> And I did. <g>  School wasn't a refuge for Harry or the muggle-born 
> Hermione.  Ron's family wasn't going to be safe in a Voldemort run 
> world either.  Harry's hunt for the hallows was a purely selfish 
> desire to better understand a dead guy who'd meant a lot to him.  

snip 

>>Betsy Hp:
> > > I think the Trio does what benefits them personally. And,        
> > > fortunately, what benefits them personally also benefits the WW. 

snip 

> I'm not saying that what benefited the Trio didn't also benefit their 
> world.  But I am saying I didn't seem them do things for others that 
> they did not see a gain in it for them as well. 


So because they would have suffered under a WW ruled by Voldemort, you
consider their motives selfish? By your logic, it seems to me that
most people who go to war do it for selfish reasons. That does not
make their sacrifice worthless. 

Hermione could always go back and live as a Muggle for a while. She'd
hate it, I'm sure, but she could have gone to Australia with her
parents and waited it out. So I don't think she had to go horcrux
hunting with Harry and I think she did it at great personal sacrifice.
Ron could have stayed home. Sure, his family would suffer in the
Voldemort ruled world, but there are plenty of people who would suffer
under Voldemort. They weren't all out hunting for the horcruxes,
living in cold and hunger for the better part of a year. 


> Betsy Hp:
> I honestly do think that as characters, Felix and Mildmay are more 
> real than the Trio.  But I also think they're just plain old better 
> people.  They live in a harsher world, but despite that, they've 
> shown more kindness, selflessness and compassion than I've seen out 
> of Harry, certainly Hermione, and even Ron.

I haven't read any of the Monette book so I can't compare the two, but
Hermione isn't a kind or compassionate person? The girl who tried to
free the house elves, save Buckbeak and whose first scene was helping
poor hapless Neville find his toad. And "even Ron"? Does that mean
that you consider Ron to be the kindest, most selfless or
compassionate member of the trio? If so, I'd love to hear why, if you
feel like discussing it, because I don't interpret Ron that way at all
and I'm curious.

Sally











From s_ings at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 14:50:53 2007
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:50:53 -0000
Subject: Convention Alley 2008 Call for Papers
Message-ID: <fkbb4d+q713@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179960

Call for Papers

This international conference envisions bringing the Harry Potter
fandom together in the beautiful city of Ottawa to discuss J.K.
Rowling's novels with one another and with literary scholars. In
addition to keynote speakers and programming sessions presented by
fans and professionals, the convention will feature directed
discussion groups as well as informal opportunities for fans and
scholars to get to know one another and to enjoy the city of Ottawa.

The Canadian Programming Committee seeks proposals for presentations,
moderated panels and workshops on any topic relating to the Harry
Potter novels and/or their fan community. We strongly encourage
members of the fandom community to participate, and also welcome
submissions by members of the professional and academic communities.
While potential topics and suggested submissions are noted below to
get your creative juices flowing, we are interested in any and all
ideas - please do not feel limited by the potential topic areas or by
the examples of potential submissions!

Presenters should be at least 18 years old, as the conference
programming is intended for adults. However, participants are
encouraged to bring their families and many of the informal events
will be open to family members.

Programming Sessions
Potential programming session topics include, but are not limited to,
the following areas:

Characters in the Harry Potter series. Thanks to the myriad of
characters created by Rowling, there are innumerable opportunities
for presentations in this area. A submission might propose comparing
Draco Malfoy as he is portrayed in Rowling's canon vs. Malfoy as he
is known in fanfiction or a look at Severus Snape, probably Rowling's
most debated character.

Mythology in the Harry Potter series. Rowling draws heavily from
mythology in the series, from the three-headed dog Fluffy (based on
Cerberus who guarded the Underworld in Greek mythology) to names such
as "Argus" and "Narcissa". A submission might highlight the
characters that are based on mythology, explain their mythological
basis and provide a rationale for why Rowling chose to link those
characters with these specific myths.

Education in the Harry Potter universe. We invite teachers (and
administrators) in the fandom to compare their jobs to the ones held
by their analogs in the Harry Potter novels. Possible topics include
detailed analyses of Rowling's views on the state's role in
education, and how the teachers in Rowling's universe would fare in
the "real world".

Symbolism in the Harry Potter series. Proposals might explore how
Rowling uses symbols and metaphors to express her views and the goals
of the series. For example, submissions might analyze metaphors of
death ("beyond the veil") or symbols of Christ (the stag, the
phoenix, Harry's repeated resurrections).

Fandom Influences in the Harry Potter series. A proposal in this area
might review Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and
the Order of the Phoenix to identify instances where Rowling may have
responded to popular questions from the fandom (e.g., how to
pronounce "Hermione").

Understanding and Exploring British Terms in the Harry Potter novels.
For non-British readers, some of Rowling's British expressions and
terms are, well - foreign! A submission in this area might propose a
roundtable discussion run by British fans that would entertain
audience questions on dialects and British terms in the novels.

Theories Past and Present. Is your theory still valid now that canon
is closed or has it been blown out of the water? Are there still
topics open to speculation?

What would you have done? Are there parts of the story that left you
wondering? Parts of the story left unresolved? What would you have
changed, added or removed? How would those have benefited the
storyline?

The Programming Committee cannot stress enough that these topic areas
are merely suggestions. They should not, therefore, be interpreted in
any way as limitations on the subject matter of potential proposals.
Proposals on any and all facets of the Harry Potter fandom are
welcome and encouraged. The Committee only requests that your
proposal be respectful of the interests and views of others in the
fandom.

Time Blocks
Proposals should specify the estimated amount of time needed for
presentation and discussion.

Programming sessions will be held on Friday, June 20, and Saturday,
June 21. Our goal is to make all of the programming sessions as
interactive as possible. Accordingly, for individual presentations,
we suggest a planned presentation of between 30-45 minutes, followed
by a 30-minute audience participation session. This is a guideline,
however ? presenters are welcome to propose other ideas for
encouraging audience participation. Strictly lecture-based
presentations are discouraged, however. Accordingly, proposals must
include an outline for how audience participation will be solicited.

The suggested time period for moderated panels and workshops is
between one hour and 90 minutes. As with the individual
presentations, proposals for moderated panels should include a 30-
minute audience participation session.

A volunteer staff member will be present at each session to introduce
the presenter, assist with any technical difficulties and facilitate
the audience participation component.

Proposal Submissions
Proposals submitted via regular mail must be postmarked no later
than: February 15, 2008. Proposals submitted electronically must be
received by: February 28, 2008. Proposals may take the form of a 500
word abstract or a completed conference paper (approximately 5-7
pages). Any attachments must be in Microsoft Word to be readable.
Proposals should be sent via e-mail (preferred) or regular mail in
advance of the submission deadline to the following: E-Mail
submission: convention_alley at yahoo.ca Please use "Ottawa 2008
Programming Submission" in the subject line.

You may also mail your proposals to:

Convention Alley
Box 36004
1106 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON
K1Y 4V3
Canada

Proposal Evaluation
Proposals will be evaluated based on an assessment of the level of
interest conference participants will have in the topic area and the
originality of the ideas presented, as well as the use of correct
spelling and grammar.

Notification and Submission of Final Papers
We plan to notify presenters whose proposals are selected for
presentation at the convention during the week of week of March 17,
2008. We regret that, in order to keep conference fees as low as
possible, we are unable to fund presenters' registration, hotel
and/or travel costs, or provide any other form of remuneration.
Presenters will need to register for the conference at their own
expense when they confirm that they will present (confirmations must
be postmarked or e-mailed by March 31, 2008).

Presenters must submit their final completed paper in an electronic
format (either as a text file or in Word) to the above e-mail address
by April 30, 2008 (preferred) or by regular mail to the above address
by April 15, 2008. Completed papers sent by regular mail must be
submitted on a disk. All submissions will be edited for consistency
of style, acronym use, and correct punctuation and grammar.
Guidelines to ensure uniform style in the published proceedings will
be provided to each successful presenter when selection notifications
are issued. No changes will be made to submitted text without the
prior approval of the author.


ELFLY NOTE: Any discussion about Convention Alley or the Call for 
Papers should take place offlist or on the appropriate groups: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Convention/ or
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/




From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 16:18:03 2007
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:18:03 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fka37g+93ac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbg7r+7i20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179961

> lizzyben:
> And I know that Gryffs are the good guys because they're not 
> prejudiced against Muggle-borns, but that always seemed a bit 
> bizarre to me, because they ARE prejudiced against Muggles. It's 
> like someone telling an immigrant that they accept him, even though 
> they think his foreign parents & family are a totally inferior 
> species. Ugh. Prejudice against Muggles won't go away because the 
> wizards have this deep-seated need to believe that they are superior 
> to & stronger than Muggles; so the prejudice against Muggle-borns 
> will remain as well. IMO the prejudice against Muggle-borns is a 
> natural result of the way this society has been set up. It's 
> inevitable & it won't go away. Because this is a society that is 
> rotten at its core, created and based upon a foundation of secrecy & 
> lies. 

Montavilla47:
You're reminding me, Lizzyben, of a rumor that JKR had to squash 
early on--that the series would end with the Wizards doing away with
the Statute of Secrecy and reintegrating with the Muggle world.

I think that rumor may have started because that is the natural
happy ending, isn't it?  The bigotry can't really start to heal until the
Wizards and Muggles really start to mix together.  

I've heard people compare the Wizarding World to Apartheid, only instead
of living in gated communities, the Wizards live in even better than 
gated areas.  Their homes are so gated that they can't be seen.  Once
behind their wards, they don't have to even think about the Muggles as
anything but a possible source of groceries.  They don't even need to
let Muggles in to clean their toilets, because they have a slave race to
do this.

Harry, as a half-blood raised in the Muggle world would be a grand 
position to bring about positive change in the Wizarding world.  But,
of course, Harry has been conditioned to hate the Muggle world
because of his horrible family.  

Montavilla47




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 16:27:01 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:27:01 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fk9qs8+c1lj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbgol+sv5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179962

> > Betsy Hp:
> > Doesn't one of the Sorting Hat's songs mention something about 
> > Slytherins being those whose blood is the "purest"?  Either way...
> 
> Mike:
> Ah yes, the Hat's infamous call for pure-bloods. Excepting, all 
> pure-bloods don't go into Slytherin. And excepting at least two 
> half-bloods did get in. Now Riddle was a descendant, so I suppose 
> he had to go into Slytherin. But young Severus wasn't and he got in.

a_svirn:
How do you know he wasn't? And anyway, all Princes were in Slytherin. 
I suppose young Severus *wanted* to be a Slytherin and the Hat 
obliged. He certainly was eager to embrace the Slytherin ideology, 
his feelings to Lily notwithstanding.


> Mike: 
> Now that I think on it, didn't Sirius say that all the pure-blood 
> families are somehow related. So wouldn't every pure-blood have 
some 
> ties to Salazar. It seems Harry did through Ignotus Peverell, and 
> Harry's only half-blood. What made Tom Riddle's blood connection so 
> special?

a_svirn:
Harry is connected by blood only to Ignotus. The Gaunts were probably 
descendants from Cadmus (or Antioch, I don't remember which is 
which). That makes Harry *related* to the descendants of Slytherin, 
but does not make him one. There is a certain closeness (with Salazar 
Slytherin) by affinity, but not by consanguinity. And as 
Mephistopheles said "blood is a quite peculiar juice". It is 
certainly true in the WW. 

> Mike: 
> It seems the Hat's practice didn't match that particular stanza 
> quite so strictly. And in any case, being a pure-blood did not 
> necessarily make one a bigot. 

a_svirn:
It did and does, when it becomes a criterion for choosing one's 
house. 


> Mike:
Howsoever, it seemed having Slytherin 
> parents was a good indicator of a propensity towards bigotry. And 
if 
> that didn't do it, living in Slytherin House for seven years would 
> probably remove all your inhibitions for using the word "Mudblood".
> 
> Still, that's a cultural thing, not a characteristic for sorting.

a_svirn:
Since when "a characteristic for sorting" cannot be a cultural thing? 
And what thing it can be, if it comes to that? Natural? Hermione is 
highly intelligent, hardworking, loyal, ambitious, brave, cunning and 
ruthless. She has therefore "natural" characteristics of all the four 
houses. We know that the Hat offered her a choice between two of 
them. She did, however, choose Gryffindor, presumably because she 
*valued* bravery above all else. And this is not about "nature". Our 
character traits may be natural, but our values are to a very high 
degree culturally determined. Slytheins choose their House because 
they *value* their decent and scorn people of Muggle decent. 




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 16:48:05 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:48:05 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fka37g+93ac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbi05+mdov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179963

> lizzyben:
> And I know that Gryffs are the good guys because they're not 
> prejudiced against Muggle-borns, but that always seemed a bit 
> bizarre to me, because they ARE prejudiced against Muggles. It's 
> like someone telling an immigrant that they accept him, even though 
> they think his foreign parents & family are a totally inferior 
> species. Ugh. 

a_svirn:
It is not really comparable. In real life the inferiority of 
foreigners is an imaginary thing, a prejudice. In the world Rowling 
created the inferiority of Muggles is a fact of life. They can't do 
magic, and that's make them really inferior. Muggleborns, however, 
can do magic, and pretty impressive magic at that. So any allegations 
of their inferiority to pure-bloods are clearly the consequence of 
bigotry and xenophobia. 

It is like the belief in the existence of "natural slaves". In real 
life it's bigotry and prejudice ? all human slaves has always 
been "made", rather than "born". In the WW it's reality. In real life 
a couple of, say, "genuine Arians" cannot produce an Asian child, but 
in the WW two muggles can produce a witch or wizard. So it's often 
really difficult to say what kind of point Rowling is making. The 
only thing that seems pretty clear is that being anti-muggle-born is 
bad, because this attitude is based on the false premise. 





From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 17:17:47 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:17:47 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fkbg7r+7i20@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbjnr+oc2d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179964

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" 
<montavilla47 at ...> wrote:
>
> > lizzyben:
> > And I know that Gryffs are the good guys because they're not 
> > prejudiced against Muggle-borns, but that always seemed a bit 
> > bizarre to me, because they ARE prejudiced against Muggles. 

<<<SNIP>>>

 Prejudice against Muggles won't go away because the 
> > wizards have this deep-seated need to believe that they are 
superior to & stronger than Muggles; so the prejudice against Muggle-
borns will remain as well. IMO the prejudice against Muggle-borns is 
a  natural result of the way this society has been set up. It's 
inevitable & it won't go away. Because this is a society that is 
rotten at its core, created and based upon a foundation of secrecy & 
lies. 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> You're reminding me, Lizzyben, of a rumor that JKR had to squash 
> early on--that the series would end with the Wizards doing away 
with the Statute of Secrecy and reintegrating with the Muggle world.
> 
> I think that rumor may have started because that is the natural
> happy ending, isn't it?  The bigotry can't really start to heal 
until the Wizards and Muggles really start to mix together.  
> 
> I've heard people compare the Wizarding World to Apartheid, only 
instead of living in gated communities, the Wizards live in even 
better than gated areas.  Their homes are so gated that they can't 
be seen.  Once behind their wards, they don't have to even think 
about the Muggles as anything but a possible source of groceries.  
They don't even need to let Muggles in to clean their toilets, 
because they have a slave race to do this.
> 
> Harry, as a half-blood raised in the Muggle world would be a grand 
> position to bring about positive change in the Wizarding world.  
But, of course, Harry has been conditioned to hate the Muggle world
> because of his horrible family.  
> 
> Montavilla47
>


***Katie: I have such a hard time with this, because I truly do not 
believe that this is the message that JKR meant to send. I remember 
Hagrid saying that if Muggles knew about Wizards, then Muggles would 
always want a magical solution to their problems, and Wizards would 
forever just be doing magical chores for Muggles. I think Hagrid 
really believed that, and I think JKR did, too. I think she realized 
that the whole Statute of Secrecy thing needed an explanation, and 
that's what she came up with. I think she just needed a reason to 
not have a bunch of Muggles cluttering up the main story. So, 
basically, a plot device. 


All that being said...I agree. The prejudice against people that 
cannot do magic is pretty pervasive, and entirely acceptable. It's 
just understood that being able to do magic makes you a better 
person and you have more rights than those that can't do 
magic. "Ugh" is definitely what comes to mind when I really think 
about that. The attitude toward Squibs always bothered me - but I 
never thought about it in Muggle terms until I finished the series. 
It's definitely not an attitude that is positive. 


It also goes along with the "natural slavery" issue with House 
Elves, which absolutely sickens me. As I have posted before, I wish 
the House Elves had been entirely left out, rather than their 
resolution being that they're happy being enslaved. But that's 
another thread. 


I wish she had thought a little more about how these storylines 
would develop and how easily they could be interpreted into an 
approval of slavery and prejudice, because I am convinced that she 
did not intend those messages to come through. Unfortunately, she is 
sometimes a sloppy writer, and the result of poor plot devices is 
that they turn into poor messages. But I certainly don't believe 
that JKR intended to promote either slavery or prejudice. Katie




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 17:52:25 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:52:25 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fkbi05+mdov@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkblop+m11f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179965

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > lizzyben:
> > And I know that Gryffs are the good guys because they're not 
> > prejudiced against Muggle-borns, but that always seemed a bit 
> > bizarre to me, because they ARE prejudiced against Muggles. It's 
> > like someone telling an immigrant that they accept him, even 
though 
> > they think his foreign parents & family are a totally inferior 
> > species. Ugh. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> It is not really comparable. In real life the inferiority of 
> foreigners is an imaginary thing, a prejudice. In the world Rowling 
> created the inferiority of Muggles is a fact of life. They can't do 
> magic, and that's make them really inferior. 

lizzyben:

No, I don't accept that at all. JKR has made it quite clear, 
repeatedly, that the ability to do magic is all in the DNA & 
genetics. She's said that even Muggle-born wizards have some sort of 
a latent magic gene & wizarding ancestors somewhere in their 
bloodline. It's a genetic mutation, like having a mutation that 
creates deafness or a resistance to a certain disease. It's just that 
this mutation gives people the ability to do magic. So what? In 
another light, it seems to run in families in the same way that some 
talents seem to run in families. For example, some people seem to 
pick up playing the piano easily, & some people can't play a note. 
Does that make musical people *superior* to non-musical people? Of 
course not. And it certainly doesn't make non-musical people into an 
inferior race. It's the same way w/any genetic randomness, from blue 
eyes to small stature. Does having a mutation that gives a certain 
height or eye color make that person *superior*; or, worse, make 
people without that trait *superior* beings? Are people who inherit 
blue eyes, or deafness, or musical giftedness, or small height an 
inferior race of people? Of course not! We would never even think 
that way. Yet, this is how the entire wizarding world operates. It 
consists of people w/a certain genetic trait - who consider that this 
trait makes them SUPERIOR to all others. To the point where they 
consider people w/o this genetic trait to be an inferior race, and 
almost sub-human. That's eugenics, pure & simple. The scary thing to 
me is how easily JKR gets us to play along & even agree w/a worldview 
that operates on eugenics & a belief in genetic superiority. How did 
JKR ever get us to agree that Muggles are inherently "inferior"? 
WE'RE Muggles, people! Are these wizarding idiots superior to you? 
 
a_svirn:
Muggleborns, however, 
> can do magic, and pretty impressive magic at that. So any 
allegations 
> of their inferiority to pure-bloods are clearly the consequence of 
> bigotry and xenophobia. 

lizzyben:

And why do people have that bigotry & xenophobia against anyone w/a 
connection to Muggles? Because EVERYONE is bigoted against Muggles! 
EVERYONE has seperated themselves from Muggle society & begun to view 
Muggles as suspicious, inferior or incomprehensible "foreigners". So 
of course the bigotry/prejudice against Muggle-borns is connected to 
the bigotry against Muggles - it's a natural outgrowth of that 
bigotry. 

a_svirn:
> It is like the belief in the existence of "natural slaves". In real 
> life it's bigotry and prejudice ? all human slaves has always 
> been "made", rather than "born". In the WW it's reality. 


lizzyben:

Yes, let's not forget the race of natural slaves; who are quasi-
human, yet totally inferior to wizards & happy to serve. So it's not 
surprising that wizards begin to take that attitude towards different 
groups of actual humans that they don't understand. Those "muggles," 
so inferior, so not really human like us. Or Slytherins, or muggle-
borns, or any other group that becomes an inferior race to the 
wizards. And yeah, the belief in the existence of "natural slaves" 
was also a feature of eugenics & the Nazi party - it's just that JKR 
has created a world in which that false belief is true. 

a_svirn:
In real life 
> a couple of, say, "genuine Arians" cannot produce an Asian child, 
but 
> in the WW two muggles can produce a witch or wizard. So it's often 
> really difficult to say what kind of point Rowling is making. The 
> only thing that seems pretty clear is that being anti-muggle-born 
is 
> bad, because this attitude is based on the false premise.
>

lizzyben:

Is that Aryans or Asians? JKR has said that two muggles can produce a 
wizarding child only if those muggles have wizarding ancestors. It's 
all in the blood; the pure-bloods were right about that. There's no 
such thing as a true "muggle-born" - if you don't have a wizard 
ancestor somewhere in your bloodline, you can't ever be a wizard. And 
muggleborns like Dudley Durseley *can* potentially produce a 
wizarding child, if the good wizarding gene hasn't been overwhelmed 
by the bad Muggle gene. This is good blood/bad blood at its core. 
It's Aunt Marge's philosophy on bloodlines, made real. They just 
disagree on which genetic trait makes people inferior - Marge thinks 
that the Potter gene makes Harry inferior; JKR thinks that the 
Dursley gene makes Dudley inferior. But they both agree on the basic 
premise - some people are just bad blood.  

What's the false premise? That having Muggle parents makes someone 
inferior? But everyone agrees that Muggles are inferior - so why is 
that so false? How can it be true that Muggles are inferior, yet 
totally false to consider Muggle-born children inferior? I think 
that's the false, hypocritical position that our wizarding heros 
hold. Because wizards already consider themselves to be a superior 
race, so really it's hardly surprising that they look down on people 
who are descended from the inferior Muggle race. The only way to end 
prejudice against Muggle-borns is to end the prejudice, bigotry & 
superiority complex that wizards have against Muggles - but that 
doesn't seem to occur to anyone, least of all JKR.  

As to JKR's intent, I can't even begin to guess. But what I see is a 
world that reflects the exact opposite of the stated intent 
of "tolerance". In this world, we are asked to identify w/a society 
that considers themselves to be genetically superior to everyone 
else; who considers people w/o a specific genetic trait to be an 
inferior race, & almost less human then they are. Who believe that 
their genetic superiority gives them the right to erase the inferior 
race's memories, engage in some harmless taunting/teasing/choking of 
the inferior race, and at extremes to torment/kill members of the 
inferior race. Because the inferior race are "bad blood", and if they 
marry them, then that will taint the bloodlines & result in more 
children without their genetic superiority. Who have a race 
of "natural slaves" that are actually inferior beings, only fit to 
serve & wait upon their masters in the superior race. Who 
periodically wipe out other races (giants, etc.) that get in the way 
of the superior race. Oh, but the good members of the superior race 
don't discriminate against the randomly genetically-superior children 
of the inferior race, so that makes them tolerant & good. The 
wizarding world operates on a kind of eugenics & genetic superiority, 
very similar in fact to the eugenics preached by Nazis & others. This 
even while Deathly Hallows loudly preaches against the Nazis & 
bigotry.  In the same way that the bloodlines seem to operate much in 
line w/Aunt Marge's beliefs; while the same time that the books hate 
Aunt Marge. Silly Muggle, doesn't she realize that SHE'S 
the inferior one & HARRY's from the superior bloodline? It's Man and 
Superman here. Wizards are the ?bermensch - they all agree on that, 
and even get readers to agree on wizards' inherent genetic 
superiority. I choose to believe that the similarities must be an 
accident.



lizzyben




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 18:14:30 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:14:30 -0000
Subject: Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)
In-Reply-To: <fk8u3g+must@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbn26+3tvp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179966

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Harry's talking about stunning people who are far up enough in   
> > the air that the fall will kill them as well as AKs.  So this     
> > passage actually proves my point: this battle between Harry and   
> > Voldemort has nothing to do with a specific form of magic.

> >>Pippin:
> Why does 'dark magic' have to refer to a specific form of magic and
> not to the purpose for which it is used?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Because in this series it is so.  Simple as that. <g>

> >>Pippin:
> I'm really disturbed by this idea that friendships can only be     
> between equals.  The powerful can't be friends with the weak? And   
> the very weakest and the most powerful can't have any friends at   
> all, can they.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I can only say that I'd have a hard time considering someone my 
friend who catagorized themselves as "powerful" and myself 
as "weak".  And vice versa for that matter (talk about tiresome!).

However, yes, as long as a Slytherin recognizes that they are 
the "weaker" party then they can get along with a Gryffindor just as 
well as a house-elf or goblin who know their place.  But the pecking 
order most definitely stands.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But there's nothing said specifically about dark magic.  And     
> > since dark magic is so ill defined within the series, I really   
> > need to see a specific reference made or I cannot follow the link.

> >>Pippin:
> There is universal agreement that Voldemort is a dark wizard.
> Harry gave a definitive statement distinguishing his kind of magic
> from Voldemort's. When he defeated Voldemort,  Harry's definition 
> was given weight by the fact that he was the one who succeeded 
> where so many others had failed. 

Betsy Hp:
If you're referencing the previous quote that still doesn't work for 
me because, again, Harry deferentiated actions not magic.  If it's 
another statement of Harry's you have in mind, please share. <g>

Betsy Hp




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 18:30:22 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:30:22 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality  ...
In-Reply-To: <fk94r1+rpsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbnvu+dlkf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179967

--- "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > <SNIP
> > > Harry had options *other* than killing. That's why I 
> > > think the fact that Harry doesn't kill is something that
> > > sounds pretty while at heart means little to nothing ....
> > > I've never killed. 
> > > <snip>
> 
> > >>Alla:
> > But there is no maniac after you, right? ... And you do
> > not participate in battles where  you have to fight for 
> > your life?
> > <snip>

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Specially stupid. <rbg> I don't admire Harry for his decision
> to not kill. I felt it was pasted on morality that only 
> worked because the author was on his side. There was no honest
> examination of Harry's decision, IMO, because Harry was never
> put into a position where his deciding not to kill would lead
> to another's death.  ...
> 

bboyminn:

A couple of small items; in Harry's world they do not use guns,
they use the equivalent of Star Trek Phasers. When you fire 
a Phaser or wand, it's not 'shot or not shot', 'killed or not 
killed', it is not black and white, it is shades of gray. 

If the police, soldiers, and even criminals had 'guns' that 
could be set to Annoy, Harass, cause Pain, Stun, cause Injury,
or Kill I seriously doubt that they would continually set their
'guns' on 'kill'. Star Trek Phasers were alway set to Stun.

Because Harry has this range of options, he doesn't need to be 
willing to 'kill' every time he fires his wand. It makes 
perfect sense that regardless of circumstances, with a few
exceptions, that a good decent person would chose the minimum
force necessary. Even modern police are moving toward using
Stun Guns when real guns aren't necessary. 

You may not admire Harry for his decision not to kill, but
I certainly do, because Harry always has that option and 
circumstances occur in which, in the muggle world, his act 
of killing would be justified. He /could have/ killed, but
he didn't. He made the 'good' choice. 

I'm more annoyed that they weren't smart enough to take the
DE's wands away from them; disarm the enemy. But to kill or
not to kill, for a good person, is an easy and admirable 
decision, you don't kill unless it is absolutely necessary 
which is the choice Harry made. 

Just a minor point.

Steve/bboyminn




From bobjtc at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 17:18:18 2007
From: bobjtc at yahoo.com (Bob Connors)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The secrecy motif
Message-ID: <32257.44581.qm@web52803.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179968

snip
Montavilla47:
You're reminding me, Lizzyben, of a rumor that JKR had to squash 
early on--that the series would end with the Wizards doing away 
with the Statute of Secrecy and reintegrating with the Muggle 
world.

I think that rumor may have started because that is the natural
happy ending, isn't it? The bigotry can't really start to heal 
until the Wizards and Muggles really start to mix together. 

Bob- 
Isn't it sort of a two way street there? Isn't it not only that 
Wizards etc. look at Muggles as being inferior, but also that 
Muggles FEAR the Wizards?

Yes, it would be great for that all to go away, but talk about 
a major paradigm shift, for everyone.  A little bit much for a 
book, or even a series of books to pull off.

Bob


      





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 19:12:49 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:12:49 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk96h1+3ab0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbqfh+docr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179969

> >>Betsy Hp:
> <snip>
> I don't admire Harry for his decision to not kill. I felt it was   
> pasted on morality that only worked because the author was on his   
> side. There was no honest examination of Harry's decision, IMO,    
> because Harry was never put into a position where his deciding not 
> to kill would lead to another's death.
> <snip>

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> What does it mean his deciding not to kill would lead to another's 
> death? I am talking about Harry deciding to spare people, whom he 
> could not spare if he chose so. To me it is admirable.
> You mean that nobody was dead because Harry spared somebody or do   
> you mean something different?
> Only in that situation you would respect Harry for not killing???

Betsy Hp:
I mean that Harry's choice was never made hard.  He was never faced 
with a situation where if he did not kill the war would be lost or a 
loved one would be lost.  It was pacifism on the cheap, IMO. 

To pull in another example (and make this conversation even more 
esotaric, sorry fellow list members) in 'The Charioteers', which took 
place during the early stages of WWII when Britain was at her most 
desperate, we had a pacifist character.  His choice was *hard*.  By 
choosing not to kill, to be a conscientious objector, he was 
literally faced with the possibility that Germany could well invade.  
And the character wrestled with his decision.  So while I didn't 
fully agree with the character's choice in that I'd have probably 
chosen differently, I admired the hell out of his convictions because 
they were real convictions put under a massive test.

Harry's decision to not kill didn't ever threaten the effort against 
Voldemort, so he never had to really wrestle with it.

Or to pull up another example:

****MAJOR MONETTE SPOILERS TO FOLLOW****
SERIOUSLY
REALLY
BIG
BIG 
SPOILER
********
When Felix killed Malker he was in a fight for his life.  If he'd 
chosen not to kill, Malker would have killed him.  And then Malker 
would have killed Mildmay, and Felix knew it.  So that choice not to 
kill would have been at the expense of his own and his brother's 
life.  Harry was never placed in that position.
*********

AND WE'RE DONE (FOR NOW)

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> And I am asking what exactly Trio got for themselves during         
> horcruxes hunt and hallow hunt that benefited them first and        
> foremost? Hermione would have much preferred to stay in Hogwarts   
> and study, no?

Betsy Hp:
But as a Muggleborn she could not have.  As Dean's example made 
clear.  So it's not like she was making a choice between school or a 
life on the run.  She was making a choice between a life on the run 
or a life on the run with purpose.

> >>Alla:
> Ron would have at least preferred to be with his family, not in the 
> forest.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ron, I think, made the biggest sacrifice because as a pure-blood I 
think he could have gotten by in Voldemort's world.  But it wasn't a 
world he wanted, so working to defeat Voldemort really did benefit 
Ron (and his family) in the end.

> >>Alla:
> I guess I want to know what did Trio get for themselves during book 
> 7 What personal benefits?

Betsy Hp:
Harry got vengence and a peaceful world, Hermione got a magical world 
she could actually take part in (she would not have had that had 
Voldemort won), and Ron got a peaceful world and the chance to marry 
the woman he loved.

> >>Sally:
> So because they would have suffered under a WW ruled by Voldemort, 
> you consider their motives selfish?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, yes to a certain extent (and I do realize it's an extreme 
extent). But really, what I was most looking to was that their 
actions were not completely *selfless*.  Whereas the two characters 
Alla and I have been chatting about, Felix and Mildmay, have both put 
themselves at extreme risk (like a long drawn out death kind of risk) 
to save people who's lives not only did not benefit theirs, but who 
they also didn't really like that much.

To my mind that trumps their backgrounds as street children.

> >>Sally:
> I haven't read any of the Monette book so I can't compare the two, 
> but Hermione isn't a kind or compassionate person? The girl who    
> tried to free the house elves, save Buckbeak and whose first scene 
> was helping poor hapless Neville find his toad. And "even Ron"?    
> Does that mean that you consider Ron to be the kindest, most       
> selfless or compassionate member of the trio? If so, I'd love to   
> hear why, if you feel like discussing it, because I don't interpret 
> Ron that way at all and I'm curious.

Betsy Hp:
Fair warning, I really dislike Hermione.  Any girl who can, without 
hesitation or remorse, disfigure another student scores high on my 
creep-o-meter.  Plus, I feel that she abuses Ron.  Literally, 
physically abuses him, which also gets a ping on the meter.  Hermione 
is compassionate when she feels like it.  But she can turn it off at 
a moment's notice if it's to her benefit.  Hermione has no respect 
for law.  She *is* the law as far as she's concerned.  What Hermione 
wants, Hermione gets and that's all there is to it.  (That's all my 
opinion, of course.  I know others feel quite differently.)

Ron, on the other hand, while he can be incredibly cruel with his 
verbal barbs, actually does try and look at things from the other 
person's point of view.  So I do think he's the...  I guess I'd say 
most likable member of the Trio for me.

****BACK INTO MAJOR MONETTE SPOILER TERRITORY****

> >>Betsy Hp:
> <snip>
> They live in a harsher world, but despite that, they've shown more 
> kindness, selflessness and compassion than I've seen out of Harry, 
> certainly Hermione, and even Ron.

> >>Alla:
> They would not stop before taking a life, if they need it to help 
> themselves. Sorry, not my idea of the better people. And if Mildmay 
> really did not want to be a killer, I think he should have tried 
> harder not to kill.

Betsy Hp:
Mildmay was literally dying because of his extreme poverty (sick with 
fever and about to get evicted) *because* he'd chosen to no longer be 
a killer.  And you have to keep in mind, he was trained as a killer 
from age thirteen up.  He was alot like those child soliders you hear 
about.  His Keeper had a major, major hold on him.  He talks about 
being a stupid kid and doing anything he could to make her proud of 
him.  It was a huge step for him to runaway from her and strike out 
on his own.  And he did it *because* he didn't want to kill any more. 

> >>Alla:
> He is oh so very upset, but he kills on the ship anyways, no?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Um, no.  That's where he refused a place in the life boat so that he 
could stay and protect Felix.  One of the sailors died in the storm 
(he later found out) and he added that death to the toll of deaths 
around him.  But Mildmay had nothing to do with it.  He was just 
really depressed and feeling like he was a bad luck charm.  (Anyone 
around me will die, because I suck, so it's all my fault.)

> >>Alla:
> I am just again cannot put in my mind the idea that killer and 
> emotional abuser of somebody who seemed to love them so much (IMO) 
> are better people than Trio. They are great characters, sure, but 
> better "people"? Not to me.

Betsy Hp:
Well, part of it is that I see the Trio as pretty icky for far less 
reason.  That Felix can trust anyone, feel any compassion towards 
anyone, risk himself for anyone, or just out and out love anyone with 
his background?  It's amazing, to my mind.  So I look at Hermione 
(and you know my views on Hermione <g>) and think, "What's her 
excuse?"

> >>Alla:
> But I think I am starting to parrot myself.  I will try to restrain 
> my fingers from next reply, since I think we are entering tennis 
> match zone.

Betsy Hp:
Hee! We probably are (though I tried to make the conversation a bit 
more interesting with the pacifism thing).  But I adore Mildmay and 
Felix (yes, even Felix!) so much I could talk about them forever. 
<bg>  Plus, I'm rereading, so it's all fresh in my mind. <even bigger 
grin>

Betsy Hp (should probably look for a Monette group now that I think 
on it...)




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 19:16:54 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:16:54 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fk6v0m+c46a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbqn6+hku3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179970

---  "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>...
> 
> 
> Mike:
> We know so little about the founders. Therefore this post 
> will be heavy on speculation.
> 
> Do you really think Godric Gryffindor befriended Salazar 
> Slytherin for reasons of expediency? That Godric said, 'Hey,
> this guy is good. We should get him onboard for this school 
> thing. So he's a bigot, so what? We can work around that.' 
> This is not the type of character I would ascribe to the 
> premier icon in the Potterverse, that had the followers of 
> his credo enthralled. I'm sure that his character was 
> supposed to be better than that.
> 
>

bboyminn:

I've spoken in detail on this very subject many times though
by Group standards that was long ago. So, here is my version
of Founder Speculation.

Keep in mind as we begin that even today there are fanatics
who are using ancient icons as a justification for their own
personal cruelty; example; the Christian Crusades, and the
ancient and modern Islamic fanatics. That's what I think
modern people are doing with Slytherin. They are taking one
small fragment of what he said and twisting it to their own
ends. 

According to to ghostly Professor Binns, Slytherin didn't 
TRUST muggleborns, and by extension, muggles. No indication
that he hated them all and wanted them all dead. 

Now let's establish a historical context. Prof. Binn also
said the founding of Hogwarts was a time of great persecution
of magical people; hold that thought. Further if we are to
take many traditional wizard stories as fact, then the 
common training method prior to Hogwarts was by apprenticeship.

Creating the school was a bold and dangerous move, but it
would insure the absolute best possible and also a uniform
education for all wizards and witches. But it had the
danger of gathering all young wizards and witches together
in one spot which was indeed exceedingly dangerous. If the
school is attacked and all the children killed, it would
virtually mean the end of the wizard world in that country.
If one or more of several small apprenticeships were 
discovered and attack, others would go on unhindered.

So, the danger was great and very real. Consequently Salazar
have very real reasons to worry about muggles.

Now certainly some witches and wizards would come from muggle
families, that meant that then as now a certain number of
muggles knew about the magic world. The more who knew the
greater the danger that one or more of them would betray
the wizard world and set the muggles on them. That actually
happened in real life, so for it to happen in the fantasy
world is very likely. 

So, Slytherin, and rightly so, didn't trust muggles and by
extension, didn't trust muggleborns, and given what was at
stake, it is not unthinkable that he held these opinions
VERY strongly. Even strongly enough to fight with his dear
friend Gryffindor. It was a matter of life and death to
the wizard world. 

Eventually the arguing against allowing muggleborns grew to 
the point where they were actually dueling over it. And it
was three against one, Slytherin was outnumbered and out 
voted, so he decided the best thing to do was leave. But
that does not mean he abandon his House. Certainly he would
want his House, and his preferred students to continue to
get an education, and I think the other founders would 
agree.

The four founders gathered together to make a great leap 
forward in magical education. One that assure all wizard
would be educated, and that they would all get a full and
uniform education. That is a historical achievement that
the wizard world couldn't, shouldn't, and wouldn't ignore.
Consequently, Slytherins great position and achievement in
the school and his place in history would be preserved.

Now, I'm not saying the man didn't have a ego, and I fancy
that he build the Chamber of Secret as a tribute to that
ego. He intended to have his own little 'Slug Club' meeting
in secret in the Chamber where he could profess his personal
ideals that weren't part of the general curriculum. But
that doesn't mean he was a full blown racist.

When he left the castle, he knew the school still needed to
be protected, so he left the Basilisk behind, not to attack
muggleborn witches and wizards, but to attack marauding
muggles if some family of a muggleborn should even betray
the school. 

Now while I don't think Slytherin was a 'full blown' racist,
he certainly had strong tendencies leaning in that direction.
He was a strongly in favor of Purebloods. He saw the very
real risk of allowing muggleborns into the fold at that
point in history. So, while not a racist, he did have a
somewhat justified prejudice and mistrust of muggles.

So, there is my version of what happened, and I think my
version is consistent with the limited history we have. 
We have not historical evidence that Slytherin was 
fanatically anit-muggle or racits. He had a well justified
fear and mistrust of muggle and by extension muggleborns.
But we see no indication that he wished them ill-will as
long as they to wished the wizard world no ill-will. Yes,
we do hear a lot of modern talk about Slytherin believing
this or that, but that is the opinion of self-serving
individuals not a historical account.

I can't believe that the other three intelligent, kind,
benevolent founders could be friends with Slytherin if
he was a flaming fanatical racist. So, I conclude there
must have been some real-world justification behind his
mistrust. 

Just one man's highly speculative opinion.

Steve/bboyminn




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 19:33:27 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33:27 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fkbqn6+hku3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbrm7+qde8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179971


> bboyminn:
> 
> I've spoken in detail on this very subject many times though
> by Group standards that was long ago. So, here is my version
> of Founder Speculation.
> 
> Keep in mind as we begin that even today there are fanatics
> who are using ancient icons as a justification for their own
> personal cruelty; example; the Christian Crusades, and the
> ancient and modern Islamic fanatics. That's what I think
> modern people are doing with Slytherin. They are taking one
> small fragment of what he said and twisting it to their own
> ends. 
> 
> According to to ghostly Professor Binns, Slytherin didn't 
> TRUST muggleborns, and by extension, muggles. No indication
> that he hated them all and wanted them all dead. 
<snip>
> So, the danger was great and very real. Consequently Salazar
> have very real reasons to worry about muggles.
<snip>
> So, Slytherin, and rightly so, didn't trust muggles and by
> extension, didn't trust muggleborns, and given what was at
> stake, it is not unthinkable that he held these opinions
> VERY strongly. Even strongly enough to fight with his dear
> friend Gryffindor. It was a matter of life and death to
> the wizard world. 

> Now, I'm not saying the man didn't have a ego, and I fancy
> that he build the Chamber of Secret as a tribute to that
> ego. He intended to have his own little 'Slug Club' meeting
> in secret in the Chamber where he could profess his personal
> ideals that weren't part of the general curriculum. But
> that doesn't mean he was a full blown racist.
> 
> When he left the castle, he knew the school still needed to
> be protected, so he left the Basilisk behind, not to attack
> muggleborn witches and wizards, but to attack marauding
> muggles if some family of a muggleborn should even betray
> the school. 
> 
> So, there is my version of what happened, and I think my
> version is consistent with the limited history we have. 
> We have not historical evidence that Slytherin was 
> fanatically anit-muggle or racits. He had a well justified
> fear and mistrust of muggle and by extension muggleborns.
> But we see no indication that he wished them ill-will as
> long as they to wished the wizard world no ill-will. Yes,
> we do hear a lot of modern talk about Slytherin believing
> this or that, but that is the opinion of self-serving
> individuals not a historical account.


lizzyben: 

I think that all these theories about the Founder's backstory are 
really interesting, but perhaps more interesting than JKR intended. 
In the two months before DH was released, she posted Godric 
Gryffindor & Salazar Slytherin as the "Wizards of the Month". Godric 
Gryffindor was described as an "enlightened fighter against Muggle-
discrimination," and Slytherin was described as a "notorious champion 
of pure-blood supremacy." There's nothing there about Slytherin being 
afraid of Muggle-borns, or not trusting them; no hints of an unknown 
complex backstory. He's a *notorious* champion of pure-blood 
supremecy - IOW, a fanatical bigot. I had a sinking feeling at that 
point that the plot of DH would be some rendition of "Noble 
Gryffindors save the Muggle-borns!" 


lizzyben




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 20:16:22 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:16:22 -0000
Subject: Trio's selfishness/ some Mary Renault  WAS: Killing and Morality / Sarah Monette
In-Reply-To: <fkb99k+mcrk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkbu6m+802r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179972

Betsy Hp:
I mean that Harry's choice was never made hard. He was never faced
with a situation where if he did not kill the war would be lost or a
loved one would be lost. It was pacifism on the cheap, IMO.

To pull in another example (and make this conversation even more
esoteric, sorry fellow list members) in 'The Charioteers', which took
place during the early stages of WWII when Britain was at her most
desperate, we had a pacifist character. His choice was *hard*. By
choosing not to kill, to be a conscientious objector, he was
literally faced with the possibility that Germany could well 
invade.<SNIP>
Harry's decision to not kill didn't ever threaten the effort against
Voldemort, so he never had to really wrestle with it.


Alla:

But is it how it works? I mean if you decide that in the fight you 
will not kill, then unless this decision of yours threatens your 
loved ones, this is cheapens it somehow?

Is it not enough that your and your loved ones **could** be killed?

I mean in that battle where Harry stuns, he could be killed and other 
people could be killed too and at the end, Voldemort could kill him 
as well.

You think the choice of that character ( Andrew? Again forgot the 
name) was somehow harder? How? I mean, it is not like the possibility 
of Germany invading increased oh so much after one soldier chose not 
to participate, no?

His loved ones are also not in the line of fire, how is it different 
from Harry's decision not to kill increasing the *possibility* that 
Voldemort could win, not certainty of course.


>>Alla:
> <snip>
> And I am asking what exactly Trio got for themselves during
> horcruxes hunt and hallow hunt that benefited them first and
> foremost? Hermione would have much preferred to stay in Hogwarts
> and study, no?

Betsy Hp:
But as a Muggleborn she could not have. As Dean's example made
clear. So it's not like she was making a choice between school and a
life on the run. She was making a choice between a life on the run
or a life on the run with purpose.

Alla:

But she did not know that she could not, when she was making the 
decision to join the hunt with Harry, so again what is selfish about 
it?

She made that choice during DD's funeral, didn't she? To give up 
education, all she holds dear to do it, etc. And even when they left, 
they still did not know that Voldemort would literally forbid 
muggleborns from attending.

To me she was definitely making choice between school and life on the 
run. IMO of course.

>>Sally:
> So because they would have suffered under a WW ruled by Voldemort,
> you consider their motives selfish?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, yes to a certain extent (and I do realize it's an extreme
extent). But really, what I was most looking to was that their
actions were not completely *selfless*. <SNIP>


Alla:

To reiterate, they were not selfless to the extent that any citizen 
of WW who would fight against Voldemort would have gotten a chance 
for better, peaceful life, to marry, to live their life as they would 
have want to. Is that fair summary?

Is that your definition of trio's selfishness? That they got a 
Voldemort-free world to live in?

If it is so, I absolutely agree with you. They were selfish all 
right, LOL.

It is just I cannot characterize that desire as selfishness.

And here I want to quote again the second part of Sally's quote:

"By your logic, it seems to me that
most people who go to war do it for selfish reasons. That does not
make their sacrifice worthless."

Alla:
 I can only say me too to that. I am thinking that soldiers who went 
to fight against Nazis also wanted Hitler-free world to live in for 
example.





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 21:10:45 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:10:45 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fkblop+m11f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkc1cl+1051n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179973

> > a_svirn:
> > It is not really comparable. In real life the inferiority of 
> > foreigners is an imaginary thing, a prejudice. In the world 
Rowling 
> > created the inferiority of Muggles is a fact of life. They can't 
do 
> > magic, and that's make them really inferior. 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> No, I don't accept that at all. JKR has made it quite clear, 
> repeatedly, that the ability to do magic is all in the DNA & 
> genetics. She's said that even Muggle-born wizards have some sort 
of 
> a latent magic gene & wizarding ancestors somewhere in their 
> bloodline. It's a genetic mutation, like having a mutation that 
> creates deafness or a resistance to a certain disease.It's just 
that 
> this mutation gives people the ability to do magic. So what? In 
> another light, it seems to run in families in the same way that 
some 
> talents seem to run in families. 

a_svirn:
I don't think she made it "quite clear". She made it all as muddled 
as it is humanly possible. Because in her books magic is not 
something like "talent that's run in families". (Unless you mean a 
magical talent like metamorphism.) Magic does not run in Muggle 
families ?  that's how we know they are muggle. 

> lizzyben:
For example, some people seem to 
> pick up playing the piano easily, & some people can't play a note. 
> Does that make musical people *superior* to non-musical people? Of 
> course not. And it certainly doesn't make non-musical people into 
an 
> inferior race. 

a_svirn:
I hope not, since I am the most unmusical member of my family. Yet 
even I can be taught music and achieve some modest results. Anyone 
can. All people can be taught maths enough to pass a simple school 
test. Some people are more gifted linguistically, some less, but 
anyone can acquire at least one language, and usually learn well 
enough another. However, Muggles cannot be taught magic. Had Petunia 
spent all her life at Hogwarts she wouldn't have been able to turn a 
match into a pin. She hasn't got magic and that's all there is to it. 

> lizzyben:
It's the same way w/any genetic randomness, from blue 
> eyes to small stature. Does having a mutation that gives a certain 
> height or eye color make that person *superior*; or, worse, make 
> people without that trait *superior* beings? Are people who inherit 
> blue eyes, or deafness, or musical giftedness, or small height an 
> inferior race of people? Of course not! We would never even think 
> that way. Yet, this is how the entire wizarding world operates.

a_svirn:
Do musical people share a different and distinctive culture? A 
culture that is quite foreign to all the non-musical people? Do 
people with blue eyes get together and found a separate civilisation? 
Not even the Nazis did that ? would have been a little difficult 
considering that Hitler himself wasn't exactly blue-eyed and blond. 
However, the wizarding world is called *wizarding* for a reason. It 
is a world separate from the muggle one. And superior to it. 

> lizzyben:
 It 
> consists of people w/a certain genetic trait - who consider that 
this 
> trait makes them SUPERIOR to all others. To the point where they 
> consider people w/o this genetic trait to be an inferior race, and 
> almost sub-human. That's eugenics, pure & simple. 

a_svirn:
You know what? You are right. It is. Rowling's world is one huge and 
*successful* experiment in eugenics. 


> lizzyben:
The scary thing to 
> me is how easily JKR gets us to play along & even agree w/a 
worldview 
> that operates on eugenics & a belief in genetic superiority. How 
did 
> JKR ever get us to agree that Muggles are inherently "inferior"? 
> WE'RE Muggles, people! Are these wizarding idiots superior to you? 

a_svirn:
I don't know about "we". I am happy to say that *I* am not a muggle, 
any more than I am a witch. I live in a real world, not the awkward 
universe of the HP books. Though of course, I can't help identifying 
with muggles. 


>  
> a_svirn:
> Muggleborns, however, 
> > can do magic, and pretty impressive magic at that. So any 
> allegations 
> > of their inferiority to pure-bloods are clearly the consequence 
of 
> > bigotry and xenophobia. 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> And why do people have that bigotry & xenophobia against anyone w/a 
> connection to Muggles? Because EVERYONE is bigoted against Muggles! 
> EVERYONE has seperated themselves from Muggle society & begun to 
view 
> Muggles as suspicious, inferior or incomprehensible "foreigners". 
So 
> of course the bigotry/prejudice against Muggle-borns is connected 
to 
> the bigotry against Muggles - it's a natural outgrowth of that 
> bigotry. 

a_svirn:
OK for xenophobia, but bigots only can be called thus if they are 
*wrong* in their beliefs. If their creed is based on a prejudice. But 
it is not a prejudice that muggles have no magic in them. It is the 
truth, just as the fact that magic makes wizards superior is the 
truth. 

> a_svirn:
> In real life 
> > a couple of, say, "genuine Arians" cannot produce an Asian child, 
> but 
> > in the WW two muggles can produce a witch or wizard. So it's 
often 
> > really difficult to say what kind of point Rowling is making. The 
> > only thing that seems pretty clear is that being anti-muggle-born 
> is 
> > bad, because this attitude is based on the false premise.
> >
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> Is that Aryans or Asians?

a_svirn:
Sorry. Aryans.  

> lizzyben:
JKR has said that two muggles can produce a 
> wizarding child only if those muggles have wizarding ancestors. 
It's 
> all in the blood; the pure-bloods were right about that. There's no 
> such thing as a true "muggle-born" - if you don't have a wizard 
> ancestor somewhere in your bloodline, you can't ever be a wizard. 
And 
> muggleborns like Dudley Durseley *can* potentially produce a 
> wizarding child, if the good wizarding gene hasn't been overwhelmed 
> by the bad Muggle gene. This is good blood/bad blood at its core. 
> It's Aunt Marge's philosophy on bloodlines, made real. They just 
> disagree on which genetic trait makes people inferior - Marge 
thinks 
> that the Potter gene makes Harry inferior; JKR thinks that the 
> Dursley gene makes Dudley inferior. But they both agree on the 
basic 
> premise - some people are just bad blood.  
> 
> What's the false premise? That having Muggle parents makes someone 
> inferior? But everyone agrees that Muggles are inferior - so why is 
> that so false? How can it be true that Muggles are inferior, yet 
> totally false to consider Muggle-born children inferior? 

a_svirn:
Because they have magic. That aforementioned magic gene miraculously 
resurfaced. And with magic in them even having muggle parents does 
not make them inferior genetically. So the prejudice is really 
social, though as it is often the case with social prejudices the 
actual allegations have racial overtones. 


> lizzyben:
I think 
> that's the false, hypocritical position that our wizarding heros 
> hold. 

a_svirn:
It's no more hypocritical than having a born slave to serve you a 
sandwich. In real life it would be hypocrisy to say that there are 
men and women whom Nature has ordained to serve you a sandwich. In 
the Potterverse it would be hypocrisy to deny that elves' very nature 
is to serve. 

> lizzyben:
Because wizards already consider themselves to be a superior 
> race, so really it's hardly surprising that they look down on 
people 
> who are descended from the inferior Muggle race. 

a_svirn:
It may not be surprising, but it's wrong. Because muggle-borns have 
the distinctive trait that makes them wizards. 






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 21:58:20 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:58:20 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fkbrm7+qde8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkc45s+em52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179974

--- "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > According to to ghostly Professor Binns, Slytherin didn't 
> > TRUST muggleborns, and by extension, muggles. No indication
> > that he hated them all and wanted them all dead. 
> <snip>
> > So, the danger was great and very real. Consequently Salazar
> > have very real reasons to worry about muggles.
> ...
> 
> 
> lizzyben: 
> 
> I think that all these theories about the Founder's backstory
> are really interesting, but perhaps more interesting than 
> JKR intended. ..., she posted Godric Gryffindor & Salazar 
> Slytherin as the "Wizards of the Month". Godric Gryffindor 
> was described as an "enlightened fighter against Muggle-
> discrimination," and Slytherin was described as a "notorious
> champion of pure-blood supremacy." There's nothing there about
> Slytherin being afraid of Muggle-borns, or not trusting them;
> no hints of an unknown complex backstory. He's a *notorious*
> champion of pure-blood supremecy - IOW, a fanatical bigot. ...
> 
> 
> lizzyben
>

bboyminn:

In the books, history say he doesn't trust Muggle and 
Muggleborns, outside the books, JKR uses the term 'supremacy'
but how literally are we to interpret that? 

Keep in mind that Britian still has the Aristocracy, they still
have the House of Lords. But that doesn't mean that Lords and
Ladies think that all common people should be killed, only that
the Aristocracy is intellectually superior and therefore 
necessary to effectively rule the country. 

So, I concede the Slytherin believed in the superiority of 
Pure-Bloods, but that is quite different than hating all
muggles and muggleborns and wanting them dead. 

He wanted magical education confined to wizarding families
because that was the wisest and safest course of action at
that time in history. The other founders believe, I speculate,
that the fortress of Hogwarts, the remoteness of the location,
and the available wizards to defend the castle would be
sufficient to protect the students, if by some slim chance
muggles found out. That is very close to what happened in modern
day Hogwarts against Voldemort. People still believed that 
Hogwarts to be a safe fortress.

I'm not saying you are wrong, or that I am right. Only that I
think my analysis is fair and reasonable given the scant 
information we have. Fair and reasonable, but it still may or
may not be correct. One problem I have is if Slytherin were
the absolute fanatical racist modern tales make him out to 
be, why would he be invited by the other obviously benevolent
founders to join in. I think it was because, he was a great
and powerful wizard, socially and economically influential,
and generally benevolent, but that he also believed that the 
world was divided into Aristocracy and commoners. He may have
even believed that the Pureblood Aristocracy has a right to 
rule in the sense of 'divine right of Kings', but that still
isn't the same as hating commoners and wanting them dead. 


Steve/bboyminn




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 22:31:27 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:31:27 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkc1cl+1051n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkc63v+eq57@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179975

> a_svirn:
> I don't think she made it "quite clear". She made it all as muddled 
> as it is humanly possible. Because in her books magic is not 
> something like "talent that's run in families". (Unless you mean a 
> magical talent like metamorphism.) Magic does not run in Muggle 
> families ?  that's how we know they are muggle. 

lizzyben:

Uh, yes, magic does run in families. Magical/wizarding parents have 
wizarding kids. Muggles do not have wizarding children because they 
don't have the wonderful magical gene. Magic is totally based on 
family & heredity.


> a_svirn:
> I hope not, since I am the most unmusical member of my family. Yet 
> even I can be taught music and achieve some modest results. Anyone 
> can. All people can be taught maths enough to pass a simple school 
> test. Some people are more gifted linguistically, some less, but 
> anyone can acquire at least one language, and usually learn well 
> enough another. However, Muggles cannot be taught magic. Had 
Petunia 
> spent all her life at Hogwarts she wouldn't have been able to turn 
a 
> match into a pin. She hasn't got magic and that's all there is to 
it.

lizzyben:

Yes, cause Petunia doesn't have the magic gene. So it's even worse 
than my analogy of musical ability, because it's nothing to do 
w/learning or education, but is a purely genetic trait. You've got it 
or you don't - like some people can roll their tongues & some can't - 
not based on learning or training, but a totally random genetic 
thing. It's much more akin to inheriting blue eyes or brown eyes - 
only in this world people w/brown eyes are SUPERIOR and people 
w/brown eyes are inferior subhumans. 


> a_svirn:
> Do musical people share a different and distinctive culture? A 
> culture that is quite foreign to all the non-musical people? Do 
> people with blue eyes get together and found a separate 
civilisation? 
> Not even the Nazis did that ? would have been a little difficult 
> considering that Hitler himself wasn't exactly blue-eyed and blond. 
> However, the wizarding world is called *wizarding* for a reason. It 
> is a world separate from the muggle one. And superior to it. 

lizzyben:

Ugh, basically what I'm not understanding is why you consider the 
wizarding world "superior". Pretty much everyone agrees that it's 
backwards, cruel, nasty, etc. The fact that they segregated 
themselves out from the "inferiors" to form their own society just 
proves my point - this is a society founded on eugenics. They have 
one random mutation, one gene that went YX instead of XY & now they 
consider themselves superior beings because of it. To be silly, 
tongue-rolling is a proven genetic recessive trait. It's like if all 
the people who could roll their tongues decided to consider 
themselves superior superhuman beings because of that random genetic 
trait, & decided to segregate themselves from the inferior non-tongue 
rollers. They also believe that this random genetic trait gives them 
the right to taunt, torment, & kill non-tongue rollers. That's 
stupid. This is stupid too.

> a_svirn:
> You know what? You are right. It is. Rowling's world is one huge 
and 
> *successful* experiment in eugenics. 

lizzyben:

Doesn't that bother you a little? After all, I thought the message 
was that bigotry was bad, that the Slytherins are evil because they 
believe in superior bloodlines, etc? And yet the entire fictional 
world is a "successful" experiment in eugenics? Just that very phrase 
creeps me out - eugenics experiment.*shiver* W/o even intending to, 
we're slipping into the same type of language that the Nazis used. 
And by "successful", you mean that she actually managed to create a 
superior race? 

> > lizzyben:
> The scary thing to 
> > me is how easily JKR gets us to play along & even agree w/a 
> worldview 
> > that operates on eugenics & a belief in genetic superiority. How 
> did 
> > JKR ever get us to agree that Muggles are inherently "inferior"? 
> > WE'RE Muggles, people! Are these wizarding idiots superior to 
you? 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't know about "we". I am happy to say that *I* am not a 
muggle, 
> any more than I am a witch. I live in a real world, not the awkward 
> universe of the HP books. Though of course, I can't help 
identifying 
> with muggles. 

lizzyben:

In the Harry Potter novels, you are a Muggle. So am I. The conceit of 
the novels is that this hidden world exists parallel to our own, & 
that the "muggles" are unaware of the wizards (or have their memories 
erased to forget). So, since we don't have wizard parents & can't see 
wizards around, we're Muggles. Therefore, the wizards consider us 
inferior beings whom they have the right to kick around. And we, as 
readers, are asked to identify w/the wizards over ourselves! We're 
asked to identify w/the "superior" & even the persecuting society 
over our own. That's really weird to me. 
>

> a_svirn:
> OK for xenophobia, but bigots only can be called thus if they are 
> *wrong* in their beliefs. If their creed is based on a prejudice. 
But 
> it is not a prejudice that muggles have no magic in them. It is the 
> truth, just as the fact that magic makes wizards superior is the 
> truth. 

lizzyben:

So it's your contention that it isn't bigotry for wizards to think 
that they're superior to muggles, because it's actually the truth. 
Just like it's not bigotry to consider elves natural slaves, or 
Slytherins naturally bad, because this is also the truth. What a 
wonderful world this is, where one can feel superior & elite to all 
others - normally we'd call that narcissism. Here it's the truth. I 
dunno, maybe that's part of the appeal of this series. So the reader 
can also feel smugly superior to the mere Muggles, the mean 
Slytherins, the stupid Hufflepuffs, the servile elves, the tricky 
goblins. We can vicariously share the feeling of being at the very 
top of the social hierarchy, the elite, the superior beings. 


> a_svirn:
> Because they have magic. That aforementioned magic gene 
miraculously 
> resurfaced. And with magic in them even having muggle parents does 
> not make them inferior genetically. So the prejudice is really 
> social, though as it is often the case with social prejudices the 
> actual allegations have racial overtones. 

lizzyben: 

No more miraculous than two brown-eyed people having a blue-eyed 
child. JKR doesn't know what she's talking about, but it's clear that 
she intended to base magical ability on genetics - w/certain 
recessive genes running in families, or reappearing in muggle-born 
children w/wizarding ancestors. The prejudice isn't social; it's 
genetic. They consider muggle parents to be genetically inferior 
because they don't display the magic gene. And I guess we don't 
disagree on that, or even in considering that position to be a form 
of eugenics. But I do not consider that superiority complex to be 
a "fact", any more than it is a "fact" that any random genetic trait 
makes some humans "superior" to others. We're all just human beings. 
Magic, tongue-rolling, I don't care. It's the same thing - a random 
recessive trait, not a ticket to god status, or a license to abuse 
others. 

And that type of thinking transfers to other areas, as well. It gets 
even creepier when you consider how many times people are dismissed 
as "bad blood" throughout the novels - so the Malfoys are 
inferior "bad blood", no good can come of them. The Gaunts are "bad 
blood" & thus doomed to be mad & inferior. Since the Slytherins in 
general are a bad lot, & usually entire families end up in that 
House... their badness is in their very blood, their very genes. This 
is reinforced when JKR says stuff like how Slytherin has 
been "diluted" - IOWs improving by getting people of better blood, 
not by changing the ideology. Contrast that w/the superior bloodlines 
of the Gryffindors - handsome, intelligent, noble, good. Harry's 
goodness is in his blood, just as JKR says. Morality, like magic, 
depends entirely on your bloodline.

> a_svirn:
> It's no more hypocritical than having a born slave to serve you a 
> sandwich. In real life it would be hypocrisy to say that there are 
> men and women whom Nature has ordained to serve you a sandwich. In 
> the Potterverse it would be hypocrisy to deny that elves' very 
nature 
> is to serve. 

lizzyben: 

And why, why, why would JKR create such a world? 

> a_svirn:
> It may not be surprising, but it's wrong. Because muggle-borns have 
> the distinctive trait that makes them wizards.

lizzyben: 

OK, so it's bad to look down on Muggleborns, but it's fine to 
consider Muggles/non-magical people to be an inferior race. It's fine 
to consider someone to be superior or subhuman based on a random 
genetic trait - like eye color, or hair color, or skin color. These 
books are just one long plea for tolerance, for sure.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec 19 22:33:30 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:33:30 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fkbqfh+docr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkc67q+809a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179976

 
> Betsy Hp:
> I mean that Harry's choice was never made hard.  He was never faced 
> with a situation where if he did not kill the war would be lost or a 
> loved one would be lost.  It was pacifism on the cheap, IMO. 

Pippin:
But he did face such a situation. He spared Pettigrew's life, and
Pettigrew killed Diggory and brought Voldemort back. The
reader can't help but think it's one of the reasons that Harry
takes Cedric's death so hard, despite Dumbledore's attempts to
reassure him. Harry also believed that Dumbledore's trust in Snape
had led to DD's death. But he still decided that he would spare
Stan Shunpike and that he would not start treating the Order as 
potential traitors. 

Harry has no way of knowing that his decision to spare
Stan or encourage the Order to go on trusting one another is
not going to lead to another disaster, so I don't see how you
can say these aren't valid tests. 

> 
> > >>Sally:
> > So because they would have suffered under a WW ruled by Voldemort, 
> > you consider their motives selfish?
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, yes to a certain extent (and I do realize it's an extreme 
> extent). But really, what I was most looking to was that their 
> actions were not completely *selfless*.  

Whereas the two characters 
> Alla and I have been chatting about, Felix and Mildmay, have both put 
> themselves at extreme risk (like a long drawn out death kind of risk) 
> to save people who's lives not only did not benefit theirs, but who 
> they also didn't really like that much.

Pippin:
Er, how is that different from the Trio deciding to save Draco and Goyle?
Those two lives did not benefit theirs, and they sure didn't like them
very much. And they were risking a very cruel death by spirits of
fire who like to play with their food. 

I don't like what Hermione did  to Marietta. But it shows what can
happen when society becomes corrupt. Much as Hermione despises
the way the WW is run, she still takes her moral cues from society
to a much greater extent than Harry (who is inner directed) or Ron
(who goes by his peers.) When the Ministry resorts to summary
justice and mutilation as punishment, so does she. 

Pippin
who read some Monette but didn't get into it, sorry




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 23:11:47 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:11:47 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fkc45s+em52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkc8fj+s47v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179977

> bboyminn:
 
> Keep in mind that Britian still has the Aristocracy, they still
> have the House of Lords. But that doesn't mean that Lords and
> Ladies think that all common people should be killed, only that
> the Aristocracy is intellectually superior and therefore 
> necessary to effectively rule the country. 

Goddlefrood:

On opposite sides of the pond, even though I'm now in a bigger 
one, there seem to be different views of the hierarchy of the 
UK. The relicts of the feudal system, vis the Lords, no longer 
have any real power, that doen't mean they might think they have. 
The Aristocracy is actually considered by many people in the UK 
to be a bunch of inbred loons with the intellectual capacity of 
gnats. Centuries of marrying your cousin will do that to you.

The House of Lords has had no real function since around 1911, 
and prior to that since 1689, which is the date mentioned in 
DH as the date of the International Statute of Secrecy (even 
though earlier in the series it had been given as 1692). With 
the more recent amendments to the structure of the legislature 
in the UK the House of Lords can be ignored altogether if the 
Commons want something put through into law. There are many 
examples of this, not least of which was the ban on hunting 
foxes with horses.

In other words, if one wants to support an argument based 
on what happens in the UK as constituted in the last three 
hundred years or so to refute the paraphrased statement that 
Slytherin was a bigot, then the House of Lords would not help 
you. The WW, and more specifically Salazar Slytherin, has a 
superiority complex where muggles are concerned. In the case 
particularly of the House of Slytherin, one of its underlying 
tenets is that of the inferiority of the muggle-born. Salazar's 
professed aim was to rid the school of muggle-borns and only 
accept pure-bloods. The entire second book was largely about 
that. The movement towards more tolerance between the houses 
has, by the end of DH, hardly come along from the position 
at the beginning of the series, despite there being small 
signs that certain wizards and witches tolerate Slytherin. 
The fact remains that as at 2017 the WW is little different 
in its overall philosophy than what it had been during the 
time of Salazar or more recently that of Lord Voldemort.

Might is right summed this up very well. Many wizards believe 
that because they can perform magic they are inherently superior 
to muggles. This would apply across the board and not just to 
Slytherins. Arthur Weasley's attitude to muggles, being that 
they are interesting, but clearly separate from him and to be 
derided for their dependence on electricity, rubber ducks, 
etc., is probably a rather common view throughout the wizarding 
community. Arthur most likely wants his grandchildren to marry 
muggles in order to quiz them incessantly about why they do 
this or what that is for.

If the intended message was that the rifts in the WW were 
healing, then for many that message has simply not come 
through. They were children's books, though, despite the 
later instalments being a little on the more adult side, 
and in my opinion, they are not books from which one should 
try to take any real message at all. If read for what they 
largely are, which is an epic adventure yarn with the hero 
prevailing over the villain (and basically that is all they 
are), then they can be greatly enjoyed, notwithstanding the 
multiple plotholes and quibbles that have been raised here 
ad infinitum. If they are being read in order to learn about 
life, the universe or anything, then, IMHO, they shouldn't be, 
as little of any of those things would be found therein.

Goddlefrood, not off to find the deeper meaning of life in 
the Deeper Meaning of Liff.

NB - In the language of the monarch - one's tongue has 
been firmly ensconced in one's cheek throughout much of 
the preceding post. No deeper meaning is intended than 
that the House of Lords is incomparible to the WW.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Dec 19 23:47:15 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:47:15 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkc63v+eq57@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkcai3+pgfh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179978


> 
> lizzyben: 
> 
> And why, why, why would JKR create such a world? 

Pippin:
Because fairness is the enemy of plot. If everything in life
was fair there'd be no stories. There'd be no need for
tolerance either. HP is not a story that shows us how wonderful
life would be if everyone was equal and we all treated each 
other fairly. It shows us that when people's abilities and
backgrounds  vary so drastically they are going to find it very 
hard to decide what is fair. Injustice is built into the world and only 
tolerance will give them some grace to survive while they try to
sort things out. 

The WW is not Oz, the "great good place." It's not a utopia. Unlike Middle 
Earth or Narnia, it's not supposed to be a newer world where men have not 
completely fallen. 

 The WW has slaves who are happy to be slaves because
if  human beings could create such a race we would probably do it. 
Heaven knows we've tried.

It is ethnocentric because all cultures are ethnocentric
and consider themselves the standard by which all others should
be judged. The wizards are obviously not superior in any ethical
or philosophical sense. They are not wiser or better than other
mortals. They are certainly not  more successful in a Darwinian sense. 
It's the purebloods who are dying out, not the Muggles. Magic
would not seem to be a genetic advantage, whatever the
purebloods think. 
 
The WW had to split from the Muggle world because so many Muggles
were frightened or offended by magic. But Muggles have invented 
technologies which are  independent of magic and in many ways superior
to it especially in weapons, communications and education. I think it could
be argued that Muggles gained more from the split than wizards
did. When they stopped being jealous of wizards and vainly
trying to steal their secrets, they discovered they too could
manipulate the natural world in wonderful and dangerous ways.

Pippin




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 01:07:30 2007
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:07:30 -0000
Subject: horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <fk23lv+gdai@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkcf8i+jhdi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179979

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "acelticgoddess" <auriga79 at ...> 
wrote:

> Bellatrix knew legilimency. Don't forget that she was Draco's
> teacher for occlumency. Stands to reason she would use her mind-
> reading talents to uncover the reason... and name... for Molly's
> emotional anger, distress, et al.


You may be right, although legilimency requires concentration and an 
eye contact, and both of them are hard to get in a battle :-). And, 
as Steve(?) always points out, someone who is a good occlumens is not 
necessarily an equally good legilimens. OTOH, I agree that Molly was 
very emotionally open and vulnerable in her anger and grief, so maybe 
Bella managed to get a glimpse of something in her mind even without 
much concentrating :-).

zanooda, sorry for her very, very late reply ...







From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 06:16:32 2007
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:16:32 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fkbjnr+oc2d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkd1c0+k5er@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179980


 Montavilla47:
> > I've heard people compare the Wizarding World to Apartheid, only 
> instead of living in gated communities, the Wizards live in even 
> better than gated areas.  Their homes are so gated that they can't 
> be seen.  Once behind their wards, they don't have to even think 
> about the Muggles as anything but a possible source of groceries.  
> They don't even need to let Muggles in to clean their toilets, 
> because they have a slave race to do this.
> > 
> > Harry, as a half-blood raised in the Muggle world would be a grand 
> > position to bring about positive change in the Wizarding world.  
> But, of course, Harry has been conditioned to hate the Muggle world
> > because of his horrible family.  
> 
Katie:
> I have such a hard time with this, because I truly do not 
> believe that this is the message that JKR meant to send. I remember 
> Hagrid saying that if Muggles knew about Wizards, then Muggles would 
> always want a magical solution to their problems, and Wizards would 
> forever just be doing magical chores for Muggles. I think Hagrid 
> really believed that, and I think JKR did, too. I think she realized 
> that the whole Statute of Secrecy thing needed an explanation, and 
> that's what she came up with. I think she just needed a reason to 
> not have a bunch of Muggles cluttering up the main story. So, 
> basically, a plot device. 

Montavilla47:
I agree, Katie.  I don't think JKR intended to promote prejudice, she's
said many times that she was trying to do the opposite.  But there's
this weird split-focus that goes on where we're shown that prejudice
against Muggleborns is wrong and leads to evil overlords like 
Voldemort taking over the world.

But on the other hand, we're supposed to smile at Hagrid insulting
the Muggles, or the twins playing a dangerous prank on Dudley, 
or Dumbledore bopping the Dursleys on the head with the mead
glasses.





From montavilla47 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 06:32:01 2007
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:32:01 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <32257.44581.qm@web52803.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fkd291+tbqq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179981

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bob Connors <bobjtc at ...> wrote:
>
> snip
> Montavilla47:
> You're reminding me, Lizzyben, of a rumor that JKR had to squash 
> early on--that the series would end with the Wizards doing away 
> with the Statute of Secrecy and reintegrating with the Muggle 
> world.
> 
> I think that rumor may have started because that is the natural
> happy ending, isn't it? The bigotry can't really start to heal 
> until the Wizards and Muggles really start to mix together. 
> 
> Bob- 
> Isn't it sort of a two way street there? Isn't it not only that 
> Wizards etc. look at Muggles as being inferior, but also that 
> Muggles FEAR the Wizards?
> 
> Yes, it would be great for that all to go away, but talk about 
> a major paradigm shift, for everyone.  A little bit much for a 
> book, or even a series of books to pull off.
> 
> Bob


Montavilla47:
I don't disagree with you, Bob.  Yes, it's a two-way street.

But... how can the Muggles fear the wizards when they don't
even know that Wizards exist? 






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 08:17:26 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:17:26 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fkc8fj+s47v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkd8em+fr59@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179982

---  "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
>  
> > Keep in mind that Britian still has the Aristocracy, they
> > still have the House of Lords. But that doesn't mean that
> > Lords and Ladies think that all common people should be 
> > killed, only that the Aristocracy is intellectually 
> > superior and therefore  necessary to effectively rule the
> > country. 
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> On opposite sides of the pond,... The Aristocracy is actually 
> considered by many people in the UK to be a bunch of inbred 
> loons with the intellectual capacity of gnats. Centuries of
> marrying your cousin will do that to you.
>

bboyminn:

Yes, but is that the Aristocrats view? Certainly it is very
likely the common person's view, but I am writing from the
perspective of Slytherin. He most certainly view himself
as the aristocracy of the wizard world. But there is a 
difference between believing yourself superior, and believing
all inferiors should be killed and/or enslaved.

> Goddlefrood:
> 
> The House of Lords has had no real function since around 
> 1911, and prior to that since 1689, ... With the more recent 
> amendments to the structure of the legislature in the UK 
> the House of Lords can be ignored altogether ...
> 

bboyminn:

Not being from or ever having been in England, I confess my
knowledge is limited, but I am aware that the House of Lords
exists. It mere existence is proof of something. Further
being a 'Lord' must still carry some weight in England as
there was a recent scandal about what in essense was Titles
for sale. 

> Goddlefrood:
>
> ... The WW, and more specifically Salazar Slytherin, has a 
> superiority complex where muggles are concerned. In the case 
> particularly of the House of Slytherin, one of its underlying 
> tenets is that of the inferiority of the muggle-born.

bboyminn:

This is the part that I dispute, though not fully. Slytherin
certainly believed purebloods were superior. I'm sure he 
believe that muggles were immensely inferior because of the
lack of magical ability. However, we don't know that he
didn't accept muggle-born into magical society. Yes, he
distrusted them as a whole for the potential danger they
presented. But we have no evidence that he was not willing
to work with them and teach them if the danger had not been
there.

> Goddlefrood:
>
> Salazar's professed aim was to rid the school of muggle-
> borns and only accept pure-bloods. The entire second book
> was largely about that. 

bboyminn:

Not really and that is my very point. We know what people
are saying about Slytherin, but we must also acknowledge 
their self-serving motives in making those claim. The only
account we have from a reasonably neutral historian (Prof.
Binn) indicate nothing of this extreme muggle/muggle-born
hating bigotry. 

What Binn's says by implication is that Slytherin had a very
justified distrust of muggleborns.

So, again we have people's claims of what Slytherin did or
didn't stand for, but Slytherin isn't there to speak for
himself. Just as Christ wasn't there to speak for himself
during the Crusades and just as Mohammed isn't there today
to tell fanatic Muslims to knock it off.

> Goddlefrood: 
>
> The movement towards more tolerance between the houses has,
> ..., hardly come along ..., despite there being small 
> signs that certain wizards and witches tolerate Slytherin. 
> The fact remains that as at 2017 the WW is little different 
> in its overall philosophy than what it had been during the 
> time of Salazar or more recently that of Lord Voldemort.
> 

bboyminn:

I see your point, but don't fully agree. Let's face it
Houses are about schoolboy rivalries and they never die down.
Harvard and Yale are still at it as I suspect Oxford and
Chambridge are, even after centuries.

But notice that we see little 'House Rivalry' amoung the 
adults. Once out of school and away from the House Cup, 
Quiditch Cup, and House Quiditch Games, those rivalries
die down. Yes, to some extent it is still there, but more
in the interest of fun and curiosity than true rivalry. I
suspect asking 'What's your House? to adult wizards is about
like asking 'What's our sign?' to modern muggles. It's a
great conversation starter, and good to stimulate reminiscences
about the good old days over a beer or two.


> Goddlefrood, not off to find the deeper meaning of life in 
> the Deeper Meaning of Liff.
> 
> NB - In the language of the monarch - one's tongue has 
> been firmly ensconced in one's cheek throughout much of 
> the preceding post. No deeper meaning is intended than 
> that the House of Lords is incomparible to the WW.
>


bboyminn:

Well, this speculation can never be more than fun since
we are essentially trying to prove the unprovable. We can't
say with any certainty what happened a thousand years ago
to real people, much less to fictional people.

While I'm sure Slytherin was convinced of his own pureblood
superiority, I don't think we have enough real proof to 
brand him the flaming bigot that some would brand him as.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 09:56:06 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:56:06 -0000
Subject: Salazar, Slytherins and Bigotry
In-Reply-To: <fkd8em+fr59@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkde7m+sekm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179983

> > Goddlefrood earlier:
> > On opposite sides of the pond,... The Aristocracy is actually 
> > considered by many people in the UK to be a bunch of inbred 
> > loons with the intellectual capacity of gnats. Centuries of
> > marrying your cousin will do that to you.

> bboyminn commented:
> Yes, but is that the Aristocrats view? Certainly it is very
> likely the common person's view, but I am writing from the
> perspective of Slytherin. He most certainly view himself
> as the aristocracy of the wizard world. But there is a 
> difference between believing yourself superior, and believing
> all inferiors should be killed and/or enslaved.

Goddlefrood responds:

I'm not sure if it would be available on DVD or via download 
from some source, but The F***ing Fulfords, a documentary from 
some years ago about a landed family would probably give an idea 
of how the aristocracy views themselves. They're not backward in 
coming forwards about their deficencies. The titles are still 
highly prized in some quarters (and can be purchased for around 
ten pounds from several online sources). The whole thing about 
buying titles was not the fact of the buying but the fact of 
Tony and his cronies benefitting from the same. That due to its 
having been the source of lucrative funds for the party coffers. 
Donations for titles is nothing new, it was just that Blair, and 
several others, were foloish enough to get caught at it. The time 
honoured tradition may continue indefinitely.

As to how Salazar saw himself, well, you're quite correct that at 
the remove of a millenium it's rather difficult to tell how he saw 
himself. I do think that he, like his fellow founders, saw himself 
primarily as an eductaor. His views on who should be eductaed are 
expressed by the Sorting Hat in its songs, songs that often refer 
to Slyhterin's pure-blood leaning. Why else, other than to wreak 
havoc, would he leave a basilisk in the Chamber, is something that 
perhaps should press our minds. I suppose one could argue that it 
was left there to kill indiscriminately, after all how would a 
basilisk distinguish between a pure-blood, a half-blood or a 
muggle-born?

> bboyminn (on muggle-borns):
<SNIP>
> ... But we have no evidence that he was not willing to work 
> with them and teach them if the danger had not been there.

Goddlefrood:

Other than this being one of the professed reasons for his 
leaving the school ... of course, that may not have been *the* 
reason, but I'm sure it played a part.

> bboyminn:
<SNIP>
> What Binn's says by implication is that Slytherin had a very
> justified distrust of muggleborns.
 
> So, again we have people's claims of what Slytherin did or
> didn't stand for, but Slytherin isn't there to speak for
> himself. Just as Christ wasn't there to speak for himself
> during the Crusades and just as Mohammed isn't there today
> to tell fanatic Muslims to knock it off.

Goddlefrood:

In a way I agree, however, what other reason than bigotry would 
there be for Slytherin's mistrust of muggle-borns? Those muggle-
borns we have met would not lead to a conclusion, IMO, that they 
can not be trusted. The other factor to bear in mind on this point 
is that during Slytherin's life time the wizarding world and the 
muggle world mixed. How freely we don't know, but we do know that 
the Statute of Secrecy only came in around 700 years after the 
founding of Hogwarts, so from that I would have to conclude that 
he wasn't worried about the exposure of the WW, as some more 
recent pure-blood supremacists might have been.

> bboyminn:
> I see your point, but don't fully agree. Let's face it
> Houses are about schoolboy rivalries and they never die down.
> Harvard and Yale are still at it as I suspect Oxford and
> Cambridge are, even after centuries.
<SNIP>

Goddlefrood:

As are the houses from my own alma mater. The rivalries are 
still there, as your examples indicate. That they wane with 
time and maturity is a given, they are still there, though. 
In the Hogwarts system Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff and Gryffindor 
all get along fine, or so it appears. Slytherin house is 
somewhat of a pariah and it is the attitude towards it as 
much as its own attitude that keeps this otherness alive. 
In order to move towards reconciliation, as many, including 
myself, had expected, there should be compromise on both sides, 
and there's really not too much sign of that, is all (to borrow 
an Americanism for a moment).

> bboyminn:
<SNIP>
> While I'm sure Slytherin was convinced of his own pureblood
> superiority, I don't think we have enough real proof to 
> brand him the flaming bigot that some would brand him as.

Goddlefrood:

Not so much a flaming bigot, but certainly a bigot. It is just 
a little fun, as you say.




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 15:46:07 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:46:07 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkc63v+eq57@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fke2nv+ve1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179984

> lizzyben:
> 
> Uh, yes, magic does run in families. Magical/wizarding parents have 
> wizarding kids. Muggles do not have wizarding children because they 
> don't have the wonderful magical gene. Magic is totally based on 
> family & heredity.

a_svirn:
Yes, because wizards are a breed apart. Literally. 

> > a_svirn:
> > Do musical people share a different and distinctive culture? A 
> > culture that is quite foreign to all the non-musical people? Do 
> > people with blue eyes get together and found a separate 
> civilisation? 
> > Not even the Nazis did that ? would have been a little difficult 
> > considering that Hitler himself wasn't exactly blue-eyed and 
blond. 
> > However, the wizarding world is called *wizarding* for a reason. 
It 
> > is a world separate from the muggle one. And superior to it. 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> Ugh, basically what I'm not understanding is why you consider the 
> wizarding world "superior". 

a_svirn:
Because that's how it is presented in the books. Look at how muggles 
have been described from the book 1 onwards. Reread "the Other 
Minister" chapter in HBP -- you can't deny that the muggle 
civilization is shown as distinctly inferior. 

> lizzyben:
Pretty much everyone agrees that it's 
> backwards, cruel, nasty, etc. 

a_svirn:
Pretty much everyone agrees that the gods of the Ancient Greece were 
a brutish and rowdy lot. Some humans were more beautiful and 
talented, some were even known to have beaten gods in musical and 
other contests.  But gods were immortal and that made them superior 
to humans and centaurs. Same with wizards. They have magic and 
muggles don't. Magic is might.  

> > a_svirn:
> > You know what? You are right. It is. Rowling's world is one huge 
> and 
> > *successful* experiment in eugenics. 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> Doesn't that bother you a little? 

a_svirn:
It does. 

> lizzyben:
After all, I thought the message 
> was that bigotry was bad, that the Slytherins are evil because they 
> believe in superior bloodlines, etc? And yet the entire fictional 
> world is a "successful" experiment in eugenics? Just that very 
phrase 
> creeps me out - eugenics experiment.*shiver* W/o even intending to, 
> we're slipping into the same type of language that the Nazis used. 
> And by "successful", you mean that she actually managed to create a 
> superior race? 

a_svirn:
It creeps me out too. Though to be fair, I don' think that Rowling 
herself realised just what she had said in that interview. She would 
have done better to have left this genetic stuff well alone. 

> > a_svirn:
> > I don't know about "we". I am happy to say that *I* am not a 
> muggle, 
> > any more than I am a witch. I live in a real world, not the 
awkward 
> > universe of the HP books. Though of course, I can't help 
> identifying 
> > with muggles. 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> In the Harry Potter novels, you are a Muggle. So am I. 

a_svirn:
We do not live on pages of those novels, thank Merlin. 


> > a_svirn:
> > It's no more hypocritical than having a born slave to serve you a 
> > sandwich. In real life it would be hypocrisy to say that there 
are 
> > men and women whom Nature has ordained to serve you a sandwich. 
In 
> > the Potterverse it would be hypocrisy to deny that elves' very 
> nature 
> > is to serve. 
> 
> lizzyben: 
> 
> And why, why, why would JKR create such a world? 

a_svirn:
Search me. 





From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 16:12:46 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:12:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fke2nv+ve1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <555998.97812.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179985

<<<HUGE SNIP>>>
   
  > > a_svirn:
> > It's no more hypocritical than having a born slave to serve you a 
> > sandwich. In real life it would be hypocrisy to say that there 
are 
> > men and women whom Nature has ordained to serve you a sandwich. 
In 
> > the Potterverse it would be hypocrisy to deny that elves' very 
> nature 
> > is to serve. 
> 
> lizzyben: 
> 
> And why, why, why would JKR create such a world? 

a_svirn:
Search me. 
   
   
  ***Katie: In my opinion, it's sloppy writing, too many plot devices without thinking about the consequences, and way, way too many interviews without guidance. 
   
   
  I truly, truly do not believe that JKR meant for these racist and prejudicial belief systems to worm their way into the story, but she also never stopped to think what she was doing by creating a whole race of people who were genetically superior to another. I sincerely believe that she didn't even really think of them in those sort of sinister terms. She simply saw Wizards as the main characters, and Muggles were like comic relief. Unfortunately, she made the books about prejudice and tolerance and then violated her own rules. 
   
   
  As far as the relationship between Gryffs and Slyths - it's another regrettable decision that I think was rushed and not considered properly. I wish that had turned out differently. I think the books would have been infinitely more powerful and would have come out with a profoundly different message if Slytherin and Gryffindor had reconciled and become allies. Alas. 
   
  Katie


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec 20 18:29:31 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:29:31 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <555998.97812.qm@web52702.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fkecab+ake3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179986

   
>    
>   ***Katie: In my opinion, it's sloppy writing, too many plot devices 
without thinking about the consequences, and way, way too many
 interviews without guidance. 
>    
>    
>   I truly, truly do not believe that JKR meant for these racist and 
prejudicial belief systems to worm their way into the story, but she 
also never stopped to think what she was doing by creating a whole 
race of people who were genetically superior to another.

Pippin:
Genetically superior to people who can split the atom, travel to the moon,
wipe out whole species, and may yet make the whole world uninhabitable? 

They're genetically different, but superior? They think of themselves as 
superior. Harry finds them superior but not because of their power. 
They're superior because among them he doesn't feel like a freak.

The separation is not eugenic -- they do not benefit genetically
by breeding among themselves, much to the purebloods' dismay.

They're like the Amish or the deaf culture, IMO. They're separatist 
because their needs are different from the dominant culture's and
separatism is the most practical way to accommodate them.  
Naturally they like to  think their way of life is normal and the
dominant culture is weird. And just as Arthur seems foolish and
a bit dim as he marvels over plugs and wonders vaguely why
airplanes stay up, the Prime Minister seems foolish and a bit dim
as he tries to understand about Voldemort. 

It's a small step from there to feeling that Muggles really are dim,
can't be trusted to govern themselves, and should let wizards rule
the world for the greater good. 

Is there something attractive about bigotry? JKR says, well, yes, there is.
I think some people are scared of that message. But just
as there are attractive things about drug abuse, there is something
attractive about seeing people who are different from ourselves as 
inferior, and yet possessed of some sinister power. We don't do
ourselves a favor by denying that. 

The answer is not for people to stop being prejudiced, because 
our brains don't work that way. Our brains don't work by logic, they
work by pattern-matching, and they are innately biased to discard
any information that doesn't fit the pattern they want to see. 

The answer is not to erase all the differences between peoples. Our
biased brains need people who see things differently.  

The good Slytherins dance all through DH wearing a tea cozy. They
do every thing the Gryffindors do. They defy Voldemort. Slughorn comes
back and fights Voldemort, even though his own students are
safe, Regulus gives up his life to save a House Elf, Snape is more
loyal to Hogwarts and Dumbledore than Harry himself.  Yet none
of it carries the emotional weight to offset the pattern of Slytherin
selfishness established in the earlier books. So what we see,
unless we force ourselves to consider the facts very carefully, 
is desertion of the school by the Slytherins though the fact is they
were excluded from the DA, never offered the opportunity to 
join it,  and then forced as a class to leave the school, loyal or not.

You have to force yourself to discard the earlier pattern and see 
things otherwise and of course Rowling can't make you do that. 

She's going to show you just how hard it is. But there is, canon says, 
something you can do, something canon encourages you to do.
You can try to see the good in people. Even if they don't see
it in themselves,  even if they've wronged you repeatedly, even
if they're dead and can never make amends. 

When you've learned that, then you've really learned what JKR says
about tolerance, IMO. 

Katie:
>   As far as the relationship between Gryffs and Slyths - it's another 
regrettable decision that I think was rushed and not considered properly. 
I wish that had turned out differently.  I think the books would have been 
infinitely more powerful and would have come out with 
a profoundly different message if Slytherin and Gryffindor had
reconciled and become allies. Alas. 

Pippin:

Talk about soppy! And what use would it be for the real world? 
Hey kids, all differences between cultures are just superficial and
none of the issues that people have been fighting about for thousands
of years really matter.

In that case, why not let Voldemort win?

Pippin











   




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Dec 20 18:33:40 2007
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:33:40 -0000
Subject: JKR in third place for Time's person of the tear
Message-ID: <fkeci4+cab9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179987

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/1,28804,1690753_1695388_1695436,00.html




From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 18:47:07 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkecab+ake3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <650518.62452.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179988

<<<HUGE SNIP>>>
   
  Katie:
> As far as the relationship between Gryffs and Slyths - it's another 
regrettable decision that I think was rushed and not considered properly. 
I wish that had turned out differently. I think the books would have been 
infinitely more powerful and would have come out with 
a profoundly different message if Slytherin and Gryffindor had
reconciled and become allies. Alas. 

Pippin:

Talk about soppy! And what use would it be for the real world? 
Hey kids, all differences between cultures are just superficial and
none of the issues that people have been fighting about for thousands
of years really matter.

In that case, why not let Voldemort win?

Pippin
   
   
   
  ***Katie: Well, first of all, I have to say that I think all cultural differences, while worthy and valuable, are actually superficial. My belief is that whether we are Christian or Muslim or athiest, whether we are European or Mexican or American...etc...we all are human and basically the same. And I *don't* think that the issues people have been fighting about for thousands of years matter -- at least if you're referring to bloodshed over religion, race, and homelands. I think it's tragic that we fight each other over those issues and I wish that people could learn to see each other's similarities instead of their differences.
   
   
  And, frankly, I thought that's what the HP books were about. And, IMO, she sent a really mixed message by saying on the one hand that prejudice is bad...unless it's prejudice against Slytherins. That's perfectly ok. I have to also mention that I did not used to feel this way. It's only upon reflection after DH that I see things this way. But I see now how contradictory the place of the Slytherins is in terms of the messages she promoted. 
   
   
  The Slytherins care about power, true. But it is never actually stated that they are in league with Voldemort. It is *assumed* that they support him, and it's never allowed that they might not. They are never given a shot at redemption, never given a moment to decide for themselves, either idividually, or as a group, who they are and what they believe. It was a missed opportunity, IMO, for a really powerful moment of redemption for Slytherin, and of epiphany for Gryffindor -- that things and people are not always what they seem. Instead, the sterotypes about Slytherin is reinforced and the Gryffndors are just reinforced in their feelings of superiority. It's an ugly message to end a great series...and it disappoints me. 
   
   
  Katie



       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 20:24:07 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:24:07 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkecab+ake3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkej17+ro7v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179989

> Pippin:
> The separation is not eugenic -- they do not benefit genetically
> by breeding among themselves, much to the purebloods' dismay.

a_svirn:
That's because the pure-blood fanatics go with a wrong premise. 
*Their* eugenic practices are wrong ? lead to inbreeding. The wider 
WW is much wiser about selective breeding: the good guys certainly 
know they need an infusion of fresh blood from time to time. However 
wizards do -- deliberately ? form a cultural entity based on one 
particular distinctive trait ?and that has a very distinct whiff of 
eugenics. 

> Pippin:
> They're like the Amish or the deaf culture, IMO. They're separatist 
> because their needs are different from the dominant culture's and
> separatism is the most practical way to accommodate them.  

a_svirn:
I don't see it. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Amish culture is 
not based on genetics. I mean they don't get selected on the basis of 
distinctive traits, do they? No the deaf can be regarded as a 
separate civilisation. For one thing, they aren't completely 
autonomous (as a social or cultural entity, I mean), for another, 
while they might reproduce their culture, they do not dabble in 
selective breeding in order to pass deafness on to the next 
generation, as far as I am aware of.  







From bobjtc at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 14:42:24 2007
From: bobjtc at yahoo.com (Bob Connors)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: The secrecy motif
Message-ID: <385787.72436.qm@web52808.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179990

<Snip>
> Montavilla47:
> I don't disagree with you, Bob. Yes, it's a two-way street.

> But... how can the Muggles fear the wizards when they don't
> even know that Wizards exist? 


Bob:

But we have known that they existed, and we feared them.  Look at what we have done to them over the years - the most famous I think would be Salem, Mass.  We muggles don't understand them, don't know them, don't trust them, therefore we fear them.

Just imagine what the pacifists would be doing - register your wands?  Wand control? Only crooks and cops should have them?  It is sort of funny to think of them in that way.
 
Bob 



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 21:15:20 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:15:20 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <385787.72436.qm@web52808.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fkem18+s7f0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179991

---  Bob Connors <bobjtc at ...> wrote:
>
> <Snip>
> > Montavilla47:
> > I don't disagree with you, Bob. Yes, it's a two-way street.
> 
> > But... how can the Muggles fear the wizards when they don't
> > even know that Wizards exist? 
> 
> 
> Bob:
> 
> But we have known that they existed, and we feared them. 
> Look at what we have done to them over the years - the most
> famous I think would be Salem, Mass.  We muggles don't 
> understand them, don't know them, don't trust them, therefore
> we fear them.
> 
> Just imagine what the pacifists would be doing - register
> your wands?  Wand control? Only crooks and cops should have
> them?  It is sort of funny to think of them in that way.
>  
> Bob
>

bboyminn:

I think Bob is right. Consider what would happen if it were
discovered that Magical Beings (wizards/witches) really 
existed. Do you think the various Churches in the world
are going to throw them a big tea party and welcome them
aboard? Do you think the world governments, especially
minority governments (like Arabs and Persians) are going
to just 'live and let live'? I REALLY don't think so. 

And as Bob points out, at various times in REAL European 
and American history, we were convinced that wizards and
witches did exist, and look how we treated them; in the 
most irrational, brutal, and cruel way. 

Wizards and witches are part of real muggle history, just
as Basilisks, Dragons, Elves, and Sphinxes are part of
our real history. They don't have to be real to be part
of history, that's the irony. I remember when I was 
researching Basilisks and came across a massive crop failure
in Italy that was blamed on the breath of a Basilisk (many 
centuries ago).

The absents or presents of the wizard world is not about
magic and what it can do for society, it is about POWER,
who has it, who controls it. 

The Church would certainly see the existence of wizards 
as a challenge to it's power and authority over the
people of earth. Government with the largest concentrations
of wizards, would try to command them to force this
countries will on the world.

No, it is far better for all if wizards and witches remain
the stuff of children's fairytales. 

Just a thought.

Steve/boyminn




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec 20 22:53:38 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:53:38 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkej17+ro7v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkerpi+ashn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179992

> a_svirn:
. For one thing, they aren't completely 
> autonomous (as a social or cultural entity, I mean), for another, 
> while they might reproduce their culture, they do not dabble in 
> selective breeding in order to pass deafness on to the next 
> generation, as far as I am aware of.
>

Pippin:

It's happened....

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/28/5/283

This was  obviously extreme, and highly controversial.

But the  Deaf do seek to actively transmit their culture across 
the generations by more conventional means, and do see themselves 
as apart from those who acquire deafness but are not part of their 
culture.

http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=180410

Obviously the Deaf aren't trying to keep their existence a
secret. But Google returned 28,300 hits for "deaf separatism"
JKR's wizards aren't unique in their desire to isolate themselves,
only in their success. 

But it has little to do with eugenics, since having a non-magic 
partner apparently does not increase your
chances of producing a squib or a weak wizard. I think Jo's
remarks about Dudley's DNA were only meant to apply to his
chances of producing a magical offspring with another Muggle,
since we've been told that magical parents nearly always have
magical children regardless of who their partner is. IOW, if
Dudley were to impregnate a witch, their offspring would most
likely be magical, just like any other Muggle wizard pairing. 

It may be, come to think of it, that Slytherin thought that Muggleborns
were the result of recent wizard/Muggle matings, and that if contact
between wizards and Muggles diminished, Muggleborns would be so
rare that they were no longer an issue. That would be a reason for
him to cooperate in the founding of the school, and  to agree to
teach Muggleborns magic despite his dislike for the idea. He might
have thought that Muggleborns were soon to disappear anyway.
But just in case they didn't, he left the basilisk, which could only
be released (as he thought) by a parselmouth. I'm sure he never
thought that his descendants would be anything but pure.

My own theory about Sally is that he wasn't originallly paranoid
about Muggleborns, but deteriorated as a result of old age or
some traumatic experience. He became impossible to deal with
in a group setting, continually trying to turn the group against
itself until in self-defense he was exiled. It wasn't his anti-Muggle
ideas but his newly paranoid personality that turned the others
against him. Just my theory, as I said. 

If I understand the non-science of wizard genetics,
there's no way for a wizard to choose a mate for their ability to 
produce magical  offspring, though many wizards would
like to discover one. However, there does seem to be a way
for a *Muggle* to do it, something that Jo doesn't seem to have
explored. Ah, fan fiction.

I'm as much as an amateur about genetics as Jo is, so my speculations
don't hold much water, but my theory is everyone must have magical
genes, they just don't work in most people. They're turned off, and
don't produce magical proteins. 

For magical reasons these genes are much more likely to turn themselves 
on during the reproductive process than to turn themselves off, and thus
muggleborns are so much more common than Squibs.

Pippin




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 20 23:09:14 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:09:14 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkerpi+ashn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkesmq+mim1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179993

> Pippin:
> Obviously the Deaf aren't trying to keep their existence a
> secret. But Google returned 28,300 hits for "deaf separatism"
> JKR's wizards aren't unique in their desire to isolate themselves,
> only in their success. 

Goddlefrood:

Um, no actually, if you encase deaf separatism in inverted commas, 
you'll get 99 hits, quite a big difference.

> Pippin: 
> But just in case they didn't, he left the basilisk, which could 
> only be released (as he thought) by a parselmouth. I'm sure he 
> never thought that his descendants would be anything but pure.

Goddlefrood:

As I've asked before, how would a basilisk be able to distinguish 
between a pure-blood, a half-blood or a muggle-born? I shouldn't 
think it could. The stare would be lethal to anyone who came 
across it, unless the wizard gene protected you in some way, 
no, that wouldn't work either because if you are at Hogwarts 
(excepting the squib Finch) you have it. The basilisk was an 
ultimate revenge on all wizards, as far as I'm concerned. 

Salazar may have been mad, of course and thought pure-bloods 
could stare down the basilisk.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Dec 20 23:33:55 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:33:55 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkesmq+mim1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkeu53+11c1a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179994

> Goddlefrood:
> 
> As I've asked before, how would a basilisk be able to distinguish 
> between a pure-blood, a half-blood or a muggle-born? I shouldn't 
> think it could. The stare would be lethal to anyone who came 
> across it, unless the wizard gene protected you in some way, 
> no, that wouldn't work either because if you are at Hogwarts 
> (excepting the squib Finch) you have it. The basilisk was an 
> ultimate revenge on all wizards, as far as I'm concerned. 

Pippin:
Of course it's not the basilisk but the parselmouth controlling the
basilisk who would make the distinction. Salazar would think that
only a pureblood descendant of his would have the ability, know
about the chamber, and desire to open it. He wouldn't have counted
on a horcrux infested diary, or a blood traitor with a parselmouth
best friend.  

How Riddle managed to protect himself from the basilisk is an 
interesting question, but obviously he could command it not to 
look at him.  Tom could make other animals obey him without
training them, so why should the basilisk be different?

He could have used the blindfold spell on the basilisk until
he was sure it would obey him. Any other ideas?

Pippin




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 00:02:46 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:02:46 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkeu53+11c1a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkevr6+m35h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179995

> > Goddlefrood:
> > As I've asked before, how would a basilisk be able to 
> > distinguish between a pure-blood, a half-blood or a 
> > muggle-born? <SNIP>

> Pippin:
> Of course it's not the basilisk but the parselmouth controlling 
> the basilisk who would make the distinction. 

Goddlefrood:

Perhaps to an extent, but said parselmouth would have to follow 
the beast around and make sure that he only ever let it stare at, 
or at times eat, isolated half-bloods and muggle-boirns. Quite 
tricky in a school of around a thousand.

> Pippin:
<SNIP>
> How Riddle managed to protect himself from the basilisk is an 
> interesting question, but obviously he could command it not to 
> look at him. Tom could make other animals obey him without
> training them, so why should the basilisk be different?

Goddlefrood:

Because it's a class 5 beast and untrainable, possibly. Other 
than the suggested blindfold Tom might have threatened the 
basilisk with a rooster crow in order to control it.





From jferer at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 00:37:31 2007
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:37:31 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality  ...
In-Reply-To: <fkbnvu+dlkf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkf1sb+1pmk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179996

Steve: "You may not admire Harry for his decision not to kill, but I
certainly do, because Harry always has that option and circumstances
occur in which, in the muggle world, his act of killing would be
justified. He /could have/ killed, but he didn't. He made the 'good'
choice.

"I'm more annoyed that they weren't smart enough to take the DE's
wands away from them; disarm the enemy. But to kill or not to kill,
for a good person, is an easy and admirable decision, you don't kill
unless it is absolutely necessary which is the choice Harry made."

===================

Harry is no killer, and he's more admirable for it, but you are right
that he had the option. Take away his wand and give him an M16 and he
would have had no choice. You could argue that he didn't always make
the best choice for his and his friends' safety - he violated the
cardinal rule, "never leave living (effective) enemies behind you."
His highest moral imperative is not to avoid killing, but his own and
his friends' self-preservation.

The fact he didn't think of taking or breaking enemies' wands just
demonstrates he isn't a trained fighter. After he became the head
Auror, as we were led to believe he became, I'd love to sit in on the
training he conducted going over those battles. I'm sure he pointed
out all his own errors.

Jim Ferer




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Fri Dec 21 00:38:57 2007
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:38:57 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS) and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fk94r1+rpsb@eGroups.com>
References: <fk6jdp+55rd@eGroups.com> <fk94r1+rpsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0712201638p41b1cfa0t55185ea86af8d617@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179997

Alla:
I do not see any personal benefits for Trio in anything they
> did in book 7.

Lynda:

And I do. They would not have been able to accomplish what they did if they
had stayed at Hogwarts, especially considering what Hogwarts became during
the tenure of the Carrows. And I also very strongly doubt that if Harry (Or
should I now refer to him as Undesirable Number 1), Ron and Hermione had
returned to school they would have been there for very long. Not when the
school, for all intents and purposes was the newest haven of the Death
Eaters. A school at which Muggle born and even half blood wizards and
witches were feeling more than a little uncomfortable. To say nothing of
blood traitors such as Ron and Ginny Weasley.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 00:41:21 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:41:21 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkerpi+ashn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkf23h+5ndf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179998

> > a_svirn:
> . For one thing, they aren't completely 
> > autonomous (as a social or cultural entity, I mean), for another, 
> > while they might reproduce their culture, they do not dabble in 
> > selective breeding in order to pass deafness on to the next 
> > generation, as far as I am aware of.
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> It's happened....
> 
> http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/28/5/283
> 
> This was  obviously extreme, and highly controversial.

a_svirn:
Obviously. 

> Pippin:
> But the  Deaf do seek to actively transmit their culture across 
> the generations by more conventional means, and do see themselves 
> as apart from those who acquire deafness but are not part of their 
> culture.
> 
> http://www.nad.org/site/pp.asp?c=foINKQMBF&b=180410
> 
> Obviously the Deaf aren't trying to keep their existence a
> secret. But Google returned 28,300 hits for "deaf separatism"
> JKR's wizards aren't unique in their desire to isolate themselves,
> only in their success. 
> 
> But it has little to do with eugenics, since having a non-magic 
> partner apparently does not increase your
> chances of producing a squib or a weak wizard. 

a_svirn:
And yet the magic civilisation reproduces itself genetically, not 
just "transmit their culture across the generations". You can't be 
inculturated into the WW if you lack the magic gene. If any 
group's "separatism" is based on genetics it has very much to do with 
eugenics: they include those with the required hereditary trait and 
cull all those who lack it. (In other words all those who comprise 
what you call for some reason "the dominant culture".)






From jferer at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 00:50:41 2007
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:50:41 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fkbqfh+docr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkf2l1+89ic@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 179999



Betsy Hp: "I mean that Harry's choice was never made hard. He was
never faced with a situation where if he did not kill the war would be
lost or a loved one would be lost. It was pacifism on the cheap, IMO.

"To pull in another example (and make this conversation even more
esotaric, sorry fellow list members) in 'The Charioteers', which took
place during the early stages of WWII when Britain was at her most
desperate, we had a pacifist character. His choice was *hard*. By
choosing not to kill, to be a conscientious objector, he was literally
faced with the possibility that Germany could well invade. And the
character wrestled with his decision. So while I didn't fully agree
with the character's choice in that I'd have probably chosen
differently, I admired the hell out of his convictions because they
were real convictions put under a massive test."

I will argue that Harry's courage was at least as great. Rather than
opt out resisting the greatest evil the world had ever seen, he fought
it, and managed to do it without killing when he could have. It's
clear proof of his essential goodness. 

The highest moral imperative for Harry is to eliminate Voldemort;
second, to preserve his friends and finally himself.

To opt out of resisting evil is not a good thing. To serve without
killing is possible and admirable (there are several C.O. Medal of
Honor winners, generally medics). But someone has to fight.

Jim Ferer




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 01:45:23 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:45:23 -0000
Subject: Two matters that begged for resolution
Message-ID: <fkf5rj+l8p0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180000

Two things I would have liked to see at least a small 
mention of in DH, neither of which were answered, were: 
(i) what happened to Ludo Bagman and was he a Death Eater?, 
and (ii) whither Fawkes?

Obviously these were quite minor, and may be dealt with in 
the encyclopedia.

Goddlefrood, only posting this to be post #180000




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 01:59:07 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:59:07 -0000
Subject: Killing and Morality/Sarah Monette(SPOILERS)  and JKR WAS: Re: JKR's Opinion
In-Reply-To: <fkc67q+809a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkf6lb+ac31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180001

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I mean that Harry's choice was never made hard.  He was never    
> > faced with a situation where if he did not kill the war would be 
> > lost or a loved one would be lost.  It was pacifism on the cheap, 
> > IMO. 

> >>Pippin:
> But he did face such a situation. He spared Pettigrew's life, and
> Pettigrew killed Diggory and brought Voldemort back.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, this doesn't work for me.  It wasn't Harry choosing not to 
kill, it was Harry choosing not to murder a captured prisoner he was 
about to take to jail.  I mean, it was the obviously right thing to 
do.  It'd be like crediting someone for not kicking an old man down 
the stairs.  Sure the old man said some nasty things, but it's just 
something a decent person doesn't do.

> >>Pippin:
> But he still decided that he would spare Stan Shunpike and that he 
> would not start treating the Order as potential traitors. 
> Harry has no way of knowing that his decision to spare
> Stan or encourage the Order to go on trusting one another is
> not going to lead to another disaster, so I don't see how you
> can say these aren't valid tests. 

Betsy Hp:
The not worring about potential traitors (or sloppy drunks) has 
nothing to do with choosing not to kill.  And the Stan situation is 
exactly what I'm talking about.  It was an easy choice, and 
apparently a correct one *because* there were no consequences.  Which 
came from having JKR on his side.  (Oh, if only Hagrid had died 
there.  *Then* we could have seen Harry wrestling with his decision.  
Plus, Hagrid would be dead.  Win, win, I say. <rbeg> <also, 
chortling>)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > But really, what I was most looking to was that their actions    
> > were not completely *selfless*.  
> > <snip>

> >>Pippin:
> Er, how is that different from the Trio deciding to save Draco and 
> Goyle?

Betsy Hp:
Well, it certainly wasn't as dangerous or requiring the same level of 
intelligence <g>, but yes, this is the closest to a truly selfless 
act that the Trio have done.  (I'd forgotten that scene.) So every 
once in while they do behave decently. <bg>

> >>Pippin:
> I don't like what Hermione did  to Marietta. But it shows what can
> happen when society becomes corrupt. Much as Hermione despises
> the way the WW is run, she still takes her moral cues from society
> to a much greater extent than Harry (who is inner directed) or Ron
> (who goes by his peers.) When the Ministry resorts to summary
> justice and mutilation as punishment, so does she. 

Betsy Hp:
I agree. The Ministry is very much Hermione's cup of tea.  As long as 
it's her in the driver's seat. (Which is how these sort of societies 
tend to work, I think.)

> >>Alla:
> But is it how it works? I mean if you decide that in the fight you
> will not kill, then unless this decision of yours threatens your
> loved ones, this is cheapens it somehow?

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, pretty much. <g>  I mean, if you're expecting me to ooh and ah 
over it.  Because it's too easy a decision to make in Harry's world.  
There's no risk involved, it's not hard, because he's got so much 
power at hand without killing.

Plus, you've got the huge issue of Harry using two other 
Unforgivables to make his life and his war easier.  My goodness, he 
chooses to *torture* someone where a stun would have worked just as 
well.  Which goes further, to my mind, to make his non-killing 
morality seem a little pasted on.  Harry chooses not to kill because 
not killing doesn't threaten the outcome of his war.

> >>bboyminn:
> A couple of small items; in Harry's world they do not use guns,
> they use the equivalent of Star Trek Phasers. When you fire
> a Phaser or wand, it's not 'shot or not shot', 'killed or not
> killed', it is not black and white, it is shades of gray.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right, exactly!  Harry can defeat his enemy, I mean, put his enemy 
down quickly and efficiently with*out* killing.  So his choice to not 
kill is that much easier.

> >>bboyminn:
> You may not admire Harry for his decision not to kill, but
> I certainly do, because Harry always has that option and
> circumstances occur in which, in the muggle world, his act
> of killing would be justified. He /could have/ killed, but
> he didn't. He made the 'good' choice.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But as you point out, it's also an easy choice.  The outcome Harry is 
going for isn't hurt by his not killing.  Actually, Harry had to do 
very little warrior stuff to win this particular war.  Which is why I 
don't put too much weight on his not killing.  JKR made it an easy 
decision for him. 

> >>Alla:
> > I do not see any personal benefits for Trio in anything they did 
> > in book 7.

> >>Lynda:
> And I do. They would not have been able to accomplish what they did 
> if they had stayed at Hogwarts, especially considering what        
> Hogwarts became during the tenure of the Carrows.

Betsy Hp:
Plus, their side won the war.  I mean, that's a pretty big benefit 
right there. <g>

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > <snip>
> > To pull in another example (and make this conversation even more
> > esotaric, sorry fellow list members) in 'The Charioteers', which 
> > took place during the early stages of WWII when Britain was at   
> > her most desperate, we had a pacifist character. His choice was   
> > *hard*. By choosing not to kill, to be a conscientious objector, 
> > he was literally faced with the possibility that Germany could   
> > well invade. And the character wrestled with his decision. So    
> > while I didn't fully agree with the character's choice in that   
> > I'd have probably chosen differently, I admired the hell out of   
> > his convictions because they were real convictions put under a   
> > massive test.

> >>Jim Ferer:
> I will argue that Harry's courage was at least as great. Rather than
> opt out resisting the greatest evil the world had ever seen, he    
> fought it, and managed to do it without killing when he could have.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not questioning Harry's courage at all.  (My goodness, who would 
of a Gryffindor?)  But what I am questioning is the idea that Harry's 
choice to not kill was a difficult and hard moral decision on his 
part.  As bboyminn pointed out, killing wasn't necessary in Harry's 
war.  He could win without it.  So it's not like Harry sacrificed 
anything in the decision.  Harry was able to be both conscientious 
objector and warrior without facing the ethical dilemmas of either.

Good Lord!  Once again JKR is determined for her boy hero to have his 
cake and eat it too.  (I'm starting to think this may be the 
overarching theme of the series.)

> >>Jim Ferer:
> It's clear proof of his essential goodness.

Betsy Hp:
And when he decided to torture rather than stun, what was that proof 
of?

Betsy Hp




From jferer at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 12:38:31 2007
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:38:31 -0000
Subject: Two matters that begged for resolution
In-Reply-To: <fkf5rj+l8p0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkgc47+2bu6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180002

Goddlefrood, in post one hundred and eighty thousand: "Two things I
would have liked to see at least a small mention of in DH, neither of
which were answered, were: (i) what happened to Ludo Bagman and was he
a Death Eater?, and (ii) whither Fawkes?

Obviously these were quite minor, and may be dealt with in the
encyclopedia."

Ludo was likely found living as a Muggle in Queens, New York, doing
magic shows at children's birthday parties, using the money to buy
Mega Millions lottery tickets and going to Aqueduct Raceway or the Off
Track Betting parlor. He's not a Death Eater, all he ever wanted was
to get the excitement back from when he played Quidditch and find some
easy money.

Fawkes - what if a phoenix, who lives practically forever, can go to
the "on" without having to die first?

Jim Ferer




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Fri Dec 21 12:44:45 2007
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:44:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <385787.72436.qm@web52808.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <385787.72436.qm@web52808.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40712210444w3fd39c67w2546d3aa60cdc2ed@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180003

>  Bob:
>  But we have known that [Wizards] existed, and we feared them. Look at what we
> have done to them over the years - the most famous I think would be Salem,
> Mass. We muggles don't understand them, don't know them, don't trust them,
> therefore we fear them.
>
>  Just imagine what the pacifists would be doing - register your wands? Wand
> control? Only crooks and cops should have them? It is sort of funny to think
> of them in that way.


Kemper now:
The Muggle pacifists would not care about the Wizards.
Rather, in the US it would be the fear and warmongers who would want
to regulate wand registration.  Perhaps get the Floo Network and
Portkey Office under the TSA.   Retrieve owls and read mail without
court orders.
Of course, it would be to keep the US Muggle citizens safe.

It is funny to think them that way :)

Kemper



From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec 21 16:02:01 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:02:01 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkf23h+5ndf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkgo1p+n6af@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180004



> a_svirn:
> And yet the magic civilisation reproduces itself genetically, not 
> just "transmit their culture across the generations". You can't be 
> inculturated into the WW if you lack the magic gene. If any 
> group's "separatism" is based on genetics it has very much to do with 
> eugenics: they include those with the required hereditary trait and 
> cull all those who lack it. (In other words all those who comprise 
> what you call for some reason "the dominant culture".)


Pippin:
This is broadening the definition of eugenics far beyond what is
generally meant by the term. For example there are strains of
Hinduism which do not accept converts; the only way you can
become a Hindu in their eyes is to be born one. Your only
acceptable mate is another Hindu. But It's absurd, not to 
mention anachronistic,  to say that their aim is eugenics; 
it has nothing to do  with improving the heredity
of the human race or breeding out bad qualities. It is more like 
they think if it is your destiny to be a Hindu, or marry a Hindu,
you would have been born one, or so I understand. 

We have no canon that the wizards, even the purebloods, 
ever thought that separating themselves from Muggle society
would make them a superior race. In fact it's the purebloods who
seem opposed to the separation since it deprived them of Muggles
to exploit.

The wizards who pressed for separation  did not 
want to be part of a persecuting society. The irony is that
they became a persecuting society themselves.

Here, btw, is a fascinating article about how
a deaf community  in Russia formed around a residential
school, and how it became, in a sense, invisible...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_2_34/ai_68660113

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Pippin 




From constancevigilance at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 16:51:14 2007
From: constancevigilance at yahoo.com (constancevigilance)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:51:14 -0000
Subject: FILK: Christmas Morning
Message-ID: <fkgqu2+na6j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180005

This was inspired when I wondered what Christmas carols are sung in
the southern hemisphere. I did a Google search and found only one
Australian carol called "Six White Boomers". It occurred to me that we
know exactly where Harry and Hermione were on Christmas Eve in Deathly
Hallows. So here is possibly the only Christmas carol ever set in a
cemetery.

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=hlSsffF2xhA

(spoken)

Harry and Hermione have spent all year on the road looking for
something, they weren't sure what. On Christmas Eve, they find
themselves at a small churchyard cemetery where they feel certain they
will find the resting place of Lily and James Potter.

(singing)

Alone upon a Christmas Eve, a-standing in the snow
Harry and Hermione see a church a-glow
Christmas? This is Christmas? They put those thoughts behind.
James and Lily's headstones were what they came to find.

Beside the little graveyard, a sign upon a stead.
"Go, Harry!" and "We love you" the standard said.
They cautiously moved forward, encouraged by the word
When out across the courtyard, Christmas bells were heard.

Ding. Dong. Ding. Dong. Ding. Dong. Ding. Dong.

"Christmas morning! It's Christmas morning!"
Hermione said to Harry while the moonlight shone.
"Christmas morning won't be Christmas morning
'Till we find Lily's stone."

Harry searched the first row, Hermione took the next.
She tried to raise the mood under some pretext.
"If they aren't here, will you take it very well?"
Harry said, "I found one labeled Pev-er-ell."

"Christmas morning! It's Christmas morning!"
Hermione said to Harry while the moonlight shone.
"Christmas morning won't be Christmas morning
'Till we find Lily's stone."

Hermione called out "Hey! Look at what we've got!
The name is Dumbledore and it's the fam'ly plot!
Albus had a mum and she's buried here below.
Ariana is beside her 'neath the winter snow."

"Christmas morning! It's Christmas morning!"
Hermione said to Harry while the moonlight shone.
"Christmas morning won't be Christmas morning
'Till we find Lily's stone."

And that is when they found them, two markers side by side
James and Lily Potter and the date they died.
And Harry looked upon them and finally understood
A death is never wasted when the life was good.

"Christmas morning! It's Christmas morning!"
Hermione said to Harry while the moonlight shone.
"Christmas morning, it's now Christmas morning.
I guess I've always known."

It was the greatest Christmas gift that Harry ever had
That life wins over death and that can't be bad.
So put the past behind you and face today with cheer.
Gather friends and fam'ly all throughout the year.

"Christmas morning! It's Christmas morning!"
They shouted out together as they walked away.
Christmas morning, it's always Christmas morning
When love is in your day.




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 18:19:07 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:19:07 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkgo1p+n6af@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkh02r+2kg4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180006

> > a_svirn:
> > And yet the magic civilisation reproduces itself genetically, not 
> > just "transmit their culture across the generations". You can't 
be 
> > inculturated into the WW if you lack the magic gene. If any 
> > group's "separatism" is based on genetics it has very much to do 
with 
> > eugenics: they include those with the required hereditary trait 
and 
> > cull all those who lack it. (In other words all those who 
comprise 
> > what you call for some reason "the dominant culture".)
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> This is broadening the definition of eugenics far beyond what is
> generally meant by the term. 

a_svirn:
In what way? I'd say it is definitely an attempt of negative 
eugenics. Not through genocide, thank Merlin, but 
through "separatism". 

> Pippin:
For example there are strains of
> Hinduism which do not accept converts; the only way you can
> become a Hindu in their eyes is to be born one. Your only
> acceptable mate is another Hindu. But It's absurd, not to 
> mention anachronistic,  to say that their aim is eugenics; 
> it has nothing to do  with improving the heredity
> of the human race or breeding out bad qualities. It is more like 
> they think if it is your destiny to be a Hindu, or marry a Hindu,
> you would have been born one, or so I understand.

a_svirn:
But, Pippin, you are giving an example of social separatism, not 
genetic. There isn't such thing as Hinduist gene, is there?  Besides, 
even though their *aim* isn't eugenic, their *means* -- judging from 
what you've said ? lean a bit in that direction. 

> Pippin:
> We have no canon that the wizards, even the purebloods, 
> ever thought that separating themselves from Muggle society
> would make them a superior race. 

a_svirn:
In effect, though, they have succeeded in becoming one. A British 
Prime Minister and a President of the USA take orders from wizards 
(and not even necessarily those of equal rank.)

> Pippin:
In fact it's the purebloods who
> seem opposed to the separation since it deprived them of Muggles
> to exploit.

a_svirn:
True, true. But then, those fanatics can't get anything right. 

> Pippin: 
> Here, btw, is a fascinating article about how
> a deaf community  in Russia formed around a residential
> school, and how it became, in a sense, invisible...
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_2_34/ai_68660113
> 
> Truth is stranger than fiction.

a_svirn:
Yeah. That' really fascinating, thanks for the link. 




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 23:06:57 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:06:57 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fke2nv+ve1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkhguh+qj9b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180007

> a_svirn:
> Yes, because wizards are a breed apart. Literally. 

lizzyben:

Ugh. :) We all sound like Aunt Marge now, don't we?
 

> > lizzyben:
> > 
> > Ugh, basically what I'm not understanding is why you consider 
the 
> > wizarding world "superior". 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Because that's how it is presented in the books. Look at how 
muggles 
> have been described from the book 1 onwards. Reread "the Other 
> Minister" chapter in HBP -- you can't deny that the muggle 
> civilization is shown as distinctly inferior. 

lizzyben:

Oh, I don't deny that wizards subjectively consider themselves 
superior to non-wizards. But I'm saying that, objectively, they're 
no more superior than someone who has hazel eyes over brown eyes. 
It's just a genetic trait. Where it gets odd is that JKR seems to 
also consider her wizards to be superior to Muggles. And I don't 
just think it's for comic relief, or an accident, or sloppy writing. 
Wizard superiority is pretty much the foundation of the novels.  

> > lizzyben:
> Pretty much everyone agrees that it's 
> > backwards, cruel, nasty, etc. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Pretty much everyone agrees that the gods of the Ancient Greece 
were 
> a brutish and rowdy lot. Some humans were more beautiful and 
> talented, some were even known to have beaten gods in musical and 
> other contests.  But gods were immortal and that made them 
superior 
> to humans and centaurs. Same with wizards. They have magic and 
> muggles don't. Magic is might.  

lizzyben:

Well, yes. 


> a_svirn:
> It creeps me out too. Though to be fair, I don' think that Rowling 
> herself realised just what she had said in that interview. She 
would 
> have done better to have left this genetic stuff well alone. 

lizzyben: 

I think she knows exactly what she said. She says what she means. 
Magic has always been in the bloodlines in the Potterverse. It's not 
just the interviews - throughout the novels, many characters make 
reference to the importance of bloodlines - Slytherins, obviously, 
with their pure-blood mania, but Gryffindors too. Hagrid says that 
the the Malfoys are "bad blood" & no good can come of them; implying 
that their meanness is in their very DNA. DD says that he knew that 
Riddle was bad news because he came from the Gaunts, a bloodline of 
madness & violence. At the same time, everyone praises Harry for his 
good genes - everyone says he looks just like his parents; Hagrid 
says that Harry gets his Quidditch skills straight from his father, 
and that Harry will, of course, be a powerful wizard because his 
parents were. Bloodline is everything here. And then look at the 
epilogue, where children are basically carbon copies of their 
parents - right down to the names. Scorpius Malfoy looks just like 
Draco Malfoy & has an even worse name - no good can come of him.

So, we have a strict hierarchy of humanity according to bloodlines, 
with Muggles at the very bottom, followed by Squibs, followed by 
Slytherins, followed by Ravenclaws/Hufflepuffs, followed by 
Gryffindors at the very, very top. And at the top of the Gryffindors 
is Harry Potter, the Chosen One, the heir of Perevell. The one whose 
blood is so good, so pure, it will save the entire wizarding world. 
Harry is the Superman among Supermen, the most elite of the elite.  

> > lizzyben: 
> > 
> > And why, why, why would JKR create such a world? 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Search me.
>

lizzyben:

Well... I have a couple theories. :)




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 22 00:11:04 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:11:04 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif/magic & muggles
In-Reply-To: <fkhguh+qj9b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkhkmo+nj9e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180008

> lizzyben:
> 
> Oh, I don't deny that wizards subjectively consider themselves 
> superior to non-wizards. But I'm saying that, objectively, they're 
> no more superior than someone who has hazel eyes over brown eyes. 
> It's just a genetic trait. 

a_svirn:
Only because "objectively" being hazel-eyed doesn't help one to 
dominate brown-eyed people. Magic does, however, ensure one's 
dominance over the non-magic. Quite objectively ? that's the point. 
Suppose all the hazel-eyed got together and found a civilization. 
They might entertain some delusions of grandeur, but they would be 
just that ? delusions. Whereas wizards founded their own 
civilization -- based on one genetic trait ? in 1692 and have been 
lording over muggles ever since. Precisely because of this trait.  So 
I really don't think it's comparable. Just like slavery has turned 
out to be a nice thing in the WW, an experiment in negative eugenics 
has proved to be a successful endeavour. 

> lizzyben:
Where it gets odd is that JKR seems to 
> also consider her wizards to be superior to Muggles. And I don't 
> just think it's for comic relief, or an accident, or sloppy 
writing. 
> Wizard superiority is pretty much the foundation of the novels.

a_svirn:
I think so, yes.


> lizzyben: 
<SNIP> So, we have a strict hierarchy of humanity according to 
bloodlines, 
> with Muggles at the very bottom, followed by Squibs, followed by 
> Slytherins, followed by Ravenclaws/Hufflepuffs, followed by 
> Gryffindors at the very, very top. And at the top of the 
Gryffindors 
> is Harry Potter, the Chosen One, the heir of Perevell. The one 
whose 
> blood is so good, so pure, it will save the entire wizarding world. 
> Harry is the Superman among Supermen, the most elite of the elite.  

a_svirn:
Yes. Blood does seem to be at the bottom of everything. Even Love and 
Mother's Sacrifice isn't enough to ensure Harry's protection. It 
needs blood to be binding. 




From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Sat Dec 22 01:26:36 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:26:36 -0000
Subject: Two matters that begged for resolution
In-Reply-To: <fkf5rj+l8p0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkhp4c+h93v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180009

Speaking of matters that begged for resolution:

I so wanted some sort of just deserts for Rita Skeeter. But I suppose 
that would be like expecting an Enquirer reporter to go to Iraq.

I thought Neville and Luna would become a couple by the time of the 
epilogue also, but in JKR's mind, Luna married Rolf Scamander.

I was also curious throughout the series about the social/love life of 
McGonagall and some others, but such depth never entered the plot line.

Pippin Fowler




From dazz_arlonsy at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 16:53:41 2007
From: dazz_arlonsy at yahoo.com (dazz_arlonsy)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:53:41 -0000
Subject: I hope they won't cut these off for the next movie....
Message-ID: <fkgr2l+que5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180010

Best Quotes of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

"Kreacher won't, Kreacher won't, Kreacher won't!" (KREACHER)

"Kreacher, shut up!" (HARRY)

"One of my best friends is Muggle-born and she's the best in our
year." (HARRY)

"I'll want a pay rise, Dumbledore!" (SLUGHORN)

"Well done! Seven OWLs, that's more than Fred and George got
together!" (MOLLY)

"Mum, d'you honestly think You-Know-Who's going to be hiding behind a
bookshelf in Flourish and Blotts?" (RON)

"Blimey
 you can't even make a joke round here anymore
" (RON)

"UNo-Poo. They'll be murdered in their beds!" (MOLLY)

"If I see you do that again I'll jinx your fingers together." (MOLLY)

"Harry, please. You're talking to the man who raised Fred and George."
(ARTHUR)

"You should hear my gran talk about you. `That Harry Potter's got more
backbone than the whole Ministry of Magic put together!' She'd give
anything to have you as a grandson
" (NEVILLE)

"Wrackspurt got you?" (LUNA)

"Harry, m'boy!" (SLUGHORN)

"There's no need to call me `sir,' Professor." (HARRY)

"I do not take cheek from anyone, Potter
 not even `the Chosen One.'"
(SNAPE)

"Did you really tell him I'm the best in the year? Oh, Harry!" (HERMIONE)

"Anyone we know dead?" (RON)

"I'm a teacher! A teacher, Potter! How dare yeh threaten ter break
down my door!" (HAGRID)

"Since when have yeh called me `sir'?" (HAGRID)

"Since when have you called me `Potter'?" (HARRY)

"Listen, it's not my fault Slughorn invited Hermione and me to his
stupid party, neither of us wanted to go, you know!" (HARRY)

"But since when has Malfoy been one of the world's great thinkers?"
(HARRY)

"`Slug Club.' It's pathetic. Well, I hope you enjoy your party." (RON)

"You're the best Keeper I tried out, Ron." (HARRY)

"I don't want to find my own sister snogging people in public!" (RON)

"Harry's snogged Cho Chang! And Hermione snogged Viktor Krum, it's
only you who acts like it's something disgusting, Ron, and that's
because you've got about as much experience as a twelve-year-old!" (GINNY)

"D'you think Hermione did snog Krum?" (RON)

"Don't drink that, Ron!" (HERMIONE)

"Look who's talking. Confunded anyone lately?" (HARRY)

"You know perfectly well what we're talking about! You spiked Ron's
juice with lucky potion at breakfast! Felix Felicis!" (HERMIONE)

"You added Felix Felicis to Ron's juice this morning, that's why he
saved everything! See! I can save goals without help, Hermione!" (RON)

"I'm sick of Ron at the moment, I don't know what I'm supposed to have
done
" (HERMIONE)

"Ron seems to be enjoying the celebrations." (HERMIONE)

"You shouldn't leave Lavender waiting outside. She'll wonder where
you've gone." (HERMIONE)

"She can't complain. She snogged Krum. So she's found out someone
wants to snog me too. Well, it's a free country. I haven't done
anything wrong." (RON)

"I never promised Hermione anything. I mean, all right, I was going to
go to Slughorn's Christmas party with her, but she never said
 just as
friends
 I'm a free agent
" (RON)

"He's at perfect liberty to kiss whomever he likes, I really couldn't
care less." (HERMIONE)

"Potty asked Loony to go to the party! Potty lurves Loony! Potty
luuuuuurves Looooony!" (PEEVES)

"You could've taken anyone! Anyone! And you chose Loony Lovegood?" (RON)

"Quidditch! Is that all boys care about?" (HERMIONE)

"I don't think you should be an Auror, Harry. The Aurors are part of
the Rotfang Conspiracy, I thought everyone knew that. They're planning
to bring down the Ministry of Magic from within using a combination of
Dark Magic and gum disease." (LUNA)

"Dumbledore trusts Severus, and that ought to be good enough for all
of us." (LUPIN)

"James was a pureblood, Harry, and I promise you, he never asked us to
call him `Prince.'" (LUPIN)

"Is Hermione really going out with McLaggen?" (RON)

"Dumbledore's man through and through, aren't you, Potter?" (SCRIMGEOUR)

"Yeah, don't worry about us, or about Percy. He's such a prat, it's
not really a loss, is it?" (RON)

"Oh, well, if Won-Won thinks that, you'd better do it. After all, when
has Won-Won's judgement ever been faulty?" (HERMIONE)

"The important things to remember when Apparating are the three D's!
Destination, Determination, Deliberation!" (TWYCROS)

"They didn't fall off your bed, you prat, don't you understand? They
were mine, I chucked them out of my trunk when I was looking for the
map. They're the Chocolate Cauldrons Romilda gave me before Christmas
and they're all spiked with love potion!" (HARRY)

"Dumbledore's told us how you saved him with the bezoar. Oh, Harry,
what can we say? You saved Ginny
 you saved Arthur
 now you've saved
Ron." (MOLLY)

"Will you stop pretending to be asleep when Lavender comes to see
you?" (HARRY)

"I don't want to stay here overnight. I want to find McLaggen and kill
him." (HARRY)

"I hope Luna always commentates from now on
 Loser's Lurgy
" (RON)

"Don't be stupid. You couldn't have missed a Quidditch match just to
follow Malfoy, you're the Captain!" (RON)

"Kreacher will not insult Harry Potter in front of Dobby, no he won't,
or Dobby will shut Kreacher's mouth for him!" (DOBBY)

"Dobby is a free house-elf and he can obey anyone he likes and Dobby
will do whatever Harry Potter wants him to do!" (DOBBY)

"And if Dobby does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself off the topmost
tower, Harry Potter!" (DOBBY)

"He's got Crabbe and Goyle transforming into girls? Blimey
 no wonder
they don't look too happy these days." (RON)

"I would expect nothing more sophisticated from you, Ronald Weasley,
the boy so solid he cannot Apparate half an inch across a room." (SNAPE)

"When you say you had lots in common, d'you mean he lives in an S-bend
too?" (RON)

"I doubt you'd find a woman who sulked for half an hour because Madam
Rosmerta didn't laugh at their joke about the hag, the Healer, and the
Mimbulus mimbletonia." (HERMIONE)

"He's mental! That thing told its mates to eat Harry and me! Told them
to help themselves! And now Hagrid expects us to go down there and cry
over its horrible hairy body!" (RON)

"You've got a good feeling about burying a giant spider?" (RON)

"Farewell, Aragog, king of arachnids, whose long and faithful
friendship those who knew you won't forget! Though your body will
decay, your spirit lingers on in the quiet, web-spun places of your
forest home. May your many-eyed descendants ever flourish and your
human friends find solace for the loss they have sustained." (SLUGHORN)

"I am the Chosen One. I have to kill him. I need that memory." (HARRY)

"Be brave like my mother, Professor
" (HARRY)

"MURDER! MURDER IN THE BATHROOM! MURDER!" (MYRTLE)

"Then why does it have the name `Roonil Wazlib' written inside the
front cover?" (SNAPE)

"Do you know what I think, Potter? I think that you are a liar and a
cheat and that you deserve detention with me every Saturday until the
end of term." (SNAPE)

"I won't say `I told you so.'" (HERMIONE)

"I told you there was something wrong with that Prince person." (HERMIONE)

"Give it a rest, Hermione! By the sound of it, Malfoy was trying to
use an Unforgivable Curse, you should be glad Harry had something good
up his sleeve!" (GINNY)

"Oh, don't start acting as though you understand Quidditch. You'll
only embarrass yourself." (GINNY)

"You'd think people had better things to gossip about. Three Dementor
attacks in a week, and all Romilda Vane does is ask me if it's true
you've got a Hippogriff tattooed across your chest." (GINNY)

"How can I have hung round with you for five years and not think girls
are clever?" (HARRY)

"The Inner Eye was fixed upon matters well outside the mundane realms
of whooping voices." (TRELAWNEY)

"I miss having you in my classes, Harry. You were never much of a
Seer
 but you were a wonderful Object
" (TRELAWNEY)

"He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, Professor,
how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?" (HARRY)

"I'Il be fine, I'll be with Dumbledore. I want to know you lot are
okay
 don't look like that, Hermione, I'll see you later
" (HARRY)

"Don't hurt them, don't hurt them, please, please, it's my fault, hurt
me instead
" (DUMBLEDORE)

"I am not worried, Harry. I am with you." (DUMBLEDORE)

"Draco, Draco, you are not a killer." (DUMBLEDORE)

"Severus
 please
" (DUMBLEDORE)

"You dare use my own spells against me, Potter? It was I who invented
them ? I, the Half-Blood Prince!" (SNAPE)

"DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" (SNAPE)

"I always thought Dumbledore must know something about Snape that we
didn't
" (TONKS)

"Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated
James
" (LUPIN)

"It would take more zan a werewolf to stop Bill loving me!" (FLEUR)

"You thought I would not weesh to marry him? Or per'aps, you hoped?
What do I care how he looks? I am good-looking enough for both of us,
I theenk! All these scars show is zat my husband is brave!" (FLEUR)

"Our Great-Auntie Muriel has a very beautiful tiara ?goblin-made ?
which I am sure I could persuade her to lend you for the wedding. She
is very fond of Bill, you know, and it would look lovely with your
hair." (MOLLY)

"It's me home, it's bin me home since I was thirteen. An' if there's
kids who wan' me ter teach `em, I'll do it. But
 I dunno
 Hogwarts
without Dumbledore
" (HAGRID)

"I'm trying to say, Harry, that you're pulling too much blame on
yourself. I thought the Prince seemed to have a nasty sense of humour,
but I would never have guessed he was a potential killer
" (HERMIONE)

"Ginny, listen
 I can't be involved with you anymore. We've got to
stop seeing each other. We can't be together." (HARRY)

"Voldemort wants to kill me himself and Aurors won't stop him. So
thanks for the offer, but no thanks." (HARRY)

"Look, let me go back and hit Percy!" (RON)


dazz_arlonsy



From lei_smarties at yahoo.com.ph  Fri Dec 21 16:12:34 2007
From: lei_smarties at yahoo.com.ph (lei_smarties)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:12:34 -0000
Subject: Chance to be a character in HP
Message-ID: <fkgoli+f1t2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180011

 *If given a chance to choose and play a role in Harry Potter movie,
which character would you like to portray and why?

- to start up, I will be choosing Hermione, well I simply like  the
way J.K Rowling made the character which is intelligent, smart and
fierce she always has a way figuring things out, she's always prepared
like on their sort of camping thing when they hide on DH, and that bag
of hers was just amazing! Always wanted to have a bag like that,lol,
and she's also Harry and Ron's good friend who sympathizes on all
their troubles  and adventures. And also how J.K Rowling build the
story of Hermione and Ron, they are just so funny when they argued and
the jealousy they had when Hermione has Victor and Ron has
Lavender, but I loved the fact that in the end of the story both of
them lived Happily ever after..sweet!

lei_smarties

ELFY NOTE:

If you wish to reply to this post please give canon based reasons why you wish to play a certain character, if you want to talk about actors in HP movies, PLEASE reply at our sister movie list here:


http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/?yguid=112798769



From Schlobin at aol.com  Sat Dec 22 08:07:54 2007
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:07:54 -0000
Subject: I hope they won't cut these off for the next movie....
In-Reply-To: <fkgr2l+que5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkigkq+aujc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180012

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dazz_arlonsy" 
<dazz_arlonsy at ...> wrote:
>
> Best Quotes of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
> 
> "Kreacher won't, Kreacher won't, Kreacher won't!" (KREACHER)
> 
snip

I hope they'll include the line about DD reading the knitting 
patterns....the scene where Hagrid and Slughorn are singing about 
Odo....the scene where Ginny charges the Quidditch commentator....
the scene where DD confronts the Dursleys....

Susan




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sat Dec 22 08:12:54 2007
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:12:54 -0000
Subject: I hope they won't cut these off for the next movie....
In-Reply-To: <fkgr2l+que5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkigu6+8i4b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180013

--- oh, and let's not forget the scene where DD has the firewhiskey 
glasses bumping against the Dursleys...
or the lines

Vernon "I don't mean to be rude..."

DD "Yes, but accidental rudeness seems to occur too often...best say 
no more..." (quotes from memory)

Or DD in the plum colored suit and Harry saying "Nice suit, sir!"

Susan




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sat Dec 22 08:15:28 2007
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:15:28 -0000
Subject: Chance to be a character in HP
In-Reply-To: <fkgoli+f1t2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkih30+7jlu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180014

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lei_smarties" 
<lei_smarties at ...> wrote:
>
>  *If given a chance to choose and play a role in Harry Potter movie,
> which character would you like to portray and why?
> 
snip

Well, if I were a man, I'd like to play Albus Dumbledore. He's always 
been my favorite character, and now, even more so, since I found out 
he's gay. His combination of power and humor have always appealed to 
me.

If I were tall and stately that Maggie Smith, I'd love to play 
Minerva McGonagall....she is so awesome..or Madam Hooch....or 
Professor Grubbly Plank..

But probably I'd be best suited to playing Arabella Figg since I'm 
old and batty and love cats, and have thousands of pictures of my 
cats....

Susan




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 22 11:33:17 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:33:17 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fkb02e+uct1@eGroups.com>
References: <fkb02e+uct1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <476CF5FD.6070105@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180015

Geoff Bannister blessed us with this gem On 19/12/2007 19:42:

> I woul disagree with you about listing Dolores Umbridge as your MAC*
> nominee.

I hadn't jumped into this discussion until mostly because I haven't had 
the time, but partly because I was torn between several options for 
reasons I couldn't put my finger on.

For myself, I'd subdivide MAC into IMAC and UMAC -- Intentionally and 
Unintentionally Most Annoying Characters. In the IMAC category, I think 
it's a toss-up between Skeeter and Umbridge. However, Skeeter was 
*supposed* to be annoying, and I think at times JKR over-wrote the 
character, to the point of caricature. This was majorly detrimental in 
DH, where I found Harry's credulity toward Skeeter's book rather, well, 
incredulous, given his personal experience with her modus operandum. 
This had the effect of rendering the whole "What's the truth about DD?" 
plotline a major annoyance for me; obviously not the effect JKR intended.

In the category of Unintentally Most Annoying Character, I'd have to go 
with Harry himself, for the above reason, and other reasons 
well-discussed by others.

As for Most Loathsome Character, I'd go with Bellatrix. I think JKR did 
a great job with her character. Far most loathsome than Voldemort himself.

My favorite character has to be Luna. Just love her whackiness.

CJ



From jferer at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 22 14:39:53 2007
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:39:53 -0000
Subject: The secrecy motif
In-Reply-To: <fkem18+s7f0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkj7jp+nl2r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180016

Bboyminn: "I think Bob is right. Consider what would happen if it were
discovered that Magical Beings (wizards/witches) really existed. Do
you think the various Churches in the world are going to throw them a
big tea party and welcome them aboard? Do you think the world
governments, especially minority governments (like Arabs and Persians)
are going to just 'live and let live'? I REALLY don't think so."

In our world the Church wouldn't be the main mover of prejudice in
Western societies - it's not that strong any more. Jealousy, envy and
paranoia don't need any religious framework, but in theocracies
magical people will be targets.

It's all happened before. It starts with, "Why can't the wizards cure
my baby" to "Why didn't the wizards prevent 9/11," to thinking the
wizards caused 9/11 for their own purposes. Wizards would soon be seen
as pulling the world's strings to suit themselves. Jealousy would turn
to paranoia to hate. Some nut would come out saying wizards used the
blood of Muggle babies in their spells. 

The wizards would be wise to stay secret.

Jim Ferer




From bartl at sprynet.com  Sat Dec 22 17:34:14 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:34:14 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chance to be a character in HP
In-Reply-To: <fkih30+7jlu@eGroups.com>
References: <fkih30+7jlu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <476D4A96.4020103@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180018

susanmcgee48176 wrote:
> Well, if I were a man, I'd like to play Albus Dumbledore. He's always 
> been my favorite character, and now, even more so, since I found out 
> he's gay. His combination of power and humor have always appealed to 
> me.
Ever been to the theater, and have one of the secondary characters bring 
something extra to the character that they get applause almost as big as 
the leads? If I were an actor, that's the sort of thing I would like to 
pull off (OT: When I saw the play, APPLAUSE on Broadway, there was  a 
secondary character, and she got that reaction to the point that I made 
a note of her name, figuring that she was going places. I was right; it 
was Bonnie Franklin. The critics agreed, too, and she got a Tony award.).

Problem is, the characters in Harry Potter tend to lack depth. I was 
REALLY hoping that Hagrid's was a lot smarter than he let on. Or that 
the apparent fact that Snape had talent up there with Dumbledore and 
Voledemort, yet kept his light under a bushel, might come out. No such 
luck. One acting challenge, especially for the last two books, however, 
would be Morty. The real trick is to make him simultaneously pitiful, 
dangerous, and seductive. That would be a real acting challenge.

Bart



From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 22 17:48:58 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:48:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chance to be a character in HP
In-Reply-To: <476D4A96.4020103@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <771778.11432.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180019

Bart Lidofsky <bartl at sprynet.com> wrote:          Problem is, the characters in Harry Potter tend to lack depth. I was 
REALLY hoping that Hagrid's was a lot smarter than he let on. Or that 
the apparent fact that Snape had talent up there with Dumbledore and 
Voledemort, yet kept his light under a bushel, might come out. No such 
luck. One acting challenge, especially for the last two books, however, 
would be Morty. The real trick is to make him simultaneously pitiful, 
dangerous, and seductive. That would be a real acting challenge.

Bart
   
   
  ***Katie:  I might get moved to the OT list for this posting...but we'll see. 
   
  I think you're right about many of the characters lacking something, but I don't think it's depth, per se. I think the problem is that they are what they seem to be. I don't know if I would define that as being superficial characters, since they do have a lot of conflict, tortured souls, and all that...(lol)
   
  But they do lack dimension. I do wish that some people had not been what they seemed to be. Snape, in the end, was Snivellus. He was a mopey, whiney, lonely kid who never grew much beyond that. Harry was a hero. Ron - a sidekick. Draco - a coward and a jerk. You get my point. I think the problem is that JKR misled us into believing that all these people would be more than what they seemed...and she just didn't deliver. 
   
  One thing I do like about the medium-that-must-not-be-named is that the really good character actors they brought in for many of the adult roles lend that dimension to the characters. I absolutely love what Gary Oldman has brought to Sirius. While I always loved Sirius, he's more a real person to me now. I also love what Emma Thompson has done with Trelawny, who I never liked or had any sympathy for, until I saw Emma doing that role. And, of course, Maggie Smith as McGonagall. She's just so fantastic - I wish I saw her more.  These great actors are able to bring something to these characters that was missing in the books. (By no means am I suggesting I like the books less than the films, just that these folks made me like their characters more.)
   
  Anyway, back to the topic...I would love to play Professor Sprout. I'm kind of shaped like her! : )  And I always thought she was a really interesting lady who didn't get enough page time. Besides, I love the idea of digging in dirt all day for a living! 
   
  Katie
   


  .

 
                         

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sat Dec 22 18:16:47 2007
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:16:47 -0000
Subject: FILK: We Need a House-Elf
Message-ID: <fkjkaf+mvgn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180020


We Need a House-Elf (DH, Chap. 23)

To the tune of Up On The Housetop

http://www.kididdles.com/lyrics/u004.html

THE SCENE: When trapped at the Malfoy Manor, who you gonna call?

HERMIONE:
We need a house-elf, that because
We fell into Greyback's claws
To Malfoy's Mansion we have been towed
Bellatrix says I'll be Crucio'd.

TRIO:
Hey, Dobby! Please rescue me!
Hey, Dobby! Please rescue me!
We need a house-elf, quick, quick, quick
The Malfoy clan are all pyschotic

HARRY:
First, Ollivander and Luna go
Pete drops in to say hello
I saved him once, so we share a bond
Pete's handed off to the Great Beyond

TRIO:
Hey, Dobby! Please rescue me!
Hey, Dobby! Please rescue me!
We need a house-elf, quick, quick, quick
The Malfoys ain't too altrustic

RON:
Dobby displays all his heroics
Helps to free Hermy from Bellatrix
Just to make sure that the coast is clear
Does The Phantom thing to the chandelier.

TRIO:
Hey, Dobby! You've rescued me!
Hey, Dobby! You've rescued me!
Bella a knife throws, she's so sick!
This song will end kind of traumatic.

    -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm
A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm





From AllieS426 at aol.com  Sat Dec 22 18:36:29 2007
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:36:29 -0000
Subject: I hope they won't cut these off for the next movie....
In-Reply-To: <fkgr2l+que5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkjlfd+bi1l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180021

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dazz_arlonsy" 
<dazz_arlonsy at ...> wrote:

>
> Best Quotes of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Allie:

Out of that fabulous bunch, I nominate:

> "U-No-Poo. They'll be murdered in their beds!" (MOLLY)
 
and

> "There's no need to call me `sir,' Professor." (HARRY)

Thanks for the positive post!




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Dec 23 00:28:51 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:28:51 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <476CF5FD.6070105@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fkka43+t6rq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180022

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

CJ:

> For myself, I'd subdivide MAC into IMAC and UMAC -- Intentionally 
> and Unintentionally Most Annoying Characters. In the IMAC category, 
> I think it's a toss-up between Skeeter and Umbridge. 

Geoff:
I fear I must continue to disagree....

Umbridge did not intend to be the most annoying character 
intentionally. She **set out** to be the most loathsome. 
She came with the agenda of destroying Harry's credibility 
and also that of Dumbledore to save the Ministry's face 
and is prepared to do it by the most extragavent and 
devious means. This is shown by her attempt to silence 
Harry by using the Dementors and, having failed in this, 
then continuing with her campaign of undermining his
influence - and also his self-confidence by humiliation, 
by insinuation and by physical abuse.

No, Do not consider that Umbridge was just a minor trouble 
maker. She behaved in a way that would have uplifted the 
spirits of every Death Eater in sight.... and, in so doing,
risked the future of the entire Wizarding World.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 23 01:14:14 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Kai Wen Lee)
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MAC*
Message-ID: <507881.95484.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180023

CJ:



> For myself, I'd subdivide MAC into IMAC and UMAC -- Intentionally 

> and Unintentionally Most Annoying Characters.  



Geoff:

> Umbridge did not intend to be the most annoying character 
> intentionally. 







Sorry, I should clarify. I was referring to the intentions of the
author, not the character. JKR intended both Skeeter and Umbridge to be
dislikable. With Skeeter, I contend she achieved that in ways she
didn't intend; I think she was more successful with Umbridge. (BTW, I
take your point with Umbridge, but I don't see the disconnect. You seem
to be arguing that Umbridge can't be annoying because she's loathsome;
can't she be both?)

I chose Harry as the Unintentionally Most Annoying Character because JKR didn't intend him to be annoying, but he managed it anyway.

CJ



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 23 01:47:10 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 01:47:10 -0000
Subject: Umbridge - bad to the bone
In-Reply-To: <fkka43+t6rq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkkemu+qtj7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180024

> > CJ:
> >
> > In the IMAC category, I think it's 
> > a toss-up between Skeeter and Umbridge. 
> 
> Geoff:
> I fear I must continue to disagree....
> 
> Umbridge did not intend to be the most annoying character 
> intentionally. She **set out** to be the most loathsome. 
> She came with the agenda of destroying Harry's credibility 
> and also that of Dumbledore to save the Ministry's face 
> and is prepared to do it by the most extragavent and 
> devious means. This is shown by her attempt to silence 
> Harry by using the Dementors and, having failed in this, 
> then continuing with her campaign of undermining his
> influence - and also his self-confidence by humiliation, 
> by insinuation and by physical abuse.

Mike:
I'll have to agree with Geoff. Umbridge, from her very first scene at 
Harry's trial, came across as hiding something. (Ah, that secrecy 
motif rears it's ugly head again.) Annoying? No, I'd say it was more 
of a visceral discomfit for this toady toad.

I just reviewed some posts from just after the OotP release (ca 
2003). One thread wondered if Umbridge was going to end up getting 
credit for "revolutionizing the DADA curriculum" entirely because of 
the misperception that through what and the way she taught, many did 
so well on their OWLs. We know that occured largely because of Harry 
teaching so many fifth-year DA members. 

But it seems the rest of the WW and especially the Ministry was quite 
ignorant of what exactly Umbridge did during that year. Nobody seemed 
to know that she sent the Dementors. Scrimgeour didn't act as if he 
knew that or understand what Harry meant by showing him the back of 
his hand. And nobody seemed to know that she had threatened to use 
the Cruciatus Curse on students to extract information. 
(Foreshadowing the Carrows, hmm?)


> Geoff:
> No, Do not consider that Umbridge was just a minor trouble 
> maker. She behaved in a way that would have uplifted the 
> spirits of every Death Eater in sight.... and, in so doing,
> risked the future of the entire Wizarding World.

Mike:
Yes again, and it may be that she succeeded in her toady quest, since 
she still occupied a high position in the Ministry even after it fell 
to the DEs. 

In the past we speculated that Umbridge was the ultimate bureaucrat, 
blinded by the rule of law. I propose that DH showed she was the 
ultimate politician, able to fit right in to an administration, 
regardless of who's holding the reins of power. She seemed to be 
quite comfortable in her role as chairwitch of the Muggleborn 
Registration Committee. She transferred her allegiences from Fudge to 
Scrimgeour to Thickness without a hitch in her get-along, didn't she?

Mike




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 23 02:41:09 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:41:09 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Greatest, the Chosen and the Brightest/Dumbledore
 and other leaders
In-Reply-To: <fipl17+vjcc@eGroups.com>
References: <fipl17+vjcc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <476DCAC5.9090700@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180025

Betsy Hp:

> distasteful conclusion that DH was an unmitigated mess and Dumbledore
> an unbelievable asshole.

Please! Jerk. Idiot. Manupulative, uncaring, ego-centric control freak. 
But there are no assholes in children's literature :-)

bboyminn:

 > Corruption in the Ministry had made sure Harry would be captured
 > if you used Floo or Apparation to escape.

Hmm? OK, Floo I can understand. You need MoM approval to put a 
destination on FlooNet so maybe they have some way of tracking who's 
using it and when (do we learn this in the canon?). But I didn't think 
the MoM could track apparations, let alone intercept them.

But even if the Ministry could track apparations, all they would learn 
was where Harry apparated from and to, and DE's already knew that.

 > Harry's protective enchantment broke, they, the DE's, were
 > very likely to come swooping in. So, the attack was inevitable.

If Harry & Co. had simply apparated out, they would have been attacking 
an empty house, AND had no idea where they'd gone in the process.

bboyminn:

 > Was it the perfect choice, maybe and maybe not, but it was
 > the best choice that Dumbledore could come up with on
 > such short notice. And it must have been fairly good because
 > Harry is alive and victorious

Harry is alive and victorious because JKR contrived the story so that at 
he would be. However, she left a large number of plothole behind in the 
process. I think the whole Seven Harrys plan was one of them, but this 
can largely be attributed to the ad-hoc nature of the magic she 
invented. Magic in the WW certainly strikes me as at times not well 
thought-through, and I think here is a case where JKR had backed herself 
into a corner. She needed an exciting episode, so she wrote one, 
neglecting or forgetting that she had already invented magic that would 
have served equally well or better.

Other (non-magical) solutions might have been to move Harry early 
(perhaps even months early), rather than wait until the last minute when 
they KNEW the house would be besieged. Imagine the DEs' consternation to 
discover the house had been vacant for days or weeks (they disguised 
Ron's absence for weeks from the MoM, after all. Why not Harry's?).

I also haven't heard a good argument for not simply smuggling Harry out 
under his cloak. Further, if the Order could enchant a house well enough 
to keep LV out, why not enchant something with, say, wheels and just 
drive Harry to safety?

Sure, the plan worked, but it very nearly didn't. Harry WAS nearly 
killed, surviving (once again) through blind luck; not BECAUSE of, but 
IN SPITE of, DD's plan.

CJ



From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 23 03:24:01 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:24:01 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <771778.11432.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fkkkci+9eks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180026

> Katie: 
> I might get moved to the OT list for this posting...but we'll see. 

Mike:
Let's see if I can steer it back on-topic.


> Katie:   
>   I think you're right about many of the characters lacking 
> something, but I don't think it's depth, per se. I think the
> problem is that they are what they seem to be.   <snip> 
>     
> But they do lack dimension. I do wish that some people had not
> been what they seemed to be.

Mike:
I do think you've hit on a critical difference here, Katie. DH lacked 
the penultimate or ultimate reveal that made many of the other books 
such enjoyable reads. Granted, this was the final book, we had to get 
more answers than questions. But look at the other books, how JKR 
managed to introduce and reveal a major character's true motives all 
within the timeframe of that book.

1) PS/SS - we got Snape turning out to be protecting Harry and 
Quirrell as the actual 'seeker of the stone.'

2) CoS - We don't really get a reversal, unless you count 'Riddle 
will become Voldemort'. The reveal was Riddle and his Diary were 
causing the CoS to be opened with Ginny as the scapegoat in waiting.

3) PoA - Two for the price of one. Scabbers/Pettigrew and Sirius 
Black both get role reversals. Plus we get the Marauders v Snape 
reveal, though it's not a reversal.

4) GoF - Moody!Crouch Jr. Nuff said! Plus Snape outs himself as a 
former DE.

5) OotP - Again, no real reversal, though we do find out that 
Trelawney isn't quite the "old fraud" we thought she was. Of course, 
the prophesy was the big reveal.

6) HBP - Snape, the Half-Blood Prince. This was both the big reveal 
and the big reversal/cliffhanger when Snape kills DD.

7) DH - ? 

I suppose one could argue in DH the reversals were that Dumbledore 
wasn't quite saintly, or that Snape ended up being on the good side. 
But both of these concerned Harry's pov. We the reader had already 
suspected both; therefore they don't work for me as either a big 
reveal or reversal.

But, where was the traitor in their midst? Where was the bad 
character turning out to be good, or at least not near as bad as we 
thought he/she was? Not what Harry thought, what we the reader hadn't 
guessed.



> Katie:
> Snape, in the end, was Snivellus. He was a mopey, whiney, lonely 
> kid who never grew much beyond that. Harry was a hero. Ron - a
> sidekick. Draco - a coward and a jerk. You get my point. I think
> the problem is that JKR misled us into believing that all these
> people would be more than what they seemed...and she just didn't
> deliver. 

Mike:
I never expected Harry, Ron, or Hermione to be anything than what 
they were. I don't think she could have changed them and been true to 
the story.

In all fairness, JKR had led us on a great rollercoaster ride with 
regards to Snape. Though I agree with you that his big reveal was 
both weak and predictable. 

I think it was Draco's story where JKR really dropped the ball.
Draco should have been the big reveal, imo. Draco languished for 
five books, came into his own in book 6, then faded away into 
insignificance in DH. 

I certainly would have traded some camping time for some inside info 
on Draco. In GoF, twice in HBP, and in DH, JKR wrote a Harry-free 
chapter. All were the first chapter(s). Who wouldn't have loved one 
of those in the *middle* of DH taking us to Hogwarts? That would have 
been an ideal time to set Draco up for something better.


---------------------------
> Katie:
>   Anyway, back to the topic...I would love to play Professor
> Sprout. I'm kind of shaped like her! : )  And I always thought
> she was a really interesting lady who didn't get enough page time.
> Besides, I love the idea of digging in dirt all day for a living! 

Mike:
Oh, this was the topic? ;) 

If I could peel away 35 years, I could Fred or George justice, right 
down to the red hair. Unfortunately, in my current state, Sluggy 
would be the best I could hope for. As long as I get to sit around 
and eat sweets all day. Plus, I would get to duel LV in the end. Get 
knocked on my arse, sure, but that's nothing new.

Mike, who probably looks more like Scrimgeour, but what would be the 
fun in playing him?




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Dec 23 03:49:16 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:49:16 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkkkci+9eks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkklrs+g1ri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180027

Mike:
> 7) DH - ? 
> 
> I suppose one could argue in DH the reversals were that Dumbledore 
> wasn't quite saintly, or that Snape ended up being on the good side. 
> But both of these concerned Harry's pov. We the reader had already 
> suspected both; therefore they don't work for me as either a big 
> reveal or reversal.

Pippin:
Only because we fans had years and years to work them all out.
Even if we didn't personally believe in Puppetmaster!DD or
Lollipops, we weren't going to be shocked. For me, I was
surprised that Slughorn was heroic enough to do battle with
LV and that Draco had it in him to stick by Goyle, all the more
so because they *hadn't* been revealed to have hearts of gold
after all. 

Come to think of it, it would have been a pretty weak cliche if 
they had, and cheap as well, IMO. Draco's heart (and Snape's) were  
a couple of sizes too small, as Dr. Seuss would put it, and yet, as
it turned out there was room for love in them. That's the big
reveal, IMO. 

Back to fantasy casting:
If we're not limited by our actual physical appearance, I'd love
to play Fleur, otherwise I'll have to be Professor Sprout. But
Snape's got all the best lines.

Pippin




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec 23 11:19:37 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:19:37 -0000
Subject: Dark Umbridge / Was Salazar a Bigot?
Message-ID: <fklg89+hv2c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180028

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179935>:

<< [Umbridge] doesn't seem to be a practitioner of the DARK ARTS, >>

Surely that blood-sucking pen was a Dark Artifact. And she intended to
use the Cruciatis Curse on Harry -- aren't the Unforgiveable Curses
Dark Magic?

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179974>:

<< if Slytherin were the absolute fanatical racist modern tales make
him out to be, why would he be invited by the other obviously
benevolent founders to join in. >>

Because they figure he's more dangerous on the outside, where no one
knows what he's up to, than he is in on the inside, where they can
keep an eye on him and also play on his natural vanity to make him
want the school to be a success because it's his project as well as
theirs and has his name on it as well as theirs. 

I figured that out (for fanfic) before the Sorting Hat sang the verse
in which Salazar and Godric were the best of friends -- if the Hat was
telling the truth (Rowling's answer to that question was 'the Sorting
Hat is certainly sincere'), Salazar must have had some good traits for
the noble Godric to like him.

I'm not sure which I would prefer, a back story in which Salazar
really was pretty evil, altho' not necessary a blood-ist, or a back
story in which the conflict among the Founders was all a big
misunderstanding.

Goddlefrood wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/179983>:

<< during Slytherin's life time the wizarding world and the muggle
world mixed. How freely we don't know, but we do know that the Statute
of Secrecy only came in around 700 years after the founding of
Hogwarts, so from that I would have to conclude that he wasn't worried
about the exposure of the WW, as some more recent pure-blood
supremacists might have been. >>

We have CANON that the Founders "built this castle together, far from
prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common
people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." So even
tho' Muggles already knew that wizards existed and therefore Salazar
wasn't afraid that Muggles would find out that wizards exist, all four
Founders were afraid that Muggles would find their school and
persecute its inhabitants.

<< what other reason than bigotry would there be for Slytherin's
mistrust of muggle-borns? Those muggle-borns we have met would not
lead to a conclusion, IMO, that they can not be trusted. >>

Salazar's reason for thinking Muggle-born students 'untrustworthy'
need not be that he thought them worse blabbermouths than purebloods
are. I always figured that his argument was that Muggle-born students,
because their parents and many of their other relatives and neighbors
are Muggles, have much more contact with Muggles than pureblood
students do, and therefore have much more opportuntity to slip and
reveal the location of Hogwarts to a Muggle. 
 
Especially if the Muggle was deliberately trying to find the location
and therefore played on the Muggle-born student's family affection, or
patriotic loyalty to some local king or chief, or religious beliefs.





From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 23 14:17:00 2007
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:17:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkkkci+9eks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <975147.18668.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180029

Mike <mcrudele78 at yahoo.com> wrote:          > Katie: 
> I think you're right about many of the characters lacking 
> something, but I don't think it's depth, per se. I think the
> problem is that they are what they seem to be. <snip> 
> 
> But they do lack dimension. I do wish that some people had not
> been what they seemed to be.

Mike:
I do think you've hit on a critical difference here, Katie. DH lacked 
the penultimate or ultimate reveal that made many of the other books 
such enjoyable reads. Granted, this was the final book, we had to get 
more answers than questions. But look at the other books, how JKR 
managed to introduce and reveal a major character's true motives all 
within the timeframe of that book.



<<<snip>>>
  
But, where was the traitor in their midst? Where was the bad 
character turning out to be good, or at least not near as bad as we 
thought he/she was? Not what Harry thought, what we the reader hadn't 
guessed.
   
  ***Katie again:
   
  Yes, darn it! You've got it! That's exactly what left me rather flat with DH. I kept expected "The Moment" when we discover things are not what we thought they were...and that never happened. Everyone lived up to their reputations and expectations...boring. I never realized what it was that left me so flat - you've defined it for me! Thanks!!


  > Katie:
  
<<<snip>>>
   
   Draco - a coward and a jerk. You get my point. I think
> the problem is that JKR misled us into believing that all these
> people would be more than what they seemed...and she just didn't
> deliver. 
   
  
Mike:

  <<<snip>>>


I think it was Draco's story where JKR really dropped the ball.
Draco should have been the big reveal, imo. Draco languished for 
five books, came into his own in book 6, then faded away into 
insignificance in DH. 

I certainly would have traded some camping time for some inside info 
on Draco. In GoF, twice in HBP, and in DH, JKR wrote a Harry-free 
chapter. All were the first chapter(s). Who wouldn't have loved one 
of those in the *middle* of DH taking us to Hogwarts? That would have 
been an ideal time to set Draco up for something better.

   
  ***Katie:  
   
  Ooh, me too. I would have loved to see what was going on at Hogwarts during the camping season, instead of hearing it told to me later. I especially wanted to see what Neville was doing. I just love Neville. 
   
  I did expect more from Draco, also. He turned out to be the exact same kid he was in the Forbidden Forest in PS/SS. Scared, bullying, cowardly, and ultimately, just a lame loser. Bummer. He was built up to be such an important and interesting character and it just didn't happen. It almost did - I almost saw him switching sides and getting a backbone during the Battle of Hogwarts...but he didn't quite make it.  Very disappointing. 
   
  Ah, well. I guess I just have to live with the books the was they are, and love them in spite of DH and it's many flaws. Merry Christmas! : ) Katie


  .

 
                         

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sun Dec 23 15:54:45 2007
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:54:45 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkkkci+9eks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkm0c5+81o0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180030

> > Katie:
> >   Anyway, back to the topic...I would love to play Professor
> > Sprout. I'm kind of shaped like her! : )  And I always thought
> > she was a really interesting lady who didn't get enough page 
time.
> > Besides, I love the idea of digging in dirt all day for a 
living! 
> 
> Mike:
> If I could peel away 35 years, I could Fred or George justice, 
right 
> down to the red hair. Unfortunately, in my current state, Sluggy 
> would be the best I could hope for. As long as I get to sit around 
> and eat sweets all day. Plus, I would get to duel LV in the end. 
Get 
> knocked on my arse, sure, but that's nothing new.
 
aussie:
Peeves or Hagrid.
Peeves, especially following the twins orders to give Umbridge a 
memerable send off.
Hagrid gets along well with the kids and creatures too. If JKR 
salvaged any other character from the sure fatal experiences Hagrid 
went through and the worse hospitalisation needed was Ted Tonks 
zapping his ribs, I would have felt cheated ... i can forgive her 
giving Hagrid a repreave though.

> Mike:
> ... a critical difference here, ... DH lacked the penultimate 
> or ultimate reveal that made many of the other books such 
> enjoyable reads ...  how JKR managed to ... reveal a major 
> character's true motives all within the timeframe of that book.
> 
> 1) PS/SS - we got Snape turning out to be protecting Harry and 
> Quirrell as the actual 'seeker of the stone.'
> 
> 2) CoS - We don't really get a reversal, unless you count 'Riddle 
> will become Voldemort'. The reveal was Riddle and his Diary were 
> causing the CoS to be opened 
> 
> 3) PoA - Two for the price of one. Scabbers/Pettigrew and Sirius 
> Black both get role reversals. Plus we get the Marauders v Snape 
> reveal, though it's not a reversal.
> 
> 4) GoF - Moody!Crouch Jr. Nuff said! Plus Snape outs himself as a 
> former DE.
> 
> 5) OotP - Again, no real reversal, though we do find out that 
> Trelawney isn't quite the "old fraud" we thought she was. Of 
course, 
> the prophesy was the big reveal.
> 
> 6) HBP - Snape, the Half-Blood Prince. This was both the big 
reveal 
> and the big reversal/cliffhanger when Snape kills DD.
> 
> 7) DH - ? 
> 
> I suppose one could argue in DH the reversals were that Dumbledore 
> wasn't quite saintly, or that Snape ended up being on the good 
side. ...
> 
> But, where was the traitor in their midst? Where was the bad 
> character turning out to be good, or at least not near as bad as 
we 
> thought he/she was? 

aussie:
>From Good to Bad
- Stan Shunpike
- Thicknesse
- Dumbledore (in his youth and getting Harry ready to kill like a 
prize turkey)
- Griphook (in book one, he was one of the only ones to 
say "Please", yet after looking to be such a great help to get to a 
Horcrux, revolted Harry the more time he spent with him)
- Bathilda!Nagini ... no-one saw that happening

>From Bad to Good
- Kretcher (sent Sirius to die in OOTP, but led an attack against DE 
legs ... more for Regulus than for Harry)
- Narcissa (ok, not to good, but helped Harry to protect Draco)
- Percy (ok, so more from a GIT to less of a git)
- Phimeus Nigelus Black, proudly shouting that Slytherins helped 
fight to protect Hogwarts

The character that stayed unchanged in the eyes of readers through 
all the books was Lily. She remained untarnished.
aussie




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Dec 23 17:55:29 2007
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 23 Dec 2007 17:55:29 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/23/2007, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1198432529.22.56123.m46@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180031

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday December 23, 2007
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2007 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20071223/c44c6c61/attachment.html>

From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 23 22:52:21 2007
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:52:21 -0000
Subject: Dark Umbridge / Was Salazar a Bigot?
In-Reply-To: <fklg89+hv2c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkmor5+sd5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180032

>> Goddlefrood earlier:
> << what other reason than bigotry would there be for 
> Slytherin's mistrust of muggle-borns? Those muggle-borns 
> we have met would not lead to a conclusion, IMO, that they 
> can not be trusted. >>

Catlady:
> Salazar's reason ... I always figured that his argument was 
> that Muggle-born students, because their parents and many of 
> their other relatives and neighbors are Muggles, have much 
> more contact with Muggles than pureblood students do, and 
> therefore have much more opportuntity to slip and reveal 
> the location of Hogwarts to a Muggle. 
<SNIP>

Goddlefrood:

This would make a certain amount of sense if they were not 
so many enchantments on Hogwarts. We are supposed to believe 
that a Muggle looking directly at the school would only see a 
mouldering old ruin. When the sight of a mouldering old ruin 
ever put off a human from having a good look at same is a 
question that will have to continue to plague us.

Oh, and btw, witch persecution in the British Isles was 
not particularly fervent until quite a little later than 
the founding of Hogwarts. It wasn't until well after the 
Norman invasion that magical suspects started to be hounded. 
Probably around the 14th century or so. Do provide evidence 
should this be incorrect.

The Witchsmeller Pursuivant




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Dec 24 00:21:54 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:21:54 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkm0c5+81o0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkmu32+amql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180033

Hagrid <aussie_lol at ...> wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180030>:
>
> aussie:
> From Good to Bad
> - Stan Shunpike

What's the evidence that Stan Shunpike was Bad? I, like Harry, thought
he was under Imperius when he was chasing Harry. If Harry had thought
that Stan had taken the Dark Mark under his volition, he wouldn't have
been so careful to spare his life.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Dec 24 00:25:13 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:25:13 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <507881.95484.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fkmu99+lale@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180034

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kai Wen Lee <leekaiwen at ...> 
wrote:

Geoff: 
> > Umbridge did not intend to be the most annoying character 
> > intentionally. 

CJ:
> Sorry, I should clarify. I was referring to the intentions of the
> author, not the character. JKR intended both Skeeter and Umbridge 
> to be dislikable. With Skeeter, I contend she achieved that in ways 
> she didn't intend; I think she was more successful with Umbridge. 
> (BTW, I take your point with Umbridge, but I don't see the 
> disconnect. You seem to be arguing that Umbridge can't be annoying 
> because she's loathsome; can't she be both?)
 
Geoff:
If I consider a person to be loathsome, I wouldn't even  
bother to consider whether I found them annoying, hence 
my view of Umbridge.

To take a real world example consider Adolf Hitler. I believe 
him to have been loathsome. He was so far beyond annoying 
that the thought of annoyance just would not enter my head 
in that context.

CJ:
> I chose Harry as the Unintentionally Most Annoying Character 
because JKR didn't intend him to be annoying, but he managed it 
anyway.

Geoff:
Well, personally, I don't. I identify very much with Harry 
as I was when as a teenager and I was the soul of likeability 
and charm. <vbg>





From AllieS426 at aol.com  Mon Dec 24 00:27:54 2007
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 00:27:54 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkkkci+9eks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkmuea+dbrm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180035

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
> I do think you've hit on a critical difference here, Katie. DH 
lacked 
> the penultimate or ultimate reveal that made many of the other books 
> such enjoyable reads. Granted, this was the final book, we had to 
get 
> more answers than questions. But look at the other books, how JKR 
> managed to introduce and reveal a major character's true motives all 
> within the timeframe of that book.
> 

Allie:

I think the big shocker was supposed to be that Harry has a horcrux 
in/on him, and that Dumbledore knew Harry would have to die in the 
end.  (Not to beat a dead horse, but in the King's Cross chapter, it 
becomes clear, at least to me, that Dumbledore DID think Harry could 
survive.  Harry, however, doesn't know this.)  The entire tone of the 
narrative changes once Harry views Snape's pensieve memories.  Harry 
becomes philosophical, he's thinking about how many beats his heart 
has left, etc.

The Harry/Horcrux idea wasn't new on this list, of course, but that's 
only because we're a little obssessive here....








From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Dec 24 01:38:08 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:38:08 -0000
Subject: Dark Umbridge / Was Salazar a Bigot?
In-Reply-To: <fkmor5+sd5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkn2i0+jkm8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180036

"Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...> wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180032>:
>
> This would make a certain amount of sense if they were not 
> so many enchantments on Hogwarts. We are supposed to believe 
> that a Muggle looking directly at the school would only see a 
> mouldering old ruin. 

The Founders were able to magic up a stupendously huge castle with
features like the Room of Requirement and the Chamber of Secrets, but
maybe a little light in the protection spells. No matter how good of
protection spells it started with, many more must have been added over
the centuries. Each headmaster would have added some just to prove he
could. Maybe the disguise as a ruin spell was added later; maybe it
hadn't been invented yet a thousand years ago, which as you mentioned
was well before the Statute of Secrecy, at a time when wizards might
have been more in the habit of trying to scare Muggles away than of
hiding. Maybe in those days they had a stable of Dragons to fly over
the neighborhood instead of a disguise.

> When the sight of a mouldering old ruin 
> ever put off a human from having a good look at same is a 
> question that will have to continue to plague us.
 
As Steve bboyminn keeps saying, there must be an "This is SO boring"
spell (affecting only Muggles) on it as well as the visual disguise.
Canon stated that the stadium for the Quidditch World Cup had a spell
on it that would cause any Muggle who came near to suddenly remember
that he had an important appointment somewhere else (implied: and rush
off to it).

On another tentacle, long ago a listie named Nick (this is not a
limerick) reported on a visit to the ruined castle near Tutshill, that
standing in the roofless former Great Hall and looking up at the sky
looked exactly like Rowling's descriptions of Hogwarts Great Hall's
ceiling enchanted to look like the sky, and some other part of the
ruin that resembled the Potions Dungeon... Herself may have intended
that a Muggle could climb around the 'old ruin' without ever
encountering or intruding on all the activities going on within.

> Oh, and btw, witch persecution in the British Isles was 
> not particularly fervent until quite a little later than 
> the founding of Hogwarts. It wasn't until well after the 
> Norman invasion that magical suspects started to be hounded. 
> Probably around the 14th century or so. Do provide evidence 
> should this be incorrect.

This has been mentioned on list before, usually with the theory that
Rowling had known very very little about witch hunts and therefore
simply assumed that they must have occurred in 'the Dark Ages' just
because of the name. (I assume everyone knows about 1066, but I also
assume that she wasn't thinking about whether Saxons or Normans should
be blamed.) IIRC in the 12th century it was heresy to believe that
witches exist and in the 13th century it was heresy to doubt that
witches exist.

My best efforts to reconcile history with canon on this matter is that
the 'much persecution' to which Binns referred was not the Burning
Times, but simply the usual on-going stuff ... for example, pagan
Vikings (when the Christian Era date was in three digits) feared
(strike that, any Viking would be insulted and kill me in revenge for
the insult if he heard me say 'fear') were cautious of spells cast by
troll women and human women, including but not limited to making a
shirt that caused the wearer to die that day, and would kill a 'witch'
by beating her to death, after throwing a bag over her head so she
couldn't put a dying curse on her attacker.

It appears that in canon, Merlin and Morgana were historical figures
(they're on Famous Wizards cards). To me, this suggests that King
Arthur was also a historical figure and the tales about his knights
loosely reflect historical events. Some of the tales are about knights
killing evil enchanters to rescue all their kidnapped Muggles. When
Sirius pointed at his family tree tapestry, he identified one relative
as lobbying to decriminalize Muggle-hunting (which I imagine was
outlawed to protect Secrecy, not because the Warlock Council had any
human rights objections to murder). Muggle-hunting sounds like
something those Arthurian evil enchanters would have done. And like a
good reason for Muggles to fear wizards and try to protect themselves
against wizards.

My view of wizarding history is, alas, not so flattering to the
wizards. I figure that, once they figured out that their ability was
inherited from parent to child (they would have thought any
Muggle-born was proof of its mother's adultery with a wizard) but
their skill could be taught from elder to younger, they also figured
out that they could stick together, exchange knowledge with wizards
from other tribes/villages, and use their ability/skill to rule the
rest of their tribe/village. This would have led to speedier advances
in magical knowledge.

This magic technological revolution may have been the cause of the
Neolithic technological revolution -- I'm not sure when the Magic
Revolution happened. But Muggles benefited from healing spells, new
products, increased production, and 'our wizard is stronger than your
wizard' at the same time that they feared their wizards and kept
working on means of self-defense. By the time writing was invented in
Mesopotamia, the wizards were the priests and were in a complicated
relationship with Muggle kings, who had discovered that wizards can be
beheaded like anyone else. The first school of wizardry was built in
Sumer. The second was built in Egypt

Some periods of history can be viewed as a struggle for power between
the king and the local nobility. Often periods in which the king
didn't have a big enough army nor enough traditional charisma to make
nobles obey him involved nobles fighting each other, trying to conquer
each other's territory. Wizards were also part of the struggle for
power -- some even wanted to be king, more were prime ministers and
chief advisors to a king, some wanted to be nobles with no king above
them, some were chief advisors to some noble. They had no more
compunction than the alpha Muggles did about enslaving people, taking
a pretty girl or boy into the harem by force, seizing a person's
property as 'tax', torturing captured enemy prisoners or suspected
traitors or a servant who spilled soup, etc. They were Dark enough
that Muggles of the entire alphabet would unite against them.

Let me point out that magical power doesn't depend on physical
strength or size, and shows no sign of being weakened by pregnancy. So
none of the traditional reasons why rulers are male applies to
wizards. The evil enchanters can be evil enchantresses every bit as
easily.




From greatraven at hotmail.com  Mon Dec 24 02:08:36 2007
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:08:36 -0000
Subject: Umbridge - bad to the bone
In-Reply-To: <fkkemu+qtj7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkn4b4+9ij4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180037

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> > > CJ:
> > >
> > > Mike:
> Yes again, and it may be that she succeeded in her toady quest, 
since 
> she still occupied a high position in the Ministry even after it 
fell 
> to the DEs. 
> 
> In the past we speculated that Umbridge was the ultimate 
bureaucrat, 
> blinded by the rule of law. I propose that DH showed she was the 
> ultimate politician, able to fit right in to an administration, 
> regardless of who's holding the reins of power. She seemed to be 
> quite comfortable in her role as chairwitch of the Muggleborn 
> Registration Committee. She transferred her allegiences from Fudge 
to 
> Scrimgeour to Thickness without a hitch in her get-along, didn't 
she?
> 
> Mike

Sue:
True, but mainly because Fudge was an idiot she could control, 
Scrimgeour had his own troubles and Thicknesse was under an Imperius 
curse and she was a Death Eater at heart if not officially. Wonder 
what would have happened to her in, say, a Dumbledore-run 
Ministry...? :-) "..that whatsoever king may reign, I'll still be 
the Vicar of Bray, sir!" Yes? No? [g]
>





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Dec 24 07:43:45 2007
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 07:43:45 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
Message-ID: <fknnvh+u1ll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180038

Without a doubt my most annoying character is Percy, nobody else even
comes close. I just don???t understand his purpose in life. If the man
had never existed how would the series be poorer?

After 6 books JKR set things up perfectly to make a very very good
subplot where he betrays Harry and his entire family; but instead
Percy turns out to be yet another good Weasley, as if we didn???t
already have enough of them. If I could ask JKR one question it would
be, did you ever consider doing the right thing and make Percy evil? I
think Percy is the biggest lost opportunity in the entire series, he
could have been one of the highlights of the last book, but now he is
just a fifth wheel.

Eggplant       






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 24 08:33:00 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:33:00 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkklrs+g1ri@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fknqrs+8q6n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180039

> Pippin:
> Only because we fans had years and years to work them all out.
> Even if we didn't personally believe in Puppetmaster!DD or
> Lollipops, we weren't going to be shocked.

Mike:
And yet there was a good ship LOLLIPOPS floating in Theory Bay as 
early as 2002. At the end of book 5 we knew that Dumbledore had a 
Plan in mind for Harry. Those Puppetmaster!DD threads were around 
since the release of OotP in 2003.

Contrast that with:
By the end of PS/SS we knew that LV was after Harry and that DD knew 
the reason but wasn't telling. After PoA we knew that Trelawney had 
just made her *second* true prophesy that Dumbledore was aware of. 
Yet how many people put those clues together and predicted DD knew 
Trelawney's *first* prophesy was about Harry and LV? There were three 
years, the most between any books, from GoF to OotP for this 
prediction. Yet it came as a big surprise to me. Same goes for Sirius 
dying in book 5.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180035

> Allie:
> 
> I think the big shocker was supposed to be that Harry has a 
> horcrux in/on him, and that Dumbledore knew Harry would have to
> die in the end.
<snip>
> The Harry/Horcrux idea wasn't new on this list, of course, but 
> that's only because we're a little obssessive here....

Mike:
A while back I looked through the archives and discovered the Harry-
is-a-Horcrux prediction was one of the first posts made when this 
list re-opened after HBP. I had even discovered some folks had 
predicted a JKR was going to use some type of hiding the soul device 
for Voldemort's seemingly immortality back in 2002. Not a lot of 
folks, mind you, but take into account this was before OotP.

My point is that nothing *revealed* in DH was unpredictable, imo. 
That's the difference for me between DH and all the previous books. 
There were several things in each book that definitely surprised me. 
There wasn't anything that took me by surprise in DH. 

OK, so I didn't know what exactly the Deathly Hallows were, but I did 
know I would find out. I did know what a Animagus (even if I didn't 
know the name, I knew Minerva could transform into a cat) was before 
PoA, but was most definitely surprised to find two major characters 
and Harry's father were Animagi. That's the kind of surprise I missed 
in DH. 



> Pippin:
> Come to think of it, it would have been a pretty weak cliche if 
> they had, and cheap as well, IMO. Draco's heart (and Snape's) were
> a couple of sizes too small, as Dr. Seuss would put it, and yet,
> as it turned out there was room for love in them. That's the big
> reveal, IMO. 

Mike:
I'm not getting this. Pippin, you were around when Amanda vehemently 
pushed for Snape loved Lily. Like you said, even if you didn't 
believe it, it wasn't a new idea that Snape could have loved. Draco 
sticking by Goyle, trying to save him, not such a big story to my way 
of thinking.

I agree, the Heart of Gold hidden under the gruff or jerk exterior, 
would have been cliche. But I could have handled Draco casting an 
Expelliarmus on Voldemort, behind his back, and telling Potter, 'I 
didn't do it for you!', for example. Instead, the sappy and/or weak 
ending to what were once promising story lines for the both of them, 
was almost as bad.

I bet if we started a thread that asked "What surprised you in DH?" 
we wouldn't get near as many responses as we got for Most Annoying 
Character (MAC).

Mike, wishing all a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. :D




From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Mon Dec 24 10:56:41 2007
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:56:41 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fknnvh+u1ll@eGroups.com>
References: <fknnvh+u1ll@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <476F9069.8030301@btopenworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180040

eggplant107 wrote:
> Without a doubt my most annoying character is Percy, nobody else even
> comes close. I just dont understand his purpose in life. If the man
> had never existed how would the series be poorer?
> 
> After 6 books JKR set things up perfectly to make a very very good
> subplot where he betrays Harry and his entire family; but instead
> Percy turns out to be yet another good Weasley, as if we didnt
> already have enough of them. If I could ask JKR one question it would
> be, did you ever consider doing the right thing and make Percy evil? I
> think Percy is the biggest lost opportunity in the entire series, he
> could have been one of the highlights of the last book, but now he is
> just a fifth wheel.
> 
> Eggplant       
> 

Not to mention that if she'd played by her own rules, Percy should have 
been in Slytherin with all that ambition.

But one of JKR's problems is she just could not bring herself to have a 
bad Weasley. Same as Harry could never lose a quidditch game through his 
own mistake.

Irene



From KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 24 09:24:46 2007
From: KimberleyElizabeth at yahoo.com (kimberleyelizabeth)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:24:46 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fknnvh+u1ll@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkntsu+k10q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180041

> Eggplant:
> Without a doubt my most annoying character is Percy, nobody
> else even comes close. I just don't understand his purpose
> in life. If the man had never existed how would the series
> be poorer?
<SNIP>


Eggplant,

I always thought Percy was going to be interesting to watch.
Percy was always the one who followed every rule from those
in charge. When he left Hogwarts and began his career in the
Ministry, it didn't surprise me at all that he would do the
same in the Ministry; and he did. He echoed the voice of the
Ministry to his parents when their allegience with the Ministry
was drifting. Thus causing a bigger rift between himself and
the Weasley's. But Percy is a Weasley and a Gyffindor, it was
only a matter of time before we saw him again standing with his
family and fellow Gyffindors. I feel the storyline made sense.
I don't know what I would have felt if Percy never showed up
through the portrait. Like the rest of the Family I was just
as shocked.

KimberleyElizabeth



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 24 14:21:45 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:21:45 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fknqrs+8q6n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkof9p+21k2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180042

> > Pippin:
> > Only because we fans had years and years to work them all out.
> > Even if we didn't personally believe in Puppetmaster!DD or
> > Lollipops, we weren't going to be shocked.
> 
> Mike:
> And yet there was a good ship LOLLIPOPS floating in Theory Bay as 
> early as 2002. At the end of book 5 we knew that Dumbledore had a 
> Plan in mind for Harry. Those Puppetmaster!DD threads were around 
> since the release of OotP in 2003.
<BIG SNIP>

Alla:

I cannot speak for Pippin but I believe that her point was not that 
those threads were around for a long time, but that the fact that 
**we** are not going to be shocked does not mean that the rest of 
the fans, who, you know, did not spend years and years discussing 
the books will not be.

Basically I think ( and again she will correct me if I am wrong) 
that one cannot judge objectively whether there was a big reveal in 
DH based upon whether anybody here on HPFGU was surprised or not.

And I wholeheartedly agree with her actually. It is just what you 
said Mike, those theories were around forever, we had seen 
everything and came up with every possible solution under the moon.


Take myself for example. If I was not debating whether Dumbledore 
ordered Snape to kill him quite often in between HBP and DH, you bet 
I would be surprised when it was revealed that he did.

I would be surprised because in my wildest dreams I did not want 
Dumbledore's character to turn out as able to order another human 
being to hurt his soul for him.

But since I was debating it, this theory, while I hoped would never 
come true was firmly in my mind as the possibility raised, you know?


I was not surprised ONLY by virtue of hearing it day in and day out.

Now consider the fans who love books, but do not spend their time, 
or at least not as much as we did discussing them.

As I am sure I mentioned before I do not know too many HP fans in RL 
except those who belong to this list, but in the last year I met two 
coworkers of mine, who are passionate fans, but do not go to 
Internet discuss the books.

Oh, and needless to say they both are highly intelligent, highly 
gifted people, so they are perfectly able to analyse the books, etc.

I mean, when I mentioned to one guy that RAB is Regulus before book 
7 came out, he was like, nah, too simple. He was not reading the 
interviews, he was not reading other people insisting that this is 
the most plausible thing, etc. He **was** surprised when he read it.

He simply did not have time to think about it as much as we do, you 
know?

Another girl was SHOCKED when she read about Harry going to 
sacrifice himself. She described to me her experience of reading 
last hundred pages or so as thinking - oh no no no she is not going 
to kill him, she cannot, she won't do it, right, she won't do it?

They had plenty of surprises and shock reading last book, you know?

So, I just think that to analyse whether this bunch was surprised or 
not won't give us correct picture.

JMO,

Alla


HAPPY HOLIDAYS!




From dazz_arlonsy at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 24 16:49:54 2007
From: dazz_arlonsy at yahoo.com (dazz_arlonsy)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:49:54 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fknnvh+u1ll@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkonvi+p259@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180043


> Eggplant
>
> Without a doubt my most annoying character is Percy, nobody else
> even comes close. I just don't understand his purpose in life.
> If the man had never existed how would the series be poorer?


Tme most annoying character to me is Umbridge, I hate her to death
LOL. But yeah, I hate Percy also. He's the cause of Fred's death.
Percy shouldn't come to Hogwarts, or he could do something
constructive, such as die protecting Fred.

dazz_arlonsy



From 1kf.lists at earthlink.net  Mon Dec 24 18:12:16 2007
From: 1kf.lists at earthlink.net (Pippin)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:12:16 -0000
Subject: Chance to be a character in HP
In-Reply-To: <771778.11432.qm@web52704.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fkosq0+q2ib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180044

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert <anigrrrl2 at ...> 
wrote:
>   But they do lack dimension. I do wish that some people had not 
been what they seemed to be. Snape, in the end, was Snivellus. He was 
a mopey, whiney, lonely kid who never grew much beyond that.

Interesting. I thought Snape grew more than any other character. Maybe 
I filled in some blanks with my imagination, yet even with the 
skipping vignette biography that Snape's memories showed us, I saw a 
wizard who made enormous changes and overcame great emotional 
challenges to assist those fighting Voldemort. He made the hardest 
choices, and he had to be a very advanced wizard to carry off his 
double agent role.

I would choose Snape to play in the movie, except for the fact that 
Alan Rickman couldn't be better in the role. I'd probably be cast as 
Arthur Weasley.

Pippin




From bamf505 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 24 19:26:23 2007
From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkof9p+21k2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <731157.35877.qm@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180045


--- dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Pippin:
> > > Only because we fans had years and years to work
> them all out.
> > > Even if we didn't personally believe in
> Puppetmaster!DD or
> > > Lollipops, we weren't going to be shocked.
> > 
> > Mike:
> > And yet there was a good ship LOLLIPOPS floating
> in Theory Bay as 
> > early as 2002. At the end of book 5 we knew that
> Dumbledore had a 
> > Plan in mind for Harry. Those Puppetmaster!DD
> threads were around 
> > since the release of OotP in 2003.
> <BIG SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I cannot speak for Pippin but I believe that her
> point was not that 
> those threads were around for a long time, but that
> the fact that 
> **we** are not going to be shocked does not mean
> that the rest of 
> the fans, who, you know, did not spend years and
> years discussing 
> the books will not be.
>

bamf:

Forgive me for snippage, but my problem with book
seven is that JKR, for all her faults, did show us a
lot of unpredictable twists that required planning.
Hagrid appears on Sirius's motorbike in book one, and
we don't find out the significance of that until book
3 (stealth was more important than the motorbike when
tracking PP).  In book 4 she had the whole Rita
Skeeter article that at first glance can be taken as
really sensationalistic news reporting. But at the
end, we find out that there was a body removed.  Throw
away things that come back to haunt us.

So, the only 'foreshadowing' I can see is that Harry
destroyed the diary.  But that really doesn't have any
bearing on book seven. (Other than it's one less thing
for them to track down.)  Even relationship wise there
were no surprises.

The only real surprise I felt during the last book was
Neville and the killing of Forge. (But I had predicted
that would happen to some friends saying it would be
the worst thing she could do would be to kill one twin
and not the other.) The fact that she did it, that
surprised me. 

Maybe my problem is more that she revealed too much to
us in the first six books.  I'm not as fanatic as some
on this list with all the theories and detailed
readings of the books... but I do become disappointed
when I can predict the ending of a book from a mile
away.

bamf

There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast.

*****

Me t wyrd gewf


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 24 21:04:24 2007
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:04:24 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fknqrs+8q6n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkp6so+grpp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180046

> Mike:
> And yet there was a good ship LOLLIPOPS floating in Theory Bay as 
> early as 2002. At the end of book 5 we knew that Dumbledore had a 
> Plan in mind for Harry. Those Puppetmaster!DD threads were around 
> since the release of OotP in 2003.
> 
> Contrast that with:
> By the end of PS/SS we knew that LV was after Harry and that DD 
knew 
> the reason but wasn't telling. After PoA we knew that Trelawney had 
> just made her *second* true prophesy that Dumbledore was aware of. 
> Yet how many people put those clues together and predicted DD knew 
> Trelawney's *first* prophesy was about Harry and LV? There were 
three 
> years, the most between any books, from GoF to OotP for this 
> prediction. Yet it came as a big surprise to me. Same goes for 
Sirius 
> dying in book 5.

zgirnius:
Sorry Mike. Search on "prophecy" before 2003. Voldemort could give 
Lily a chance to live because the prophecy that motivated him to hunt 
the Potters, did not apply to her. And that prophecy was likely the 
first true prophecy by Trelawney.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/45180

for example, refers to some of these theories, I did not find the 
original posts expounding them.

If Sirius dying counts as a big surprise of OotP...DH was full of 
them. Did you predict Hedwig? Dobby? the Lupins? Fred? To readers not 
in the fandom, I believe DH had plenty of twists. For another,  
Regulus, motivated to sacrifice himself because Voldemort tortured 
his House Elf, who ends up leading the elves into battle against 
Voldemort. (That last bit, I do not recall reading on any of the 
three fora on which I discus HP). Nor do I recall, in the many 
discussions of who would be DADA/Headmaster in DH, anyone suggesting 
the winning combo of Professor Carrow, and Headmaster Snape, both 
appointed, effectively, by LV. Because I don't recall heavy 
discussion of the fall of the Ministry and what LV would do once in 
power, either.

Grindelwald and Dumbledore having been best of friends, a 
relationship which broke up after it resulted in the death of 
Dumbledore's sister: that surprised me, too. "Puppetmaster" and the 
Snape theories I had of course seen before, but, on DD anyway, I 
found the way it was all put together a nice surprise. 

I agree that to a careful reader Snape's story and puppetmaster would 
not have been a shocking surprise, but disagree this is a flaw in DH. 
Both this and puppetmaster are too big to just drop as surprises in 
the final book - these are major characters we have gotten to know 
over the six books of the series, so the clues have to have been 
there. In fact, Book 1 already has plenty of clues for both.




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Dec 25 16:28:07 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:28:07 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fknqrs+8q6n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkrb2n+gs84@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180047


> 
> > Pippin:
> > Come to think of it, it would have been a pretty weak cliche if 
> > they had, and cheap as well, IMO. Draco's heart (and Snape's) were
> > a couple of sizes too small, as Dr. Seuss would put it, and yet,
> > as it turned out there was room for love in them. That's the big
> > reveal, IMO. 
> 
> Mike:
> I'm not getting this. Pippin, you were around when Amanda vehemently 
> pushed for Snape loved Lily. Like you said, even if you didn't 
> believe it, it wasn't a new idea that Snape could have loved. Draco 
> sticking by Goyle, trying to save him, not such a big story to my way 
> of thinking.

Pippin:
If you've been delving around in the archive you probably have a
fresher memory for my old posts than I have. <g> Still, the way
I remember things, there were a lot of people predicting Snape/
Lily (myself among them) as the probable reason that Snape left
Voldemort and stayed loyal to Dumbledore, and a  lot of people 
predicting that Snape had a loathsome personality and always 
would have. But they weren't the *same* people. 

With Draco, there were people who thought he would
never be Harry's friend, and people who thought he was capable
of good things, but again they weren't the *same* people.

Likewise there were people predicting puppetmaster!DD who
considered that manipulating people in that fashion would be
justified for the greater good. There were people who thought 
puppetmaster!DD would be evil and Harry would repudiate DD on 
account of it. But there weren't a lot, IIRC, who thought  
puppetmastering would be a weakness that Harry would forgive.

The biggest flat out shock for me in DH was Harry's crucio.
Again, there were people who predicted that the Trio would
use the unforgivable curses and be punished for it. There
were people who figured they would use the unforgivables
and it would be justified in the text. But who predicted that
they would be used and it would be left to the reader to
decide?

Yet that is the dilemma we are more likely to face in real life,
at least for those of us who are not personally in a position to
torture anyone.   In DH, JKR was all through instructing us, IMO. 
It should have been Harry's NEWT year, instead it was ours.

And who expected that?

Pippin
wishes a Merry Christmas to those who are celebrating




From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Dec 25 22:22:52 2007
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:22:52 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkrb2n+gs84@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkrvrs+rlsf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180048

Mike:
> > I'm not getting this. Pippin, you were around when Amanda 
> > vehemently pushed for Snape loved Lily. Like you said, even if 
> > you didn't believe it, it wasn't a new idea that Snape could have 
> > loved. 

Pippin:
> If you've been delving around in the archive you probably have a
> fresher memory for my old posts than I have. <g> Still, the way
> I remember things, there were a lot of people predicting Snape/
> Lily (myself among them) as the probable reason that Snape left
> Voldemort and stayed loyal to Dumbledore, and a  lot of people 
> predicting that Snape had a loathsome personality and always 
> would have. But they weren't the *same* people. 

SSSusan:
Actually, I was one who expected some version of LOLLIPOPS and yet 
also thought Snape was a spiteful, nasty, loathesome royal pri-- git 
who would always be so.  It never occurred to me that those two 
positions would rarely be held within the same reader.

Does that make me special? 

Or just weird?

:)


Pippin:
> Likewise there were people predicting puppetmaster!DD who
> considered that manipulating people in that fashion would be
> justified for the greater good. There were people who thought 
> puppetmaster!DD would be evil and Harry would repudiate DD on 
> account of it. But there weren't a lot, IIRC, who thought  
> puppetmastering would be a weakness that Harry would forgive.

SSSusan:
I definitely didn't predict the DD we got in DH.  No way, no how.  
Puppetmaster!DD for *any* reason -- to the degree to which he was 
shown to be that -- was unexpected by me.  So in this one, 
definitely, I wasn't someone who expected a puppetmastering!DD whom 
Harry would be forgiving.


Pippin: 
> The biggest flat out shock for me in DH was Harry's crucio.
> Again, there were people who predicted that the Trio would
> use the unforgivable curses and be punished for it. There
> were people who figured they would use the unforgivables
> and it would be justified in the text. But who predicted that
> they would be used and it would be left to the reader to
> decide?
> 
> Yet that is the dilemma we are more likely to face in real life,
> at least for those of us who are not personally in a position to
> torture anyone.   In DH, JKR was all through instructing us, IMO. 
> It should have been Harry's NEWT year, instead it was ours.
> 
> And who expected that?


SSSusan:
I'm not sure this was the biggest flat out shock for me... I'll have 
to ponder that.  But yes, the fact that it was there and, as you 
noted, Harry was neither punished for it nor was he in a situation 
where, almost universally, readers would be saying, "Heck yeah, 
ANYONE would have used Crucio in that case!" was a surprise.  Yes, 
interesting, that.

 
> Pippin
> wishes a Merry Christmas to those who are celebrating

Siriusly Snapey Susan,
adding her Merry Christmas as well







From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Dec 26 03:52:00 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:52:00 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkrvrs+rlsf@eGroups.com>
References: <fkrvrs+rlsf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4771CFE0.7010703@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180049

cubfanbudwoman wrote:
> Actually, I was one who expected some version of LOLLIPOPS and yet 
> also thought Snape was a spiteful, nasty, loathesome royal pri-- git 
> who would always be so.  It never occurred to me that those two 
> positions would rarely be held within the same reader.
> 
> Does that make me special? 
> 
> Or just weird?

	Nah; a number of us took a look at Dung as proof that just because you 
were against Morty didn't make you a good guy.

	Bart




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Wed Dec 26 06:47:17 2007
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:47:17 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I hope they won't cut these off for the next movie....
Message-ID: <c57.2218cf6b.34a352f5@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180050

 
In a message dated 12/22/2007 4:12:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Schlobin at aol.com writes:

Or DD  in the plum colored suit and Harry saying "Nice suit,  sir!"





Wouldn't THAT be a wonderful change from that ugly dressing gown they have  
had him wearing for the last three movies?!
 
Sandy



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Dec 26 07:33:28 2007
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 23:33:28 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <975147.18668.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <fkkkci+9eks@eGroups.com>
	 <975147.18668.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0712252333l1b3c1e7aveb4f3bb830b81f07@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180051

Katie:

He was built up to be such an important and interesting character and it
just didn't happen

Lynda:

He was?  The above refers to Draco and frankly I never once in the books saw
his character being built up as so many have claimed it was. That's just not
there for me. I was quite surprised--and pleased btw--at Dudley's reaction
to Harry in this book. Unexpected from everything Rowling had said and very
pleasant. Maybe not the big reveal so many were looking for--and I'll agree
to that there were no really big surprises, but Dudley, the pleasant and
somewhat unexpected marriage of Lupin and Tonks, the confirmation of
Dumbledore's manipulations and youthful jaunt into the dark arts, Kreacher's
newfound loyalty to Harry and a few other things I could probably think of
if it weren't 28 minutes to midnight on Christmas day made it not a complete
bore of a book after all.

Lynda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Dec 26 13:30:50 2007
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:30:50 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
Message-ID: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180052

This message is a Special Notice for all members of

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups

In addition to being published onlist (available in webview),
this post is also being delivered offlist (to email in boxes)
to those whose "Message Delivery" is set to "Special Notices."
If this is problematic or if you have any questions, contact
the List Elves at (minus that extra space)

HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com


Many thanks to Phlytie Elf and Alika Elf for their eagle eyes and
corrections!!  Now, onto my favorite chapter in Deathly Hallows
..
-------------------------------------

CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Chapter Ten:  Kreacher's Tale

Our Trio is now at Grimmauld Place.  Harry wakes up in the drawing
room floor, where he, Hermione and Ron have slept for the night. 
Harry notices that Hermione's fingers are inches away from Ron's
fingers and wonders if they had fallen asleep holding hands; Harry
feels strangely lonely at this thought.

Harry thinks about the daunting task that Dumbledore has left him
with, finding all of the Horcruxes and defeating Voldemort.  Harry
begins to wonder why Dumbledore didn't explain about the objects from
the will and questions whether Dumbledore actually cared about Harry
at all; was Dumbledore just using Harry as a tool?

Harry gets up to find something else to distract him from his
thoughts.  He begins to go upstairs.  He notices that someone has been
in the house since the Order had left; was it Snape or perhaps
Mundungus?  Harry continues to go upstairs to the very top floor,
where there are two doors.  One has a nameplate with "Sirius" on it;
he opens the door and enters.

Sirius' room is large and very dusty and cobwebby.  Teenage Sirius had
decorated his room with Gryffindor banners and Muggle pictures of
motorcycles and bikini-clad girls.  There is only one wizarding photo
on the wall, which was of the Marauders.

Sirius's room has been searched as well and Harry notices several
pieces of paper on the floor.  He picks up the handwritten one and
begins to read.  It is addressed to "Padfoot".   The letter's content
speak of Harry's first birthday and Sirius' gift of a broomstick to
his godson.  Although the letter is not signed, it is from Lily, as
she mentions James' amusement.  Lily mentions a birthday tea with just
the family and Bathilda Bagshot and how James is so frustrated being
shut up in the house.  Dumbledore still has his Invisibility Cloak and
James cannot leave.  Bathilda visits often and tells Lily the most
amazing stories about Dumbledore, some of which she cannot actually
believe.  The letter ends on that note, as the second page is missing.

Harry feels the letter is a treasure, proof that his mother actually
lived.  He rereads the letter several times, noting that they had a
cat and his parents had known Bathilda.  He puzzles over the line
"Dumbledore's still got his Invisibility Cloak" and wonders why DD had
taken it.  Did someone else less gifted in the Order need it?  Harry
moves on to the next line of "Wormy was here" and wonders if Peter was
aware this was the last time he was seeing James and Lily alive? 
Moreover, what about Bathilda and her incredible stories about DD ?
what was so incredible?  

Harry gets up and looks for the rest of the letter, opening drawers,
shaking out books and looking under furniture.  He spots a torn piece
of paper under the chest of drawers and it is the photograph that Lily
mentioned in her letter.  It shows a baby zooming in out of the
picture on a broom, laughing, and a pair of legs that must belong to
James.  Harry continues to look for the second sheet of the letter,
but after some time searching, gives up.  
Hermione calls up to Harry and comes into Sirius' room.  Harry shows
her the letter and the photo.  Harry tells Hermione that his parents
knew Bathilda and that she is still alive.  Bathilda also knew
Dumbledore's family, if Ron's Aunt Muriel was telling the truth. 
Harry wants to go to Godric's Hollow, but Hermione believes it is not
a good idea.  Harry feels that no one wants him to know the truth and
is resentful.  Hermione leaves the room, mentioning finding something
for breakfast.  Harry follows and passes the second door in the
hallway.  He stops and reads the sign, which he feels is pompous
."Do
Not Enter Without the Express Permission of Regulus Arcturus Black". 
Harry has found R.A.B.  and calls down to Hermione.  Harry tells her
that Sirius' brother was a Death Eater and that he was killed when he
tried to leave.  

Ron joins them and the trio enters Regulus' bedroom.  Regulus' bedroom
is the exact opposite of Sirius' ? Slytherin colors and the Black
Family Crest and motto, "Toujours Pur" was on the walls.  Newspaper
clippings about Voldemort are also on the walls.  Harry notices a
photo of a Quidditch team and sees Regulus ? a small, slighter and
dark haired figure.  Harry tells them that Regulus was a seeker
because of where he is sitting, but no one pays any attention to that,
as Ron and Hermione are looking for the locket.  The room also looks
like it has been searched before.   They continue to search for an
hour and then decide that the locket is not in Regulus' room.  

As they leave the room, Hermione states that the locket could still be
in the house and mentions all of those items they got rid of the last
time they were there.  She mentions that the locket could have been
hidden in any of them and then, realization hits her.  She remembers
there was a locket ? the one they could not open.  Harry mentions that
Kreacher had nicked back a lot of things they had tried to throw out
and they go to the kitchen. 

After a quick search in his cupboard reveals nothing, Harry summons
Kreacher.  Kreacher appears, still looking dirty and still behaving
sullen.  Harry questions him about the gold locket from two years ago
and did Kreacher take it back?  Kreacher tells him yes, but it is
gone, as Mundungus stole it.  Kreacher gulps for air and screams out
"- and the locket, Master Regulus' locket, Kreacher did wrong,
Kreacher failed in his orders!"

Harry asks Kreacher why he called the locket "Master Regulus'" and
where did it come from and what did Regulus have to do with it?  The
elf begins his tale.  Sirius had run away and broke his mother's
heart.  Regulus was a proper Black and had talked of joining Voldemort
for years.  When Regulus was 16, he joined the Death Eaters and was so
proud and happy to serve him.  One year later, Regulus went to
Kreacher and told  him that the Dark Lord needed an elf and that elf
was Kreacher.  He ordered Kreacher to do what Voldemort asks him to do
and then to come home.

Kreacher and Voldemort had gone to the cave, the same cave Harry and
Dumbledore visited in the "Half-Blood Prince".  They crossed the lake
to the island in the same boat, finding the basin with the potion. 
Voldemort ordered Kreacher to drink the potion.  Kreacher saw terrible
things, his insides burned and he cried for Regulus to save him. 
Voldemort only laughed and ordered him to drink the entire potion. 
When the basin was finally  empty, Voldemort placed the gold locket
into the basin and left Kreacher there on the island to die.  Kreacher
crawled to the lake's edge to drink from the lake and dead hands had
reached out to him.  

Harry asks Kreacher how he got home and he replies that Master Regulus
ordered him to come back home.  Harry asks him how he escaped the
Inferi and Kreacher just repeats his original answer.  Ron interrupts
and states that Kreacher Disapparated ? Harry argues that if that was
the case, Dumbledore could have done that.  Ron states that Elf magic
is not like Wizard's magic, as elves can Disapparate and Apparate into
Hogwarts all the time.  Harry thinks about this for a moment and
ponders how could Voldemort make such a blunder?  Hermione, as if
reading his mind, spoke up and stated that Voldemort would have
thought that elves were far beneath him and would not have thought
that the elves would have had magic that he didn't.  

Kreacher tells them that the house-elf's highest law is to do his
master's bidding and that he was told to come home and that is what he
did.  Harry asks him what happened after he came home to Regulus. 
Kreacher tells them that Regulus was very worried and told him to stay
hidden and not to leave the house.  A little while later, Regulus came
to Kreacher and asked him to take him to the cave.  Kreacher states
that Regulus was "strange" and "disturbed in the mind".   Kreacher and
Regulus go to the cave.  

Harry asks him if Regulus made him drink the potion, in which Kreacher
shakes his head and starts to cry.  Hermione brings her hands to her
mouth and she seemed to know what Kreacher was going to say next. 
Kreacher continues:  Regulus took a locket out of his pocket and gave
it to Kreacher.  Regulus tells him when the basin is empty, Kreacher
must switch the lockets and then go back home.  Kreacher was never to
mention this to Mrs Black and, when he could, destroy the locket.  
Regulus drank the potion; Kreacher swapped the lockets and watched as
Regulus was dragged beneath the water into the lake.

Kreacher could not destroy the locket, no matter how hard he tried. 
Every time he tried and failed, he would punish himself.  Mrs Black
went mad with grief at Regulus' disappearance and Kreacher could not
tell her what truly happened to her son.  Kreacher continues to sob
and Hermione is crying as well.  Harry sits back and tells Kreacher he
doesn't understand him.  Voldemort tried to kill Kreacher, Regulus
died to bring down Voldemort and yet Kreacher still betrayed Sirius? 
Hermione explains that house-elves don't think like that; that they
were used to bad treatment.  Kreacher was loyal to those that were
nice to him and mimicked their beliefs.  Regulus was kind to him and
even though Regulus changed his mind about Voldemort, he didn't
explain that to Kreacher.  Hermione believes that Regulus was trying
to keep his family safe and to protect them from Voldemort.

Harry mentions Sirius, but Hermione reminds him that Sirius was
horrible to Kreacher.  Kreacher had been alone for a long time and was
looking for affection.  Narcissa and Bellatrix  were probably lovely
to Kreacher and he did them a favor.  Hermione tells Harry that she
has said all along that the wizards would pay some day for how they
treat house-elves and both Voldemort and Sirius did pay for their
treatment.

Harry remembers what Dumbledore had said to him after Sirius died: "I
do not think Sirius ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as
acute as a human's
"  Harry asks, not orders, Kreacher to sit up,
please, when Kreacher feels up to it.  Harry's demeanor has changed
towards Kreacher ? his tone is kinder and he uses the word ask, not
order.  Harry asks Kreacher to find Mundungus as they need to find
Master Regulus' locket and finish the work that Regulus began;  to
ensure that Regulus' death wasn't in vain.

Harry gives Kreacher the substitute locket that Regulus had placed in
the basin and tells him he would like Kreacher to have it and that
Regulus would have wanted that as well, as a token of gratitude. 
Kreacher begins to cry and wail and it took them over an hour to calm
him down, as Kreacher was so overwhelmed to be given a Black heirloom
for his own.  He gave two bows to Ron and Harry and gave a funny spasm
in the direction of Hermione and Disapparated.

Questions:

1.	Sirius' room is described as dusty and there is a spider's web and
mice inhabiting it.  The decorations are also from his teen years as
well.  Do you think that Sirius actually stayed in his old room in
"The Order of the Phoenix" or that he stayed in another bedroom? 

2.	If he had slept in his old room, do you think that added to his
"living in the past," with all the reminders from his "happy" years?

3.	Why is Lily's letter addressed to "Padfoot" instead of Sirius?  Is
this just a term of affection or was Sirius underground at the time of
the letter?  If a term of affection, why doesn't she call James
"Prongs" in the letter?   She calls Peter "Wormy", so it seems she
does know about the nicknames.

4.	Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
heart.  Does this new bit of information seem  to contradict Sirius'
story about his relationship with his family?    

5.	Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that Voldemort
really had no age limit for his recruits.  How does this contrast with
the Order of the Phoenix?  Ignoring that the DE's are evil and the
Order is good, do you think that the DEs support the notion of
fighting for what you believe in, regardless of age?  In other words,
do you agree with the Order's stance of not allowing underage wizards
to join or do you agree with the Death Eater's stance instead?

6.	After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to Regulus,
where do you think Regulus went?  Regulus' return to Kreacher shows a
Regulus with a disturbed state of mind, strange, according to
Kreacher.  Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did book
research?

7.	Did you initially believe that Regulus forced Kreacher to drink the
potion, as Harry thought, or did you think as Hermione did ? that
Regulus did give up his own life?

a.	Despite what Harry knew about the note that Regulus left in the
locket, did he think badly of Regulus because he was a Slytherin?  Do
you feel that Harry is showing his old biases here?

8.	How did you feel when Regulus' death was revealed?  I found this to
be the most tragic death of all of the deaths in the series.  Do you
feel that Regulus redeemed himself?

9.	Do you think Regulus should have done more to let others know what
Voldemort was up to?

10.	How do you feel about Kreacher at the end of this tale?  Did you
feel empathy for him?  Is Kreacher's attitude now explainable and
understandable?

11.	Does Hermione's explanation - Voldemort's contempt for house-elves
was his downfall in Kreacher's escape from the cave - make sense?  Do
you think her parallel of Voldemort's and Sirius' attitude towards
house-elves was warranted, or a bit extreme?

12.	Harry's attitude finally changes towards Kreacher, with his tale
and Hermione's explanation.   Is this a turning point for Harry in
regards for empathy and understanding or do you feel that Harry has
already made strides in this area with other characters?  Do you have
examples, if the latter?


Please feel free to add your own questions to this discussion! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see
"HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database

Next chapdisc, chapter 11, The Bribe ? January 7, 2008





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 26 13:51:31 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:51:31 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fktm93+o7ui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180053

Questions:

1. Sirius' room is described as dusty and there is a spider's web and
mice inhabiting it. The decorations are also from his teen years as
well. Do you think that Sirius actually stayed in his old room in
"The Order of the Phoenix" or that he stayed in another bedroom?

Alla:

Since I am of the opinion that Sirius was very unhappy, depressed in 
that house and much rather never went back I do believe that he 
would have at least avoided his old room which IMO would have 
reminded him of what he tried to leave behind forever at sixteen.


2. If he had slept in his old room, do you think that added to his
"living in the past," with all the reminders from his "happy" years?

Alla:

Yes, therefore I do not think he did.

3. Why is Lily's letter addressed to "Padfoot" instead of Sirius? Is
this just a term of affection or was Sirius underground at the time 
of
the letter? If a term of affection, why doesn't she call James
"Prongs" in the letter? She calls Peter "Wormy", so it seems she
does know about the nicknames.


Alla:

I think it was both really. I think by that time Sirius was 
underground yes, but I think it was  a term of affection too. For 
some reason which I cannot explain it makes sense to me that she 
would not call James Prongs.



4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
heart. Does this new bit of information seem to contradict Sirius'
story about his relationship with his family?

Alla:

NO, not for me. I am sure her heart was broken when Sirius was 
sorted in Gryffindor as well. IMO of course. 

5. Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that Voldemort
really had no age limit for his recruits. How does this contrast with
the Order of the Phoenix? Ignoring that the DE's are evil and the
Order is good, do you think that the DEs support the notion of
fighting for what you believe in, regardless of age? In other words,
do you agree with the Order's stance of not allowing underage wizards
to join or do you agree with the Death Eater's stance instead?

Alla:

In the RL I absolutely agree with Order's stance. I think kids 
should be cherished and protected, not allowed to rush to war no 
matter how strongly they believe in the subject matter.



6. After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to 
Regulus,
where do you think Regulus went? Regulus' return to Kreacher shows a
Regulus with a disturbed state of mind, strange, according to
Kreacher. Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did book
research?


Alla:

Snape ;) I wish. I think he did book research and was horrified at 
what he read and still determined to go ahead.



7. Did you initially believe that Regulus forced Kreacher to drink 
the
potion, as Harry thought, or did you think as Hermione did ? that
Regulus did give up his own life?

Alla:

Since I as many was already convinced that RAB is Regulus, no I did 
not believe that he could force Kreacher at all, I thought he gave 
up his life.

a. Despite what Harry knew about the note that Regulus left in the
locket, did he think badly of Regulus because he was a Slytherin? Do
you feel that Harry is showing his old biases here?

Alla:

Um, no. I think he just did not change his mind about Regulus yet, 
not because he is Slytherin.

8. How did you feel when Regulus' death was revealed? I found this to
be the most tragic death of all of the deaths in the series. Do you
feel that Regulus redeemed himself?

Alla:

I cried. I certainly find it one of the most tragic deaths in the 
series. Seventeen year old dying for House elf...

9. Do you think Regulus should have done more to let others know what
Voldemort was up to?

Alla:

Could've, should've, easy to think after the fact, you know?

Yes he could have, but I forgive him for not doing it.

10. How do you feel about Kreacher at the end of this tale? Did you
feel empathy for him? Is Kreacher's attitude now explainable and
understandable?

Alla:

I totally get that JKR wants me to think so - to understand Kreacher 
and forgive him, I get it on intellectual level.

I cannot. I never bought him being brainwashed because of slavery. 
He was smart enough to sneak out and go to Narcissa. I know it is 
purely emotional attitude, but I cannot forgive little shmack for 
Sirius' death and the fact that Reg died for him. Oy.

I applaud Harry for forgiving him, but Harry is more forgiving than 
me, I always said so :)

11. Does Hermione's explanation - Voldemort's contempt for house-
elves
was his downfall in Kreacher's escape from the cave - make sense? Do
you think her parallel of Voldemort's and Sirius' attitude towards
house-elves was warranted, or a bit extreme?

Alla:

Yeah, extreme as far as I am concerned.

12. Harry's attitude finally changes towards Kreacher, with his tale
and Hermione's explanation. Is this a turning point for Harry in
regards for empathy and understanding or do you feel that Harry has
already made strides in this area with other characters? Do you have
examples, if the latter?


Alla:

Eh, he is able to feel something for Dursleys despite the torment 
they put him through, pity he felt for Draco?

I think it may have supposed to be turning point in a major way 
though, yes, but I certainly think he expressed it before.


Alla, who is rushing and feels bad that she is unable to do justice 
to Michelle's questions now. BRAVO.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 26 14:28:23 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (C John Edward Culver)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:28:23 -0000
Subject: Umbridge - bad to the bone
In-Reply-To: <fkkemu+qtj7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fktoe7+iniq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180054

CJ:
> In the IMAC category, I think it's 
> a toss-up between Skeeter and Umbridge. 

Geoff:
> Umbridge ... **set out** to be the most loathsome.

Mike:
> I'll have to agree with Geoff.

CJ:

I'll have to take a pass. I saw Umbridge as petty, as cruel, as
small-minded with an obvious need for attention. But Umbridge did what
she did driven by an obsession with power and the need to control. For
Umbridge, her cruelty was a means to an end, to enforce her order and
impose her will on others. For that I found her pitiable and annoying,
but hardly loathsome.

Bellatrix, OTOH, reveled in evil for evil's sake. For Bellatrix, evil
itself was its own purpose and its own reward, needing neither reason
nor excuse, having no other end than itself. Of all his servants,
Bellatrix alone wasn't driven by self-interested desires for power or
reward, and this is why, of all his servants, Bellatrix was the only
one LV could trust. And that's where Bellatrix was truly loathsome,
while Umbridge was simply petty and mean.

CJ




From brahadambal at indiatimes.com  Wed Dec 26 15:14:02 2007
From: brahadambal at indiatimes.com (latha279)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:14:02 -0000
Subject: Horcrux-distruction - a team work...
Message-ID: <fktr3q+cfte@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180055

Hi all,

I am probably writing in after about 2 years and dont really know if 
anyone has already discussed this topic thread-bare by now - if so, 
please point me to the thread.

The horcrux-destruction was team work because no one person got to 
destroy more than one horcrux. 

Harry destroyed the "Dairy"; DD the "Ring"; Ron the "Locket"; 
Hermione the "cup"; Crabbe the "Diadem"; Voldemort himself destroyed 
the "Harry" horcrux and finally Neville the "Snake".

I still do feel, personally, that Snape should have been give the 
honour of destroying one of them too, for all he has done. It would 
have been a fitting act for one  who was so brave. IMO, Neville could 
have destroyed the diadem (need not necerraily with FiendFyre) and 
Snape could have destroyed the Snake (before he died or better still 
survived). Just my two pence for whatever its worth.

regards,
Brady.




From biancawatanabe_123 at yahoo.com.ph  Wed Dec 26 12:16:44 2007
From: biancawatanabe_123 at yahoo.com.ph (biancawatanabe_123)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:16:44 -0000
Subject: Severus Snape;a skilled Legilimens
Message-ID: <fktgnc+jbv9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180056

It was stated in OOTP that Snape could read other people's minds just
like LV.  Then why is it that in the SS, when LV was sharing his body
with Quirrel, he didn't realize that Snape was faithful to Dumbledore?
And in the GOF when Barty Crouch Jr. was stealing boomslang skin,
lacewing flies and other ingredients to make Polyjuice Potion from
Snape, why did Snape suspect Harry of stealing them when he could just
read Harry's mind and figure out if it was really him all along who
was stealing?

biancawatanabe_123






From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Wed Dec 26 15:20:54 2007
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:20:54 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fktrgm+njh2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180057

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 1.	Sirius' room is described as dusty and there is a spider's 
web and
> mice inhabiting it.  

Actually, the whole house is described as "cob-webbed" - how did 12 
Grimmauld revert so quickly from its Molly-sponsored cleansing to 
its "haunted house" look? The OOP remained in residence until 
Dumbledore's death less than three months earlier.

> 
> 5.	Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that 
Voldemort
> really had no age limit for his recruits.  How does this contrast 
with
> the Order of the Phoenix?  Ignoring that the DE's are evil and the
> Order is good, do you think that the DEs support the notion of
> fighting for what you believe in, regardless of age?  In other 
words,
> do you agree with the Order's stance of not allowing underage 
wizards
> to join or do you agree with the Death Eater's stance instead?

Good catch on your part, I hadn't noticed - I just think it 
underscores that Voldemort saw his followers merely as tools to be 
used, regardless of considerations (such as age) that might have made 
their service morally questionable.

> 11.	Does Hermione's explanation - Voldemort's contempt for house-
elves
> was his downfall in Kreacher's escape from the cave - make sense?  

At first, it struck me a more of a "phoenix tears" moment - Voldemort 
has a convenient lapse of memory/or never became aware of things that 
are common knowledge, merely to serve the plot.  But, showing some 
respect for the Dark Lord's intelligence, we could say that he knew 
of the elves' ability to Apparate, but figured that between the 
disorienting effects of the potion, the lethality of the Inferi and 
the loyalty of Regulus Black to the DE cause, Kreacher would not have 
the opportunity to Apparate out of the cave.

   - CMC





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 26 16:27:53 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:27:53 -0000
Subject: MAC*
In-Reply-To: <fkmu99+lale@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fktve9+gte3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180058

Geoff wrote:
> If I consider a person to be loathsome, I wouldn't even bother to
consider whether I found them annoying, hence my view of Umbridge.
<snip>

Carol responds:
Of course, Umbridge is loathsome, from her cruel quill to her use of
Mad-Eye's magical eyeball. But, in my view, she's also annoying
because of her saccharine little girlishness (a fondness for pink,
simpering, and gamboling kittens on plates). Most annoying of all (to
me) is her constant "hem, hem."

Carol, hoping that everyone else's Christmas was merrier than mine (my
son-in-law backed into my car and now I can't get the driver's side
door open!)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 26 17:21:34 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:21:34 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fkonvi+p259@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fku2iu+5p42@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180059

dazz_arlonsy wrote:
> <snip> I hate Percy also. He's the cause of Fred's death. Percy
shouldn't come to Hogwarts, or he could do something constructive,
such as die protecting Fred.
 
>
Carol responds:

Percy caused the wall to fall down on Fred? I was sure that the breach
was caused by DEs. Percy had just made a joke and Fred
(characteristically) died laughing, but I don't see how that's Percy's
fault. Percy helps Harry to carry Fred's body to a place where it
won't be desecrated by DEs, and he has just hit Thicknesse with a
highly creative spell that leaves him with spines sticking out of his
body when the wall falls on Fred. I thought his surprise and grief
made Fred's death one of the most poignant moments in the book,
especially since Percy had made a sincere and humble apology,
admitting to being all the things Fred called him, and been forgiven
by Fred (and George) just hours before. 

Carol, wondering irrelevantly whether today is the first or second day
of Christmas (the Christmas season)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 26 18:30:47 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:30:47 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fku6kn+4q80@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180060

<snip excellent and thorough summary>
 
Questions:
> 
> 1. Sirius' room is described as dusty and there is a spider's web
and mice inhabiting it.  The decorations are also from his teen years
as well.  Do you think that Sirius actually stayed in his old room in
"The Order of the Phoenix" or that he stayed in another bedroom? 

Carol responds:
I've never thought about it, but since it's dusty and inhabited by
mice and spiders, maybe he didn't sleep there unless he had company
(summer and Christmas holidays in OoP). Maybe he thought cleaning it
was beneath him and Kreacher was under orders not to go in there.
Then, again, he's been dead for more than a year when Harry enters the
room in DH, so that's probably enough time for mice, spiders, and dust
to take over the room. (As for how that letter got there. . . .)
 
> 2. If he had slept in his old room, do you think that added to his
"living in the past," with all the reminders from his "happy" years?

Carol:
Probably, but where else could he "live," except vicariously through
HRH? He didn't have many duties for the Order, he couldn't leave the
house, and his more recent memories (Godric's Hollow, Peter's
treachery, Azkaban, living as a dog in a cave) probably didn't bear
thinking about.
> 
> 3.	Why is Lily's letter addressed to "Padfoot" instead of Sirius? 
Is this just a term of affection or was Sirius underground at the time
of the letter?  If a term of affection, why doesn't she call James
"Prongs" in the letter?   She calls Peter "Wormy", so it seems she
does know about the nicknames.

Carol:
Well, James is her husband, so (IMO) she's unlikely to call him by a
childhood nickname given him by his male buddies (she might have her
own nickname for him in intimate moments, comparable to "Mollywobbles"
but more, erm, manly), but since *he* calls his friends by their
nicknames, she probably follows suit, with "Wormy" perhaps indicating
a special affection for (or condescension toward?) poor (seemingly)
untalented little Peter Pettigrew. I think her use of the nicknames
shows that they've included her in their circle, of which she wasn't
yet a member in SWM or Snape's Hogwarts memories in "The Prince's
Tale." (Heck, her Patronus copies James's. It's as if she doesn't even
have her own identity.)
> 
> 4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
heart.  Does this new bit of information seem  to contradict Sirius'
story about his relationship with his family? 

Carol:
Well, Sirius wouldn't have seen his mother after he left, so he
probably didn't realize that she loved him. (He would have known,
however, that his parents were disappointed in his not being sorted
into Slytherin. Probably, the rift began when he first returned home
during, say, Christmas of his first year at Hogwarts, and grew worse
as he became a rebellious teenager, showing his "individuality"
(Gryffindorness) by putting up posters, banners, and photos of which
his parents didn't approve (like a postmodern Muggle kid who gets a
tattoo or a pierced tongue and listens to music his parents hate). He
would see only their opposition and not their love. But I believe that
Sirius's leaving home and not returning really did break his heart (it
would break any mother's), and that, followed by Regulus's death
(which Kreacher would have been forbidden to describe or explain) and
by the death of her husband caused her to lose her grip on sanity.
Sirius didn't know or care. He just thought she was crazy and evil.
(BTW, she wouldn't have been *old* when she died, even by Muggle
standards, if the Black Family Tree is accurate. She'd only have been
in her mid- to late fifties, IIRC.)
> 
> 5. Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that Voldemort
really had no age limit for his recruits.  How does this contrast with
the Order of the Phoenix?  Ignoring that the DE's are evil and the
Order is good, do you think that the DEs support the notion of
fighting for what you believe in, regardless of age?  In other words,
do you agree with the Order's stance of not allowing underage wizards
to join or do you agree with the Death Eater's stance instead?

Carol:
I think that Voldemort just wanted any supporter who could cast a
spell or was sufficiently motivated. He certainly didn't care that
Regulus and Draco were technically children. Nor would the DEs have
cared, if Bellatrix is any indication. (Dying in the Dark Lord's
service is a great honor, in her view.) The Order, in contrast, tried
to protect the kids from danger as much as possible, and that included
knowledge of their own plans. Even Dumbledore told Harry only as much
as he thought Harry needed to know and never directly told Ron or
Hermione anything. (I agree with the Order's stance. In fact, I think
seventeen is too young to come of age. Whatever happened to twenty-one
as the age of majority, she asks rhetorically?)
> 
6. After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to Regulus,
where do you think Regulus went?  Regulus' return to Kreacher shows a
Regulus with a disturbed state of mind, strange, according to
Kreacher.  Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did book
research?

Carol:
Who could he have talked to? If DH had turned out differently, I might
have thought that he talked to Severus, but it seems that Snape knew
nothing about the Horcruxes (improbable as that seems to me given
Snape abilities as a logician). Maybe he went to Borgin and Burke's,
but there's no indication that they knew Voldemort had a Horcrux (much
less more than one). Maybe he bought some books there or read books on
Dark Magic in his parents' library. (That *he* would figure out that
LV had a Horcrux is just another of the book's many improbabilities,
IMO, much as I admire his bravery and Kreacher's loyalty.)
> 
> 7. Did you initially believe that Regulus forced Kreacher to drink
the potion, as Harry thought, or did you think as Hermione did ? that
Regulus did give up his own life?

Carol:
I knew that RAB was dead and had tried to destroy the Horcrux, so, no,
I didn't believe for one second that Harry was right. I knew he was
misjudging Regulus. (Pre-DH, I thought that *Bellatrix* had forced
Kreacher to drink the potion.)
> 
> a. Despite what Harry knew about the note that Regulus left in the
locket, did he think badly of Regulus because he was a Slytherin?  Do
you feel that Harry is showing his old biases here?

Carol:
Yes and yes. There was no other reason to think badly of Regulus,
except that Harry knew he'd been an "idiot" and joined the DEs. The
blood prejudice thing probably played a role, but, for Harry,
Slytherin, blood prejudice, and Death Eater are virtually synonymous.
> 
> 8.	How did you feel when Regulus' death was revealed?  I found this
to be the most tragic death of all of the deaths in the series.  Do
you feel that Regulus redeemed himself?

Carol:
I cried and cried. Absolutely, he redeemed himself through love,
courage, and opposition to Voldemort. (Maybe, like Snape, he was
sorted too early <eg>.)
> 
> 9. Do you think Regulus should have done more to let others know
what Voldemort was up to?

Carol:
Regulus was, at most, seventeen years old. He had no one to go to.
Severus was still loyal to Voldemort at this point, as far as Regulus
 knew.  Who could he trust to tell? He probably felt that the only way
to steal and destroy the Horcrux was to die himself. And, of course,
he had no idea how hard it would be to destroy a Horcrux. Unlike other
wizards, he seems to have overestimated rather than underestimated the
powers of his house-elf.
> 
> 10.	How do you feel about Kreacher at the end of this tale?  Did you
feel empathy for him?  Is Kreacher's attitude now explainable and
understandable?

Carol:
My view of Kreacher changed completely. The scene was a complete and
successful reversal for me, much more believable than Dudley's change
of heart and, in contrast to the expected revelations about Snape,
completely unexpected. I did see him as to some extent a victim, but I
never expected to understand, empathize, and feel affection for him. 
> 
> 11.	Does Hermione's explanation - Voldemort's contempt for
house-elves was his downfall in Kreacher's escape from the cave - make
sense?  Do you think her parallel of Voldemort's and Sirius' attitude
towards house-elves was warranted, or a bit extreme?

Carol:
I certainly don't think that Voldemort was punished for his attitude
toward house-elves though Sirius's treatment of Kreacher is partly
responsible for the events that led to his death (only for Kreacher
sneaking off to talk to Narcissa and betraying the Order by revealing
Harry's affection for Sirius and taking part in the conspiracy to get
*Harry* to the MoM. That Sirius chose to go there is not Kreacher's
responsibility.) I do think it's ironic that the Slytherin brother was
the one who cared about, valued, and understood the family house-elf.
But Hermione, despite setting Harry straight on the psychology of
house-elves, is, as usual, a bit extreme in her views regarding them.
> 
> 12.	Harry's attitude finally changes towards Kreacher, with his tale
and Hermione's explanation.  Is this a turning point for Harry in
regards for empathy and understanding or do you feel that Harry has
already made strides in this area with other characters?  Do you have
examples, if the latter?

Carol responds:
Setting aside Dobby, I think that Harry's understanding of and empathy
for people outside his immediate circle begins with his delayed
appreciation of Neville and Luna, continues with his ability to feel
pity for Draco (and perhaps with his realization that even though he
hates Draco, he doesn't want him dead: shades of Quirrell's
description of Snape's attitude toward Harry in SS/PS). So Harry's
empathy for Kreacher, and his understanding that the Slytherin Regulus
could be selflessly brave and heroic, is a step toward the
all-important forgiveness and understanding of Snape, without which he
could not, IMO, have accepted Snape's message and sacrificed himself
(as he thought) with no thought of vengeance against Snape or Voldemort.

Carol, thanking colebiancardi for a fine summary and interesting questions




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 26 18:41:37 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 18:41:37 -0000
Subject: Severus Snape;a skilled Legilimens
In-Reply-To: <fktgnc+jbv9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fku791+kq3g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180061

biancawatanabe_123wrote:
>
> It was stated in OOTP that Snape could read other people's minds
just like LV.  Then why is it that in the SS, when LV was sharing his
body with Quirrel, he didn't realize that Snape was faithful to
Dumbledore?
> And in the GOF when Barty Crouch Jr. was stealing boomslang skin,
lacewing flies and other ingredients to make Polyjuice Potion from
Snape, why did Snape suspect Harry of stealing them when he could just
read Harry's mind and figure out if it was really him all along who
was stealing?

Carol responds:

Why would Snape's ability to use Legilimency enable Voldemort (who,
BTW, was in the *back* of Quirrell's head) to read snape's mind? Snape
could have used Legilimency on Quirrell and Occlumency against him. As
for not realizing that Harry hadn't stolen the Polyjuice ingredients,
Harry was thinking about Hermione stealing them in second year and
Dobby stealing the gillyweed, both of which would confirm Harry's
involvement in Snape's view. Snape also knew, of course, that they
Polyjuice ingredients went missing and his office was broken into on
the same night that Harry was out of bed late, his presence revealed
by the egg and the Marauder's Map. Harry, of course, did not know that
it was Fake!Moody who broke into Snape's office, so Snape wouldn't be
able to read the identity of the true culprit in his mind.

Carol, who should be editing rather than catching up on posting!




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Dec 26 21:34:34 2007
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 21:34:34 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkuhda+dh7g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180062

michele:
4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
heart. Does this new bit of information seem to contradict Sirius'
story about his relationship with his family?

Ceridwen:
Of course it contradicts Sirius's story.  I don't think this makes 
Sirius wrong, he really did believe he and his family were on the 
outs.  Parents can give mixed signals, and kids don't always 
understand them, especially if the family is somewhat naturally 
distant.  Given Kreacher's remark, Sirius was wrong about his 
mother's feelings.  That was a tragedy for Sirius and his family.

michele:
5. Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that Voldemort
really had no age limit for his recruits. How does this contrast with
the Order of the Phoenix? Ignoring that the DE's are evil and the
Order is good, do you think that the DEs support the notion of
fighting for what you believe in, regardless of age? In other words,
do you agree with the Order's stance of not allowing underage wizards
to join or do you agree with the Death Eater's stance instead?

Ceridwen:
If the DE's minimum age limit was sixteen, then I would agree with 
them and not with the Order, but only just barely.  In my opinion, a 
person of sixteen is still easily influenced by parents, a favorite 
teacher, upbringing, or a celebrity, but the same person is too old 
to be kept out of politics or movements.  I'm glad you asked this the 
way you did, because it can be easy to get wrapped up in what the two 
organizations stood for.  We're afraid that the sixteen year old who 
is demonstrating against something we believe in has been talked into 
it by someone unscrupulous, but don't have the same qualms about the 
sixteen year old who marches for something we agree with.  Either a 
person is capable of deciding at sixteen, or a person isn't.  I 
personally think a sixteen year old in fact too young, but is too old 
to be kept from making a choice and learning how to find his or her 
own way.

Very nice summary and questions!  Thanks!

Ceridwen.




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 26 22:42:07 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:42:07 -0000
Subject: Ministry of Magic - Annual St. Mungos Message
Message-ID: <fkulbv+uh42@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180063

Season's Greetings to all Witches and Wizards. We at the Ministry 
would like to apologize for the tardiness of this message. Things 
have been a little hectic at the Minstry, what with trying to put 
everything back to rights after our little, shall we call it a 
governmental shake-up of this past year. Lots of the older files 
and procedures were lost, forcing us to revert to institutional 
knowledge. <Geez, that Umbridge made a mess of things. Finally did 
put her out with her cat litter.>

Somebody finally remembered the St. Mungos annual refresher. So, 
without further ado, I give you Assistant Healer Sticatta Tongue and 
our annual refresher.

Kingsley Shacklebolt
Interim Minister of Magic

*******************************************************
Hi all, I'm Sticatta Tongue <and you had better not> of St. Mungos. 
My colleague, Lukinda Mouth, told me what things she covered with you 
last year, 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163130>
so I'll try to not go over those again.


OK, first off, we've had a lot of owls from parents about their kids 
being transformed into canaries. We can't remember when we've ever 
had such a rash of a specific type of transfiguration. <Lukinda 
mumbled something about Canary Creams then walked away giggling. I'm 
sure I don't know what that was about?!> They do seem to sort 
themselves out rather quickly though. All we can suggest is that 
parents check what their children brought home from Hogwarts. You 
just never know what they will get up to at school.


This next one might be a bit touchy, but here goes. Ahem, the 
curriculum changed somewhat last year at Hogwarts. As you all know, 
that situation has reversed itself now, much to our relief. However, 
we cannot unlearn some of the things that were taught. <Well,... we 
can, but the Ministry won't let us.> So we are asking all the parents 
to explain to their little darlings that the Crutiatus Curse is not 
the proper way to settle a dispute over who gets the last Treacle 
Tart. Honestly, where do they get these ideas?


Along those lines, we've had a fair few people show up at St. Mungos 
afflicted with the Bat-bogey Hex. At first, Lukinda got a good laugh 
at this, telling me that it was one of her favorites in her time at 
Hogwarts. She even knew the counter-curse. But lately, she's become 
rather annoyed, saying things like, "enough is enough" and "doesn't 
that girl have any originality". Recently I heard her say "I don't 
care who she's snogging, I'll show her a thing or two." I really 
don't know if this is personal between Lukinda and this mystery girl, 
but if anyone can enlighten me as to who this Bat-bogey perpetrator 
is, it would be greatly appreciated.


Lastly, clearing up some confusion here about Ditany's healing 
qualitites. Some were under the impression that it's effects were 
only superficial. I had Professor Slughorn for potions when I went to 
Hogwarts, he taught us the many qualities of Ditany. Lukinda had 
Professor Snape, but she tells me that Ditany was taught by him also. 
<don't know why she added, "amongst other things", but there you are> 
Ditany can close wounds making it handy to have around, especially if 
you have garden gnomes like I do. Little blighters will take a nip 
out of you. And I have no idea who started the rumor that gnome 
bites are lucky, but that's just plain wrong. The only time luck and 
gnomes belong in the same sentence is if you're betting at the gnome 
tossing competition. <George Weasley won last year and I won 20 
Galleons on him.>


OK, that about wraps it up for this year. "St. Mungos appreciates 
your full involvement in the Healing Arts. Everyone has an inner 
Healer, it's up to you to make it blossom".

<Oh, I do love that motto.... What Lukinda? Stop putting your finger 
in your mouth like that. That motto is nice.>
************************************************************

Mike, who wonders if Sticatta got all her books hidden from her at 
Hogwarts too ;)




From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Dec 27 01:41:03 2007
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:41:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Severus Snape;a skilled Legilimens
In-Reply-To: <fktgnc+jbv9@eGroups.com>
References: <fktgnc+jbv9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <477302AF.6090803@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180064

biancawatanabe_123 wrote:
> It was stated in OOTP that Snape could read other people's minds just 
> like LV.  Then why is it that in the SS, when LV was sharing his body 
> with Quirrel, he didn't realize that Snape was faithful to Dumbledore? 
> And in the GOF when Barty Crouch Jr. was stealing boomslang skin, 
> lacewing flies and other ingredients to make Polyjuice Potion from 
> Snape, why did Snape suspect Harry of stealing them when he could just 
> read Harry's mind and figure out if it was really him all along who 
> was stealing? 

Bart:
	In OOP, Sevvy was VERY specific that leglimancy is NOT reading minds. 
At best, without actually casting a spell, it can be used to tell if 
someone is being honest, lying, or evasive. Harry was being evasive, 
while Sevvy didn't suspect Moodycrouch, so didn't try to find out from him.

	Bart



From Meliss9900 at aol.com  Thu Dec 27 03:02:53 2007
From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:02:53 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
Message-ID: <c35.2437e316.34a46fdd@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180065

In a message dated 12/26/2007 1:42:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
muellem at bc.edu writes:



6. After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to  Regulus,
where do you think Regulus went? Regulus' return to Kreacher shows  a
Regulus with a disturbed state of mind, strange, according  to
Kreacher. Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did  book
research?

I think he might have done a little bit of both.  Which brings to mind  a 
question.  Just where DOES a witch or wizard research obscure facts  during 
school breaks?  I suppose there might have been adequate information  in the 
Grimmauld library. Or he could have owled Slughorn.
 
Melissa
 



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From s.hayes at qut.edu.au  Thu Dec 27 03:18:25 2007
From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:18:25 +1000
Subject: How old is Lucius?
Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC631C0@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 180066

I was laying in bed at 2am this morning, couldn't sleep, and of course my thoughts go to HP. I was wondering what era Lucius is from.  Is there anything in canon that says how far ahead or behind of the Marauders he was at Hogwarts? Since Draco is the same age as Harry et al, it makes me wonder whether Lucius was around Hogwarts at the same time as the Marauders. He seems to be a contemporary of Snape's, as well as Nott, Crabbe and Goyle Snrs, yet there is no mention of him in the context of flashbacks in canon, that I can recall. If he WAS a contemporary of Snape's in Slytherin, it's probable he wouldn't have hung out with Snape, since the latter was rather, geeky and poor.  Any pointers to mentions in the books about this would be much appreciated.

Sharon, who continually gets confused about canon from reading far too much fan fiction!



From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Dec 27 03:30:20 2007
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:30:20 -0000
Subject: How old is Lucius?
In-Reply-To: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC631C0@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>
Message-ID: <fkv68c+ee6v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180067

> Sharon Hayes <s.hayes at ...> wrote:
>
> snipping
>I was wondering what era Lucius is from.  Is there anything in canon
>that says how far ahead or behind of the Marauders he was at
Hogwarts? >Since Draco is the same age as Harry et al, it makes me
wonder whether >Lucius was around Hogwarts at the same time as the
Marauders. He seems >to be a contemporary of Snape's, as well as Nott,
Crabbe and Goyle Snrs, >yet there is no mention of him in the context
of flashbacks in canon, >that I can recall. If he WAS a contemporary
of Snape's in Slytherin, >it's probable he wouldn't have hung out with
Snape, since the latter was >rather, geeky and poor.  Any pointers to
mentions in the books about >this would be much appreciated.

in DH, we see Lucius patting Snape on the back when Snape gets sorted
into Slytherin ("The Prince's Tale").  Lucius had a prefect badge on,
so that would mean he was  in the upper classes of fifth to seventh
year.  I believe Lucius was born in 1954 (according to the HarryPotter
Wiki site), so that would have made him a seventh year student at that
time.

colebiancardi
 





From s.hayes at qut.edu.au  Thu Dec 27 04:18:57 2007
From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:18:57 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How old is Lucius?
In-Reply-To: <fkv68c+ee6v@eGroups.com>
References: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC631C0@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>,<fkv68c+ee6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3EBC8113FA09F449B6CC44C847E510911CDFC631C1@QUTEXMBX02.qut.edu.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 180068


> Sharon Hayes <s.hayes at ...> wrote:
>
> snipping
>I was wondering what era Lucius is from. Is there anything in canon
>that says how far ahead or behind of the Marauders he was at
Hogwarts? >Since Draco is the same age as Harry et al, it makes me
wonder whether >Lucius was around Hogwarts at the same time as the
Marauders. He seems >to be a contemporary of Snape's, as well as Nott,
Crabbe and Goyle Snrs, >yet there is no mention of him in the context
of flashbacks in canon, >that I can recall. If he WAS a contemporary
of Snape's in Slytherin, >it's probable he wouldn't have hung out with
Snape, since the latter was >rather, geeky and poor. Any pointers to
mentions in the books about >this would be much appreciated.

Colebiancardi:
in DH, we see Lucius patting Snape on the back when Snape gets sorted
into Slytherin ("The Prince's Tale"). Lucius had a prefect badge on,
so that would mean he was in the upper classes of fifth to seventh
year. I believe Lucius was born in 1954 (according to the HarryPotter
Wiki site), so that would have made him a seventh year student at that
time.

Sharon again:
Thanks!  I thought I remembered something like that occurring but then thought it was probably in one of the fan fics I had read. LOL. It's been a couple of months now so I really should go back and reread DH. Of course Lucius would be a prefect, I bet he was also a looker :-)







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 27 04:33:41 2007
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:33:41 -0000
Subject: How old is Lucius?
In-Reply-To: <fkv68c+ee6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fkv9v5+4llv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180069

> > Sharon Hayes <s.hayes@> wrote:

> > I was wondering what era Lucius is from.  Is there anything 
> > in canon that says how far ahead or behind of the Marauders 
> > he was at Hogwarts? <SNIP> Any pointers to mentions in the 
> > books about his would be much appreciated.



Hi, Sharon! Lucius was 41 in OotP. His age was mentioned in the "Daily 
Prophet" (Ch.15, "The Hogwarts High Inquisitor", p.275 Br.ed. or p.307 
Am.ed.). If I'm not mistaken, it should be year 1995, which means that 
Lucius was born in 1954, as colebiancardi rightly points out in the 
previous post :-).

Hope it helps,

zanooda





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Dec 27 14:09:26 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:09:26 -0000
Subject: Severus Snape;a skilled Legilimens
In-Reply-To: <fktgnc+jbv9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl0bmm+g5qq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180070

 "biancawatanabe_123"  wrote:
>
> It was stated in OOTP that Snape could read other people's minds just
> like LV. 

Potioncat:
Once upon a time I could identify bits of HP plot very closely to book 
and chapter, but alas, no longer. I really don't recall ever being told 
that Snape could read minds like LV. I know he was said to be an 
outstanding Occlumens. Could you give me the chapter your information 
comes from?

However, I think we were given clues all along that Snape was 
developing his skill at Legilimency--even before we were told about the 
spell. But it's always seemed to me that it was a developing skill, not 
an established one.

> Then why is it that in the SS, when LV was sharing his body
> with Quirrel, he didn't realize that Snape was faithful to Dumbledore?

Potioncat:
As Carol pointed out, LV didn't have a chance to use Legilimency on 
Snape while he was sharing time with Quirrell. But, the things LV 
learned that year is what led him to say that something along the line 
of "one who I think has left me forever..." in GoF.

Or if you intended that the other way, I'm not sure Snape was yet able 
to Legilimens Quirrell. Now, the bigger question is, what did DD know?

> And in the GOF when Barty Crouch Jr. was stealing boomslang skin,
> lacewing flies and other ingredients to make Polyjuice Potion from
> Snape, why did Snape suspect Harry of stealing them when he could just
> read Harry's mind and figure out if it was really him all along who
> was stealing?

Potioncat:
Again, what others have said, it's not so much reading a book, as 
getting glimpses. Snape was clearly using Legilimency on Harry that day 
in the classroom when he made Harry sit near his desk, then said 
horrible things to him. (GoF) But he didn't get a clear picture. It 
seems Legilimency suffers from the same weakness as other forms of 
communication, that is, sometimes you hear and see what you want to.

Along the same lines as with Quirrell, why didn't DD know that it 
wasn't Moody? Snape was too busy keeping his distance to have used 
Legilimency. And why was that, come to think of it?




From mosu22 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 27 15:46:42 2007
From: mosu22 at yahoo.com (Monica)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:46:42 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl0hd2+38n9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180071

Questions: (I haven't done this before so I'll try my best)

1. Sirius' room is described as dusty and there is a spider's web and
mice inhabiting it. The decorations are also from his teen years as
well. Do you think that Sirius actually stayed in his old room in
"The Order of the Phoenix" or that he stayed in another bedroom?

Monica: I always assumed he stayed in another bedroom. Painful
memories in that room, but probably not as many painful memories in
the guest rooms.

2. If he had slept in his old room, do you think that added to his
"living in the past," with all the reminders from his "happy" years?

Monica: I think this is the reason he wouldn't have stayed in the
room, and most of his memories in that house don't appear to be happy
ones.

3. Why is Lily's letter addressed to "Padfoot" instead of Sirius? Is
this just a term of affection or was Sirius underground at the time of
the letter? If a term of affection, why doesn't she call James
"Prongs" in the letter? She calls Peter "Wormy", so it seems she
does know about the nicknames.

Monica: I think it's both affection and concealment. I guess if it
were my husband I were referring to in the case of James, I would not
call him by his nickname either. She knows him as something much more
than "Prongs" and I think it was most appropriate to refer to him by
his name.

4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
heart. Does this new bit of information seem to contradict Sirius'
story about his relationship with his family?

Monica: I don't know, I've known troubled children who cause their
parents no small amount of pain and still, it hurts when they leave
for good. I know Sirius wasn't necessarily a "troubled" child, but
from their perspective I'm sure he would be. But I think he didn't
acknowledge how much they actually cared about him.

5. Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that Voldemort
really had no age limit for his recruits. How does this contrast with
the Order of the Phoenix? Ignoring that the DE's are evil and the
Order is good, do you think that the DEs support the notion of
fighting for what you believe in, regardless of age? In other words,
do you agree with the Order's stance of not allowing underage wizards
to join or do you agree with the Death Eater's stance instead?

Monica: I think the Molly Weasely "see no evil, hear no evil" method
was not appropriate, when their lives are in danger, but at the same
time I think it is beyond most adolescents to make that kind of
decision. Voldemort did not care if his followers died in service to
him, on the whole. (I think even though Dumbledore believed Harry was
going to die before book IV, he still cared about him, as little
consolation as that is).

6. After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to Regulus,
where do you think Regulus went? Regulus' return to Kreacher shows a
Regulus with a disturbed state of mind, strange, according to
Kreacher. Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did book
research?

Monica: I don't think he could have talked to anyone without
endangering himself or them, so no, I think he did some research.

7. Did you initially believe that Regulus forced Kreacher to drink the
potion, as Harry thought, or did you think as Hermione did ? that
Regulus did give up his own life?

Monica: I thought Regulus drank it. For one thing, I think he did care
for Kreacher, based on the earlier parts of Kreacher's tale, but I
also think it would have been risky to let Kreacher drink it again and
then not be able to get out if it affected him so badly he couldn't
apparate, even if his first law is to obey his masters. It could have
killed him a second time, perhaps.

a. Despite what Harry knew about the note that Regulus left in the
locket, did he think badly of Regulus because he was a Slytherin? Do
you feel that Harry is showing his old biases here?

I think he viewed Regulus badly at first not because he is a
Slytherin, but because his views have been formed by Sirius, who was
no fan of Regulus. I think after he hears this story he has to have a
little more sympathy for Regulus, because in a strange way, Regulus'
life and death parallel Harry's, and Regulus was the first person (off
the top of my head) who chose to sacrifice himself at that age to
defeat Voldemort. AND he did it without the knowledge or approval of
those he loved.

8. How did you feel when Regulus' death was revealed? I found this to
be the most tragic death of all of the deaths in the series. Do you
feel that Regulus redeemed himself?

Yes, I absolutely felt he redeemed himself, and I also got a little
teary, and I only wish Sirius had found out. 

9. Do you think Regulus should have done more to let others know what
Voldemort was up to?

I thought in his mind he was protecting them from Voldemort, the
accomplished legilimens, who undoubtedly would have questioned his
family after Regulus took such an extended leave of absence. This way
they really don't know what happened to him and Voldemort has
absolutely no reason to suspect. I just wonder what would have
happened if Voldemort had discovered if Kreacher had survived.

10. How do you feel about Kreacher at the end of this tale? Did you
feel empathy for him? Is Kreacher's attitude now explainable and
understandable?

I think Kreacher's attitude was shaped by those who treated him
kindly, as Hermione said, just like Harry's former attitude towards
Regulus was shaped by faulty information from Sirius. Yes, I felt
sympathy for him, although his actions were reprehensible and spiteful
with regard to Sirius. I still tend to agree with Hermione, that
Bellatrix and Narcissa were kind to him so he did what he could to
help them.

11. Does Hermione's explanation - Voldemort's contempt for house-elves
was his downfall in Kreacher's escape from the cave - make sense? Do
you think her parallel of Voldemort's and Sirius' attitude towards
house-elves was warranted, or a bit extreme?

I thought it was extreme, but not entirely off base. And technically
house-elf magic can't be the first thing that pops into everyone's
head, or else when Dumbledore and Harry got to the cave, Dumbledore
probably would have thought to use it too, at least to apparate in and
out. Although after reading this I kind of wondered why Dumbledore
didn't think of that, although I suppose he didn't know Kreacher's
tale and it wouldn't have made nearly as interesting an ending to Book
VI if he had.

12. Harry's attitude finally changes towards Kreacher, with his tale
and Hermione's explanation. Is this a turning point for Harry in
regards for empathy and understanding or do you feel that Harry has
already made strides in this area with other characters? Do you have
examples, if the latter?

I think he did make strides, with his sympathy towards the Dursleys as
well, and I guess to a lesser degree, Wormtail, who he didn't let die.
I also think that in the tower he saw Draco's plight and began to
understand that. 

Monica - at work or else I'd try to make these better.





From graynavarre at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 27 13:48:29 2007
From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:48:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How old is Lucius?
In-Reply-To: <fkv9v5+4llv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <349809.36387.qm@web30111.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180072

> > > Sharon Hayes <s.hayes@> wrote:
> 
> > > I was wondering what era Lucius is from.  <SNIP> 


Lucius is about 5 years older than Snape. In the
Prince's Tale, it was Lucius who welcomed Snape to the
S. table after his sorting.

Barbara
 




From AllieS426 at aol.com  Thu Dec 27 19:12:35 2007
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:12:35 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl0hd2+38n9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl0tf3+m59q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180073

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Monica" <mosu22 at ...> wrote:
>
> 9. Do you think Regulus should have done more to let others know what
> Voldemort was up to?
> 
> I thought in his mind he was protecting them from Voldemort, the
> accomplished legilimens, who undoubtedly would have questioned his
> family after Regulus took such an extended leave of absence. This way
> they really don't know what happened to him and Voldemort has
> absolutely no reason to suspect. I just wonder what would have
> happened if Voldemort had discovered if Kreacher had survived.

Allie:

This does bring up an interesting question.  What *did* Voldemort do 
after Regulus disappeared?  He wasn't just a nameless Death Eater to 
him, since Voldemort went to him to secure a house elf.  

Here's a creepy thought - I can see Voldemort checking and double 
checking his protections.  Maybe Regulus wasn't the only one asked, 
and Kreacher wasn't the only house elf that had to drink the poison.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Dec 27 19:37:15 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:37:15 -0000
Subject: Regulus was Re: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl0tf3+m59q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl0utb+3jas@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180074

 
> Allie:
> 
> This does bring up an interesting question.  What *did* Voldemort 
do 
> after Regulus disappeared?  He wasn't just a nameless Death Eater 
to 
> him, since Voldemort went to him to secure a house elf.  
> 
> Here's a creepy thought - I can see Voldemort checking and double 
> checking his protections.  Maybe Regulus wasn't the only one asked, 
> and Kreacher wasn't the only house elf that had to drink the poison.


Potioncat:
And it brings up these questions too:

How did anyone know Regulus was dead?

How did the story get out that Regulus got cold feet, tried to back 
out and was killed on LV's orders? We hear two versions IIRC, one 
from Remus and one from Sirius.

When did I start calling Lupin by his Christian name?





From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Dec 27 20:27:38 2007
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:27:38 -0000
Subject: Regulus was Re: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl0utb+3jas@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl11rq+8lv4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180075


> 
> Potioncat:
> And it brings up these questions too:
> 
> How did anyone know Regulus was dead?
> 
> How did the story get out that Regulus got cold feet, tried to back 
> out and was killed on LV's orders? We hear two versions IIRC, one 
> from Remus and one from Sirius.
> 
> When did I start calling Lupin by his Christian name?
>

colebiancardi:

yes, I've always wondered that as well.  Did the family tree tapestry
have magical properties and know when someone died?  Afterall, who put
Ma Black's death year on the family tree?  It could have been
Kreacher, but I am inclined to think not for some weird feeling.

And that is why I believe Regulus DID talk to someone about having
second thoughts about being a Death Eater - perhaps another DE?  Snape
would have been the logical choice, IMHO - they were close in age and
in the same house at school.  But since Snape, alas, never mentions
anything about Regulus at anytime, I don't think so.  Of course, it
could be that Regulus was Snape's buddy, but just as Snape never spoke
of Lily, he never spoke of Regulus???

Perhaps it was Dumbledore?  hmmmmm..... Another poster stated that
Regulus would have no one to turn to and talk to about this incident -
well, at 17 years of age, it is possible Regulus was still at
Hogwarts.  And it is possible that Regulus spoke with Dumbledore about
leaving the Death Eaters and not about what he discovered about
Voldemort.  

Or it is possible he spoke with his Head of House, Slughorn, who knew
about Horcruxes - someone who could confirm them - and also Sluggy was
not a Death Eater and who didn't seem to be made of the same cloth as
Death Eaters.

but yes, I would love to know who came up with that story about
Regulus's cold feet and his death at the hands of a fellow Death Eater.

colebiancardi





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Thu Dec 27 21:32:47 2007
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:32:47 -0000
Subject: Book of the year: 'Harry Potter' prevails, wands down
Message-ID: <fl15lv+haut@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180076

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/reviews/2007-12-26-year-in-review-potter_N.htm




From jpbear2 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 27 15:19:38 2007
From: jpbear2 at yahoo.com (Jake cohn)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:19:38 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <c35.2437e316.34a46fdd@aol.com>
Message-ID: <fl0fqa+thrh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180077

> > Q 6. Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did book
> > research?

> Melissa
<SNIP>
> I suppose there might have been adequate information in the
> Grimmauld library. Or he could have owled Slughorn.

jpbear2:

Let us not forget Phineas Nigellus who could have been a source
of information. I don't think Slughorn would give that information
out ever again after Tom Riddle.



From mosu22 at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 27 19:56:39 2007
From: mosu22 at yahoo.com (Monica)
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 19:56:39 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl0tf3+m59q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl101n+ap52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180078


> Allie:
> 
> This does bring up an interesting question.  What *did* Voldemort do 
> after Regulus disappeared?  He wasn't just a nameless Death Eater to 
> him, since Voldemort went to him to secure a house elf.  
> 
> Here's a creepy thought - I can see Voldemort checking and double 
> checking his protections.  Maybe Regulus wasn't the only one asked, 
> and Kreacher wasn't the only house elf that had to drink the poison.
>
Monica:

I always wondered why it wasn't Dobby, myself. Maybe Dobby is a
younger house-elf? That's how he is portrayed but I have no concept
whatsoever of how house-elves age. Or breed, for that matter. And
heaven knows Lucius Malfoy had no love in his heart for Dobby, so he
probably wouldn't have told him to "come back" either. 

Upon thinking about something else I asked, why Regulus didn't just
tell Kreacher to bring both of them back to safety once the lockets
were exchanged, maybe he intentionally sacrificed himself so
absolutely no one would know what had happened to him and Voldemort
would just go on thinking his horcrux was safe. This may have been
addressed in the books but I can't remember.

Monica




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 28 03:55:37 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:55:37 -0000
Subject: Where's that Big Reveal in DH?
In-Reply-To: <fkrvrs+rlsf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl1s3p+3fuq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180079

> zgirnius:
> Sorry Mike. Search on "prophecy" before 2003. Voldemort could give
> Lily a chance to live because the prophecy that motivated him to 
> hunt the Potters, did not apply to her. And that prophecy was
> likely the first true prophecy by Trelawney.

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/45180

> for example, refers to some of these theories, I did not find the
> original posts expounding them.

Mike:
I found some. The very first one I found was #1667, Sep 18, 2000:

Kelley:
I think Vold went to kill Harry, not specifically James and Lily,
probably due to Trelawney's first correct prediction. 

And Kelley's follow up in #1685:
Well, maybe Trelawney's first correct prediction was that
Harry would be Vold's downfall.

Then, even more on point, try this from Nov 29, 2001
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/30368
Which was more of a "Please don't let JKR do prophesies" type post.

And this from Sep 2, 2002:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/43430

I'm sure there are more, searching on "prophesy" wasn't as lucrative 
as searching for "Trelawney" which revealed way too many to read.

But you all have convinced me. Since I joined this list after HBP, I 
don't have the perspective that you longer members have. I love this 
list, but now I'm left to wonder if all this theorizing removed some 
of the surprise that Alla talked about for people that don't do 
anywhere near the discussion. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed DH 
immensely. Instead of being surprised by finding out Harry was a 
Horcrux (of sorts), I got a fist-pumping moment of "Yeah, I knew it".


> SSSusan:
> Actually, I was one who expected some version of LOLLIPOPS and yet
> also thought Snape was a spiteful, nasty, loathesome royal pri-- 
> git who would always be so.  It never occurred to me that those
> two positions would rarely be held within the same reader.
> 
> Does that make me special? 

Mike:
I would have and still do agree that Snape was what you said. Since 
I'm not particularly interested in SHIPs, I could only hope that 
LOLLIPOPS would not be the reason or at least not the main motivation 
of one Severus Snape, whom I did believe was anti-Voldemort whatever 
his pro leanings hinged upon. I guess I should have been more leery 
after all the mush JKR put into HBP. I'm still disappointed in Snape, 
I mean in JKR.

And, yes SSSusan, you are special. :D

> SSSusan:
> 
> Or just weird?

Mike:
Well, there's that, too. ;)



> Pippin:
> > Likewise there were people predicting puppetmaster!DD who
> > considered that manipulating people in that fashion would be
> > justified for the greater good. There were people who thought 
> > puppetmaster!DD would be evil and Harry would repudiate DD on 
> > account of it. But there weren't a lot, IIRC, who thought  
> > puppetmastering would be a weakness that Harry would forgive.
> 
> SSSusan:
> I definitely didn't predict the DD we got in DH.  No way, no how.  
> Puppetmaster!DD for *any* reason -- to the degree to which he was 
> shown to be that -- was unexpected by me.  So in this one, 
> definitely, I wasn't someone who expected a puppetmastering!DD 
> whom Harry would be forgiving.

Mike:
This I can take a bow on. I believed DD in his long, pontificating, 
exposition at the end of OotP. When he told Harry that his "loving" 
was a mistake, a fly in the plan's ointment, I didn't think he was 
taking false credit for anything. I had hoped that he had not fully 
ensnared Snape in this plan. Like I said, I had hoped for more from 
Severus; but alas, that was not to be.



> Pippin: 
> > The biggest flat out shock for me in DH was Harry's Crucio.
> > Again, there were people who predicted that the Trio would
> > use the unforgivable curses and be punished for it. There
> > were people who figured they would use the unforgivables
> > and it would be justified in the text. But who predicted that
> > they would be used and it would be left to the reader to
> > decide?
> >  <snip>
> > And who expected that?
> 
> 
> SSSusan:
> <snip>  But yes, the fact that it was there and, as you 
> noted, Harry was neither punished for it nor was he in a 
> situation where, almost universally, readers would be saying,
> "Heck yeah, ANYONE would have used Crucio in that case!" was a
> surprise.  Yes, interesting, that.

Mike:
As far as being unexpected, shoot, Harry had tried to use Crucio in 
both previous books. I was one of those fist-pumpers that felt 
satisfaction from Harry Crucio-ing Carrow. I accept the analysis of 
many on this list that this was not the proper way for Harry to act. 
But I'll bet many of those young boys, that JKR so famously got 
reading again, had the same reaction as I did. <Speaks volumes on my 
maturity, don't it? :-P >

The fact that he successfully used Imperio without any practice (and, 
no Steve, it didn't happen off-page. Note the *first-time* sensation 
Harry got on page in Gringotts), seemed more of an improbability than 
a surprise. I still think this use was justified.


> > Pippin
> > wishes a Merry Christmas to those who are celebrating
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan,
> adding her Merry Christmas as well

Mike, showing how long it took him to respond, wishes all a 
Happy New Year :D




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Dec 28 03:59:25 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 03:59:25 -0000
Subject: Regulus was Re: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl0utb+3jas@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl1sat+juvq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180080

> 
> Potioncat:
> And it brings up these questions too:
> 
> How did anyone know Regulus was dead?
> 
> How did the story get out that Regulus got cold feet, tried to back 
> out and was killed on LV's orders? We hear two versions IIRC, one 
> from Remus and one from Sirius.

Pippin:
At some time Voldemort went from denying that he had anything to
do with the killings and disappearances to firing The Dark Mark over
the houses of victims. Presumably it was at that point that people
like Sirius's parents withdrew their support, and there would have
been DE's who did get cold feet and had to be purged. If Regulus 
disappeared at the same time, maybe The Order just assumed that he
was one of them. Possibly Voldemort did give an order for Regulus
to be eliminated, not knowing he was already dead. 
 

Pippin




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 28 05:51:29 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 05:51:29 -0000
Subject: Severus Snape;a skilled Legilimens
In-Reply-To: <477302AF.6090803@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <fl22t1+nup2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180081

> biancawatanabe_123 wrote:
> > 
> > And in the GOF when Barty Crouch Jr. was stealing boomslang skin,
> > lacewing flies and other ingredients to make Polyjuice Potion 
> > from Snape, why did Snape suspect Harry of stealing them when he
> > could just read Harry's mind and figure out if it was really him
> > all along who was stealing?

Mike:
Snape explained that eye contact was very important in this type of 
communication. During that potions class, Snape was trying to bait 
Harry, but Harry wasn't biting. Harry kept his head down and was 
attending to his work. When he did look into Snape's eyes, the point 
was made that Harry was telling the truth, he had not stolen the 
ingredients. 

But, as Carol pointed out, Harry also lied, he *did* know who stole 
the ingredients. It's a mixed message for Snape to interpret. Adding 
to the confusion, Snape is looking for answers about Moody!Crouch's 
stealing and Harry is thinking about Hermione's stealing. I don't 
think Snape was even aware of the second year theft, she probably 
hadn't taken much boomslang. We know Snape was a very good Occlumens 
but we don't know how good he was at Legilimency. I can see how Snape 
could not divine exactly what Harry was or wasn't guilty of.



> Bart:
> In OOP, Sevvy was VERY specific that Legilimency is NOT reading 
> minds. At best, without actually casting a spell, it can be used
> to tell if someone is being honest, lying, or evasive. 

Mike:
I'm going to disagree here, Bart. A talented Legilimens does seem to 
be able to find considerably more information. Harry is visiting 
LV's, sorry, Morty's mind when Morty is Legilimencing Gregorovitch 
about the Elder Wand. Harry sees what is essentially a Pensieve style 
replaying of the wand being stolen by a fair haired Grindelwald. 
Obviously, that is the information that Morty is getting through 
Legilimency.

Also, Dumbledore ends up with a Pensieve-compatible <reminds you of 
IBM compatible, doesn't it? ;)> memory from Morfin after a "great 
deal of skilled Legilimency to coax it out of him". It would seem 
that a skilled Legilimens can get the same quality memory out of 
his/her subject that one gets from extracting a memory out of one's 
own mind. In fact that's probably what Dumbledore did, made Morfin's 
memory his own then extracted it from his own mind.

This part is purely speculation: I imagine that the difference 
between an accomplished and an average Legilimens is akin to 
someone's ability to cast a "corporal" Patronus versus that "white 
stuff" that Harry gets in his first attempts. Morty and DD get the 
DVD versions, while Snape and Lupin get the rabbit ears reception we 
got on our TVs back in the 60s. It probably cuts in and out as often, 
too.

It also seems that Morty's skill is such that he can read the 
emotions of lies or truth without the need of eye contact. He knew 
Harry was telling the truth about the lost prophesy before Harry even 
knew Morty was there.

Mike, who now realizes why LV didn't need a Pensieve, since he's not 
the sharing type 




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Fri Dec 28 13:20:50 2007
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:20:50 -0000
Subject: How old is Lucius?
In-Reply-To: <349809.36387.qm@web30111.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fl2t7i+fmql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180082

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barbara Key <graynavarre at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > > > Sharon Hayes <s.hayes@> wrote:
> > 
> > > > I was wondering what era Lucius is from.  <SNIP> 
> 
> 
> Lucius is about 5 years older than Snape. In the
> Prince's Tale, it was Lucius who welcomed Snape to the
> S. table after his sorting.
> 
> Barbara
>
aussie:
... and he wore a Prefect's badge then.
aussie




From AllieS426 at aol.com  Fri Dec 28 20:28:34 2007
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:28:34 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl101n+ap52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl3m9i+peni@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180083

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Monica" <mosu22 at ...> wrote:
> Monica:
> 
> Upon thinking about something else I asked, why Regulus didn't just
> tell Kreacher to bring both of them back to safety once the lockets
> were exchanged, maybe he intentionally sacrificed himself so
> absolutely no one would know what had happened to him and Voldemort
> would just go on thinking his horcrux was safe. This may have been
> addressed in the books but I can't remember.
> 

Allie:

If Regulus had survived, he would have either had to pretend to 
support Voldemort, or back out and risk harm to himself and his 
family.  Maybe he was being noble, sacrificing himself to keep the 
family safe.




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 28 21:33:20 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:33:20 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fku6kn+4q80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl3q30+kicn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180084

Mike:
I first want to praise colebiancardi for a most excellent summary
and some of the best, probing questions I've seen in a chapter 
discussion. I'm afraid I went on rather long because of that. ;)


> Questions:
> 
> 1. Do you think that Sirius actually stayed in his old room in 
> "The Order of the Phoenix" or that he stayed in another bedroom? 
> 
> Carol responds:
> <snip>
> Then, again, he's been dead for more than a year when Harry enters 
> the room in DH, so that's probably enough time for mice, spiders, 
> and dust to take over the room. (As for how that letter got
> there. . . .)

Mike:
I left Carol's second guess because of "the letter" problem. The only 
way I can see that letter getting to 12 GP was if Sirius brought it 
with him, or if someone like Lupin brought him stuff from his pre-
Azkaban digs. At any rate, I can't see Sirius hiding that letter in a 
room he wasn't sleeping in.

Secondly, being in that house was bad enough. Why wouldn't he have 
moved into the one place he considered a sanctuary from the rest of 
his family's ostentatious displays of their political leanings?



> 3. Why is Lily's letter addressed to "Padfoot" instead of Sirius? 
> Is this just a term of affection or was Sirius underground at the 
> time of the letter?  
> 
> Carol:
> <snip>
> I think her use of the nicknames shows that they've included 
> her in their circle, of which she wasn't yet a member in SWM 
> or Snape's Hogwarts memories in "The Prince's Tale." 

Mike:
I am of the impression that the Marauders nicknames weren't any 
secret at all. They are using them right out in the open, in front
of a substantial crowd of students in SWM. Therefore, Lily's use 
of "Padfoot" is probably simply endearing.




> 4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
> heart.  Does this new bit of information seem to contradict 
> Sirius' story about his relationship with his family? 
> 
> Carol:
> <snip>
> But I believe that Sirius's leaving home and not returning really
> did break her heart (it would break any mother's), and that,
> followed by Regulus's death and by the death of her husband 
> caused her to lose her grip on sanity. Sirius didn't know or
> care. He just thought she was crazy and evil.

Mike:
I loved Sirius, but he did have a cruel streak. Maybe that's why I 
liked him, he wasn't artificially perfect. So I can see him being 
both rebellious and cold-hearted towards his parents. By the same 
token, I can see his mother's "love" for her sons being rationed 
based on how well those sons followed their mother's teachings. I 
don't think Kreacher was privy to the insight behind MA Black's 
broken heart.



> 5. Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that
> Voldemort really had no age limit for his recruits.  How does
> this contrast with the Order of the Phoenix?  Ignoring that the
> DE's are evil and the Order is good, do you think that the DEs
> support the notion of fighting for what you believe in, regardless
> of age?  In other words, do you agree with the Order's stance of
> not allowing underage wizards to join or do you agree with the
> Death Eater's stance instead?

Mike:
This is such a good question!  I can certainly see Dumbledore's and 
the Order's intentions of letting the children be children for as 
long as possible. DD expresses this intent towards Harry in his end 
of OotP exposition.

Alas, call me cynical, but the idea that DD is both training Harry 
to eventually fight Voldemort and trying to allow him a "normal" 
childhood seems disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst.

Sirius doesn't believe keeping Harry in the dark about the prophesy 
is the right move, and I agree. I had always put this down to DD's 
penchant for secrecy, but this question has caused me to rethink that 
assessment. Certainly the content of the prophesy was a secret that 
DD didn't want to tell anyone. But the fact that it existed was 
obviously revealed to the adult Order members. 

So keeping that secret from Harry must have been DD's continuing 
attempt towards Harry's normal childhood. DD admits that this was a 
mistake but then DD calls this a failing of those that love. I think 
he was equivocating for himself, making an excuse. This failed to 
convince me at that time, and looks even worse from the retrospective 
of DH. DD has been training Harry since PS/SS, we know this from "The 
Prince's Tale". To say that he was shielding Harry from the "real 
world" for Harry's benefit while he was training Harry for that 
same "real world" doesn't wash with me. 

It looks more like a distinctly un-Gryffindorish act of cowardice on 
DD's part. He says he doesn't want to add to Harry's burdens after 
watching Harry struggle with so many in the past. But DD was part and 
parcel of those other burdens. DD ordered the building of the PS/SS 
maze and even Harry sensed that DD wanted him to have a go at it. DD 
knew what was turning those students to stone and knew Harry was "on 
the case" as it were. He also knew that Harry spoke Parceltongue and 
that that would most likely be needed to get into the CoS. DD sent 
Harry and Hermione back in PoA, Hermione hadn't thought of it 
herself. And since Harry obviously hadn't entered himself into the 
TWT, they could have hanged the "wizarding contract" that compelled 
Harry to participate. Aren't these the burdens you speak of there 
Albus?

I don't have a problem with Molly and Arthur forbidding their 
children from joining. That's a parents prerogative. Although I 
question their judgement on prohibiting the of-age Gred and Forge 
from joining. But did you notice that Dumbledore, after changing his 
mind on Harry, supercedes the Weasley's authority by telling Harry to 
include Ron in on the secrets?



> 6. After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to 
> Regulus, where do you think Regulus went?  Do you think Regulus 
> talked to anyone or just did book research?
> 
> Carol:
> Who could he have talked to?  <snip>
> Maybe he bought some books there or read books on
> Dark Magic in his parents' library.

Mike:
I'm with Carol, I really disliked how DD didn't include Snape in the 
secret of the Horcruxes, and still made Snape participate in his 
arcane plans. That said, I still doubt Reggie would have gone to 
Snape with his change of heart news. I too think Reggie must have 
found the concept of Horcruxes within one of the Black Dark Arts 
library books.



> 8. How did you feel when Regulus' death was revealed?  I found
> this to be the most tragic death of all of the deaths in the
> series.  Do you feel that Regulus redeemed himself?

Mike:
I was a little disappointed that Reggie got the type of anti-
Voldemort story line that I wanted Snape to get, his own reason to 
hate LV apart from being on the side of good. Yeah, I know, love of 
Lily was that, but so much less noble than Reggie's stance on elf 
rights. Unfortunately, since Kreacher wasn't privy to Reggie's reason 
for his actions, we don't know if elf rights was Reggie's only 
reason. This only adds to the tragedy that was the short life of 
Regulus Black.

It's not my belief that one needs redemption from being a Slytherin, 
if that's a part of your question. Does Regulus need redemption from 
joining the DEs? IMO, no more than Ginny needed from getting sucked 
in by the Riddle in the Diary. Does Regulus need redemption from 
believing in his parents Slytherinish attitudes, as Sirius paints 
him? I'm no longer prepared to take Sirius' word for what all went on 
with the rest of his family. Sirus obviously didn't understand his 
brother all that well. Just because Regulus didn't rebel to the 
degree that Sirius does (and how many kids go that far?), doesn't 
mean that Regulus bought into his parents attitudes hook, line, and 
sinker in the manner that Sirius assumes of him. IOW, I'm not sure 
Regulus needs all that much redemption in the first place.



> 9. Do you think Regulus should have done more to let others know
> what Voldemort was up to?

Mike:
How? Owling Dumbledore? I think once Regulus discovered the Horcrux 
angle and decided to act he was under time pressure to do it quickly. 
He was no doubt aware of Voldemort's proclivity for finding traitors 
within his ranks, and didn't want to give LV the chance to discover 
his change of heart.


> 10. How do you feel about Kreacher at the end of this tale?  Did 
> you feel empathy for him?  Is Kreacher's attitude now explainable 
> and understandable?

Mike:
I still didn't like what he did in OotP by going to Narcisa. If I'm 
suppose to feel empathy for Kreacher because he's a slave, then yes, 
I'm sorry for the enchantment that puts all elves in this condition. 
But house elves seem to have some degree of self determination. Dobby 
was willing to defy the Malfoys and put up with the self punishment. 
Kreacher, likewise, betrayed Sirius and hurt himself for his elfy 
penance. The difference, Dobby acted to defend his living hero, 
Harry. Kreacher acted to uphold his dead mistress' credo and to 
punish that mistress' son for the perceived "breaking of her heart". 
Not the same thought process as Dobby's, not a reasonable action imo.


> > 11.	Does Hermione's explanation - Voldemort's contempt for
> house-elves was his downfall in Kreacher's escape from the cave - 
> make sense?  Do you think her parallel of Voldemort's and Sirius' 
> attitude towards house-elves was warranted, or a bit extreme?

Mike:
I think Hermione was right about Sirius' attitude towards Kreacher 
*and* an extreme parallel. Sirius didn't think house elves were 
expendable, like LV. Sirius just didn't like Kreacher, and the 
feeling was mutual. 


> 12. Harry's attitude finally changes towards Kreacher, with his
> tale and Hermione's explanation.  Is this a turning point for
> Harry in  regards for empathy and understanding or do you feel
> that Harry has already made strides in this area with other
> characters?  Do you have examples, if the latter?
> 
> Carol responds:
> Setting aside Dobby, I think that Harry's understanding of and
> empathy for people outside his immediate circle begins with his
> delayed appreciation of Neville and Luna, continues with his
> ability to feel pity for Draco  <snip>

Mike:
As many have pointed out, Harry doesn't go through a lot of learning 
from his mistakes in this series. If anything, Harry learns what the 
WW is all about, then has to move away from some of the things he 
learns, especially from Ron.

On house elves in general; Harry starts out treating Dobby as he 
would any wizard, he doesn't treat him like a slave. Harry takes the 
measure of Winky's devotion to the Crouches differently than Hermione 
does. During OotP, Harry is mostly bemused by Kreacher, but he 
doesn't quite know what to make of him. By the time Harry inherits 
Kreacher, he's moved to some middle ground between Ron and Hermione. 
He's accepted house elf's enslavement, but he really doesn't want to 
participate. Harry hated Kreacher for what he did to Sirius.

Harry had to unlearn house elves are just slaves, both from Ron's 
and Hermione's original perspectives. In the end, Harry has come to 
accept Hermione's revised slave definition, he just had to go back 
to treating Kreacher the way he originally treated Dobby. Learned 
of the WW's house elves, then unlearned how the WW nominally treats 
them.

In a way this parallels Harry's learning curve about Slytherins. He 
learns early on that all Slytherins are bad. That only gets 
reinforced by Draco Malfoy. But, in the end, Harry has come to 
realize that Slytherins are individuals too. That he can't broad 
brush them in the way Hagrid did for him. Harry unlearns the 
prejudice that was thrust upon him by the time DH is over. Of course, 
there were a lot more reasons for Harry to hate all Slytherins 
throughout the series.

Mike, who wants to reiterate his thanks to colebiancardi for her 
excellent questions :)


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180074

Potioncat:
When did I start calling Lupin by his Christian name?

Mike:
June 12, 2007. Did I win? ;)




From ejblack at rogers.com  Fri Dec 28 21:35:09 2007
From: ejblack at rogers.com (Jeanette)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:35:09 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fkuhda+dh7g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl3q6d+9a9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180085


> 4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
> heart. Does this new bit of information seem to contradict Sirius'
> story about his relationship with his family?

I would say no.  It is entirely possible her heart was broken because 
of the REASON that Sirius left and not the fact of his leaving.  To 
have a son reject everything she believed in and walk away from the 
traditions and responiblities she felt were of the utmost importance 
could be heart-breaking. Remember evil people feel what they believe in 
is right. 





From afn01288 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 28 21:03:34 2007
From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (afn01288)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:03:34 -0000
Subject: Severus Snape;a skilled Legilimens
In-Reply-To: <fl22t1+nup2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl3ob6+u5g6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180086

> > Bart:
> > In OOP, Sevvy was VERY specific that Legilimency is NOT reading
> > minds. At best, without actually casting a spell, it can be used
> > to tell if someone is being honest, lying, or evasive.
>
> Mike:
> I'm going to disagree here, Bart. A talented Legilimens does seem
> to be able to find considerably more information. Harry is visiting
> LV's, sorry, Morty's mind when Morty is Legilimencing Gregorovitch
> about the Elder Wand. Harry sees what is essentially a Pensieve
> style replaying of the wand being stolen by a fair haired
> Grindelwald. Obviously, that is the information that Morty is
> getting through Legilimency.

AFN:
Just to be clear, Mike has it per canon with some DH examples. In
OotP, at Harry's first occlumency lesson, Snape made this distinction
clear, ridiculing Harry for using a Muggle concept such as "mind
reading".  Snape says, "The mind is not a book to be opened at will
and examined at leisure. . ." It is, "a complex and many-layered
thing. . . ." He goes on to address detection of lying and honesty and
how normal rules of eye contact peculiarly do not seem to apply to
Harry. <OotP, 530-531 (USA)>




From afn01288 at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 28 21:30:54 2007
From: afn01288 at yahoo.com (Troy Doyle)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:30:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
Message-ID: <800119.27388.qm@web52210.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180087

>>colebiancardi:
>>CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter Ten: Kreacher's Tale  . . . .
>>Questions: . . .


>>7a. Despite what Harry knew about the note that Regulus left in the locket, did he think badly of Regulus because he was a Slytherin? Do you feel that Harry is showing his old biases here?

 
> Monica:
> I think he viewed Regulus badly at first not because he is a Slytherin, but because his views have been formed by Sirius, who
was no fan of Regulus.
   
  AFN:
  I agree, Harry's fierce loyalty to Sirius, that only becomes more mature in DH, explained the poor view of Regulus.  After all, until this chapter he had no proof Regulus was not a Death Eater as well, which would hardly endear him.  I think the Slytherin part is negligible overall.  But, Harry's attitude seemed realistic.  His taken for granted assumptions were challenged and how the new information filled in the puzzle took a bit of adjustment to seeing Regulus positively.
   
  After HBP and the RAB initials in the fake horcrux locket, the identity of RAB was a matter of speculation.  I thought it was a great piece of stroy telling by JKR to tell the tale of Kreacher and Regulus.
   
> Monica:
> I think after he hears this story he has to have a little more sympathy for Regulus, because in a strange way, Regulus' life and death parallel Harry's. . . .
   
  AFN:
  Terrific point! There are obvious differences but the ingenuity, bravery, and self-sacrifice in someone so young does parallel 
Harry's.



From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Dec 28 21:56:18 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:56:18 -0500
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAWmxZSZ85+0Ge7G6+G3y5vwEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 180088

> Irene:

> Not to mention that if she'd played by her own rules, Percy should 
> have been in Slytherin with all that ambition."


No, because by her rule it is the student's choice which house s/he is to be put.  Percy may be ambitious, but he is a Weasley, and wouldn't have dreamed of asking to be put in Slytherin.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man.  Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish.  Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch



From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Dec 28 22:52:23 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:52:23 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <476F9069.8030301@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <fl3un7+tho8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180089

Irene:
> Not to mention that if she'd played by her own rules, Percy should 
have 
> been in Slytherin with all that ambition.
> 
> But one of JKR's problems is she just could not bring herself to 
have a 
> bad Weasley. Same as Harry could never lose a quidditch game 
through his 
> own mistake.

Magpie:
To be honest, I think the whole "ambition" thing is sort of a red 
herring because Percy's not the only ambitious character not in 
Slytherin. The real thing seems to be that you're in Slytherin if you 
have things associated with ambition in a negative way--cheating, old 
boy networks, elitism, croneyism and keeping others down (ironically 
this often translates into lazy people who don't do much on their 
own).

Now, to me this, isn't realy ambition, but it's what we get in 
Slytherin. When I think of ambitious characters I tend to think of 
people who are talented and work hard with definite goals--like 
Hermione, the Twins and Percy, all of whom are in Gryffindor. The 
only Slytherins who seem sort of that way are Snape, who we know is 
creative but only really went for poewr by joining the DEs, and Tom 
Riddle who was, of course, a megolomaniac. Both of them seem to more 
be in Slytherin because they were dreadful, though, not because they 
were ambitious.

Even Harry's supposed Slytherin qualities I've heard rumors JKR 
corrected as being the hat "reading" Tom Riddle in him.

-m




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 28 23:42:48 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:42:48 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl3q30+kicn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl41lo+mkvp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180090

> > 10. How do you feel about Kreacher at the end of this tale?  Did 
> > you feel empathy for him?  Is Kreacher's attitude now explainable 
> > and understandable?
> 
> Mike:
> I still didn't like what he did in OotP by going to Narcisa. If I'm 
> suppose to feel empathy for Kreacher because he's a slave, then 
yes, 
> I'm sorry for the enchantment that puts all elves in this 
condition. 
> But house elves seem to have some degree of self determination. 
Dobby 
> was willing to defy the Malfoys and put up with the self 
punishment. 
> Kreacher, likewise, betrayed Sirius and hurt himself for his elfy 
> penance. The difference, Dobby acted to defend his living hero, 
> Harry. Kreacher acted to uphold his dead mistress' credo and to 
> punish that mistress' son for the perceived "breaking of her 
heart". 
> Not the same thought process as Dobby's, not a reasonable action 
imo.


a_svirn:
Actually, it is exactly the same thought process. The way you 
describe it, they are practically mirror images of each other. 
Personally, I much prefer a Kreacher of OotP  to a Kreacher of DH. He 
was wrongheaded in both cases, but he's gone from rebellious to 
servile ? not what I'd call an improvement. 

> 
> > > 11.	Does Hermione's explanation - Voldemort's contempt for
> > house-elves was his downfall in Kreacher's escape from the cave - 
> > make sense?  Do you think her parallel of Voldemort's and Sirius' 
> > attitude towards house-elves was warranted, or a bit extreme?
> 
> Mike:
> I think Hermione was right about Sirius' attitude towards Kreacher 
> *and* an extreme parallel. Sirius didn't think house elves were 
> expendable, like LV. Sirius just didn't like Kreacher, and the 
> feeling was mutual. 

a_svirn:
I do not agree that Hermione equated Sirius's treatment of Kreacher 
with that of Voldemort. She simply said that Sirius treated Kreacher 
badly. Which he did. 
> 
> 
> > 12. Harry's attitude finally changes towards Kreacher, with his
> > tale and Hermione's explanation.  Is this a turning point for
> > Harry in  regards for empathy and understanding or do you feel
> > that Harry has already made strides in this area with other
> > characters?  Do you have examples, if the latter?
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > Setting aside Dobby, I think that Harry's understanding of and
> > empathy for people outside his immediate circle begins with his
> > delayed appreciation of Neville and Luna, continues with his
> > ability to feel pity for Draco  <snip>
> 
> Mike:
<SNIP> On house elves in general; Harry starts out treating Dobby as 
he 
> would any wizard, he doesn't treat him like a slave. <SNIP>
> 
> Harry had to unlearn house elves are just slaves, both from Ron's 
> and Hermione's original perspectives. 

a_svirn:
What do you mean "unlearn"? Kreacher is still a slave at the end of 
the series. If anything, it was Hermione who had to unlearn the 
liberal spewish rubbish. 

> Mike:
In the end, Harry has come to 
> accept Hermione's revised slave definition, he just had to go back 
> to treating Kreacher the way he originally treated Dobby. 

a_svirn:
How come? You yourself just said that Harry *didn't* treat Dobby like 
a slave. He, however, most definitely treats Kreacher like a slave, 
more specifically *his* slave (because that's what Kreacher is, after 
all). And Kreacher loves it. 

> Mike:
> In a way this parallels Harry's learning curve about Slytherins. He 
> learns early on that all Slytherins are bad. That only gets 
> reinforced by Draco Malfoy. But, in the end, Harry has come to 
> realize that Slytherins are individuals too. That he can't broad 
> brush them in the way Hagrid did for him. 

a_svirn:
I think he always knew that. They just happen to be  particularly bad 
individuals -- with a very few exceptions. So few, in fact, that it 
hardly counts. 

a_svirn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 01:39:18 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:39:18 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale - Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fl3q30+kicn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl48g6+pjai@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180091

---  "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> Mike:
> I first want to praise colebiancardi for a most excellent 
> summary and some of the best, probing questions I've seen 
> in a chapter discussion. I'm afraid I went on rather long 
> because of that. ;)
> 
> 

bboyminn:

I too want to thank Colebiancardi for an excellent summary,
and some great questions.

While I greatly appreciate and look forward to Mike's
contributions to the group, I do want to take exception
with one small point.

> 
> Mike:
> ...  I can certainly see ... letting the children be children
> for as long as possible. DD expresses this intent towards 
> Harry in his end of OotP exposition.
> 
> Alas, call me cynical, but the idea that DD is both training
> Harry to eventually fight Voldemort and trying to allow him 
> a "normal" childhood seems disingenuous at best and 
> hypocritical at worst.
> 
> ...
> 
> So keeping that secret [the Prophecy] from Harry must have 
> been DD's continuing attempt towards Harry's normal childhood.
> DD admits that this was a mistake ... a failing of those that 
> love. I think he was ... making an excuse. This failed to 
> convince me at that time, and looks even worse from the 
> retrospective of DH. 
> 
> DD has been training Harry since PS/SS, we know this from 
> "The Prince's Tale". To say that he was shielding Harry from
> the "real world" for Harry's benefit while he was training 
> Harry for that same "real world" doesn't wash with me. 
> 
> It looks more like a distinctly un-Gryffindorish act of 
> cowardice on DD's part. He says he doesn't want to add to 
> Harry's burdens after watching Harry struggle with so many 
> in the past. 

bboyminn:

Now we are to the part I disagree with.

> Mike continues:
> But DD was part and parcel of those other  burdens. DD 
> ordered the building of the PS/SS maze and even Harry sensed
> that DD wanted him to have a go at it. 

bboyminn:

Not sure if I should make comments on the way, or make one
big comment at the end. 

True Dumbledore built the series of chambers to protect the
Stone and may have even thought Harry might have a go at it.
But how did he manipulate Harry into doing it? He didn't as
far as I'm concerned.

Once again I ask where were all the other students when Harry,
Ron, and Hermione were off on their adventures? Safe and
snuggly warm in their beds, that's where, and Harry fully 
had the same option available to him. No one would have 
thought less of him, if he had followed McGonagall's advice
when she found them camped outside Fuffy's door. That advice
was to let the grown ups handle it. Everything was covered,
everything was safe; now go back to bed! 

Nobody made Harry do anything, but Harry's own nature took
over. Harry simply could not leave it to the adults when he
was sure that the adults had already failed. Snape was on 
his way to the Stone, Snape had inside information, no one
suspected Snape but Harry (& friends). The Stone wasn't 
Harry's, he didn't gain or lose by someone stealing it. But
Harry was determined that Voldemort would never get the
Stone while he, Harry, was alive.

This is not Dumbledore opening the door and pushing Harry
through. Even though Dumbledore might have thought Harry
might have a go, Dumbledore didn't push him. In fact,
Dumbledore through his staff did everything possible to
discourage Harry.

So, in my view Dumbledore's 'test' wasn't whether Harry would
succeed, but whether Harry would try, whether Harry would care.
Whether Harry, like all the other students, would shrug his 
shoulders and say 'not my problem', or whether he would go 
above and beyond the call of duty. In every case, as we shall
see, Harry is very much an 'above and beyond the call of duty'
kind of guy.

> Mike Continues:
>
> DD knew what was turning those students to stone and knew 
> Harry was "on the case" as it were. He also knew that Harry 
> spoke Parceltongue and that that would most likely be needed
> to get into the CoS. 

bboyminn:

Again, I disagree, where is the proof, or even the indication,
that Dumbledore knew what was harassing the castle? He knew
/something/ was petrifying people, he knew it was probably
the Slytherin monster, he knew it probably hid in the 
Chamber of Secrets. But he didn't know what it was or where 
it was. He knew there was /A/ Chamber of Secrets but he
didn't know where it was or how to get in. 

Once again, Dumbledore is not making Harry do anything. Harry
is taking the initiative. I suspect that Dumbledore and any
of the other staff would have forbid Harry to go after the
Monster. They would have taken his information and gone them-
selves. But, again, Harry is not going to waste precious 
hours trying to convince the adults. He is not going to risk
being told to 'go to bed' again when Ginny's life is at stake.
Above and beyond the call of duty, he is determined to take 
actions NOW. 


>Mike continues:
>
> DD sent Harry and Hermione back in PoA, Hermione hadn't 
> thought of it herself. 

bboyminn:

OK, this one I will /sort of/ give you. But Dumbledore had
only learned or been convinced just moments before that Sirius
was innocent. It was a desperate moment that called for 
desperate measures. The Dementors were on their way. Sirius's
life was at stake. Harry and Hermione had already proven 
themselves intelligent, quick witted, resourceful, daring, 
and brave. What was Dumbledore to do? Involve himself, or 
allow Harry to save Sirius. 

True in this case I do see Dumbledore engaging in a bit of
self-protection, let's call it 'plausible deniability'. He
could have taken the necklace/TimeTurner and gone to save
Sirius. But Dumbledore vouching for the innocents of Harry
and Hermione is a lot more powerful than Harry and Hermione
vouching for the innocents of Dumbledore.

This is probably the dodgiest of all of Dumbledore's action
up to this point. Still it was a good plan that worked. And
as long as Harry and Hermione followed the Time Traveler
Rules, there was little risk, or so it seemed. 

>Mike continues again:
>
> And since Harry obviously hadn't entered himself into the TWT,
> they could have hanged the "wizarding contract" that compelled 
> Harry to participate. Aren't these the burdens you speak of 
> there Albus?
> 

bboyminn:

Again, this isn't about Albus, it's about Harry. Any other
kid would have realized he was out-gunned and out-matched, and
would have ate his pride and tanked the Tournament. Harry 
could have coasted through the tournament and been quite safe.
He could have participated according to the rule of the Binding
Magical Contract, and still have been safe. 

He could have gone out to face the dragon and said, 'sorry,
don't have a clue, can't do it'. He would have been dead last
but he would have been safe. In the underwater portion, Harry
could have dove in, swam around a bit and came back. He tried,
he fail, that's the way the tournament goes.

But Harry's determination to win, to succeed against all odds,
it's the driving factor here. It seems that 'tanking it' is 
what everyone expected Harry to do. When Harry come close to 
winning time after time, they are as amazed as we are. 

Once again, we have a case of Harry going 'above and beyond
the call of duty' when he really doesn't have to. 

Dumbledore isn't making Harry /DO/ anything. Harry can chose
to stay toasty warm in his bed. He can let the adults sort
it out. He can /dog/ his way through the tournament, and
really, in the long run, no one is going to hold it against
him. So, while Dumbledore is not making Harry DO anything,
Harry is certainly showing Dumbledore what he is made of.
Showing Dumbledore that he is a strong determined couragious
self-determined resourceful person who is not going to sit 
back while others are in harms way. 

Dumbledore, in my opinion, isn't polishing Harry, he is simply
allowing Harry to shine.

True, I must admit that Dumbledore is aware that Harry has 
a dark, dangerous, and deadly path ahead of him, and that,
whether he wants to or not, Voldemort will force Harry to 
meet his ultimate fate. But, I really don't see this as
Dumbledore's fault. 

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn




From lealess at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 01:39:31 2007
From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:39:31 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl3un7+tho8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl48gj+slgk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180092

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> Irene:
> > Not to mention that if she'd played by her own rules, Percy should 
> have 
> > been in Slytherin with all that ambition.
> > 
> > But one of JKR's problems is she just could not bring herself to 
> have a 
> > bad Weasley. Same as Harry could never lose a quidditch game 
> through his 
> > own mistake.
> 
> Magpie:
> To be honest, I think the whole "ambition" thing is sort of a red 
> herring because Percy's not the only ambitious character not in 
> Slytherin. The real thing seems to be that you're in Slytherin if 
> you have things associated with ambition in a negative 
> way--cheating, old boy networks, elitism, croneyism and keeping 
> others down (ironically this often translates into lazy people who 
> don't do much on their own).
> 
> Now, to me this, isn't really ambition, but it's what we get in 
> Slytherin. When I think of ambitious characters I tend to think of 
> people who are talented and work hard with definite goals--like 
> Hermione, the Twins and Percy, all of whom are in Gryffindor. The 
> only Slytherins who seem sort of that way are Snape, who we know is 
> creative but only really went for poewr by joining the DEs, and Tom 
> Riddle who was, of course, a megolomaniac. Both of them seem to more 
> be in Slytherin because they were dreadful, though, not because they 
> were ambitious.
> 
> Even Harry's supposed Slytherin qualities I've heard rumors JKR 
> corrected as being the hat "reading" Tom Riddle in him.
> 
> -m
>

I think you are right that it's a desire for power as much as ambition
that defines Slytherins, but I think Hermione, Percy and the Twins are
still taken to task by the author for being ambitious.  Hermione is
ridiculed for her obsession over book knowledge, Percy is shown to be
a servile apologist for mediocrity, if not evil, and the Twins are
faulted for the mindless sale of Peruvian Darkness Powder and love
potions.

Also, the factors you list for Slytherins -- cheating, old boy
networks, elitism, croneyism and keeping others down -- pretty much
describe the Marauders, the Trio, Gryffindors and Dumbledore for me! 
They describe the whole Wizarding World.

But desire for power is something the Slytherins seem to have.  It
doesn't seem to be a Gryffindor motivation, anyway, unless "love" is
involved.

lealess




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 04:09:57 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:09:57 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl41lo+mkvp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl4hal+jsvb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180093

> > Mike:
> > <snip>
> > The difference, Dobby acted to defend his living hero, Harry.
> > Kreacher acted to uphold his dead mistress' credo and to punish
> > that mistress' son for the perceived "breaking of her heart". 
> > Not the same thought process as Dobby's, not a reasonable action
> > imo.
> 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Actually, it is exactly the same thought process. The way you 
> describe it, they are practically mirror images of each other. 

Mike:
Let me flesh this out a little bit. Dobby is the oddball elf. He not 
only refuses to follow his master's way of thinking, he wants to be 
free. No other elf is shown to think the way Dobby does. So when 
Dobby discovers a plot that he thinks will harm Harry Potter, his 
most noble hero, he tries to do something about it. He's still bound 
by his enchantment to punish himself for speaking ill of his master, 
but he thinks it's worth it.

Kreacher is bound to the Black family, he does not have allegiences 
outside of the family. Kreacher is mostly beholden to Walburga, who 
we learn was heartbroken when Sirius leaves. In OotP, Sirius has 
moved back into the house. If Kreacher is so loyal to the Black 
family, why does he hold Sirius in such contempt to the point of 
betraying him? 

Compare Kreacher to Winky. The enmity between Crouch Senior and 
Junior is a chasm compared to the ditch between Sirius and his 
mother. Yet Winky is loyal to both. Which elf am I supposed to 
believe Kreacher is more like, Dobby or Winky? Before DH, I would 
have said Dobby. But after DH, I see that Kreacher has the simple 
mindedness of Winky, able to act the role of a proper elf after 
Harry's simple act of treating him with kindness. And despite Sirius 
never showing Kreacher kindness, he wasn't mistreated in the way 
Dobby was by the Malfoys. 

Shouldn't Kreacher have had more of a reason to betray Sirius than he 
broke his mother's heart by leaving? Shouldn't his returning have 
been an occasion for celebration for Kreacher? There's a cognitive 
dissonance in Kreacher's love for the Blacks and his hatred of the 
last Black. Especially since this hatred seemed to be there from the 
moment Sirius returned to 12 GP.

Finally, Dobby's simple minded goal was to protect Harry Potter. 
Kreacher's simple minded goal was to get revenge on Sirius by helping 
his enemies. Get revenge on Sirius for whom? The mother that grieved 
when he left? Where would Kreacher get the idea that Walburga would 
want to see her estranged son hurt?


> a_svirn:
> I do not agree that Hermione equated Sirius's treatment of 
> Kreacher with that of Voldemort. She simply said that Sirius 
> treated Kreacher badly. Which he did.

Mike:
Yes, but Sirius' treatment of Kreacher was apparently way down on the 
scale of cruelty to house elves. And house elves seem to comunicate 
with each other somehow, don't they? Why didn't Kreacher know how the 
Malfoys, including Narcissa, treated Dobby?



> > Mike:
> > <SNIP> 
> > Harry had to unlearn house elves are just slaves, both from
> > Ron's and Hermione's original perspectives. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> What do you mean "unlearn"? Kreacher is still a slave at the end
> of the series. If anything, it was Hermione who had to unlearn
> the liberal spewish rubbish.

Mike:
Sorry, a little unclear up there. Harry started out with the premise 
that Dobby is just another creature deserving of as much respect as 
any human. In GoF, Harry's friends give him two new views to 
consider. 

Harry is already confused by Dobby and his desires when he encounters 
the other elves. Ron (originally) sees elves as no more than slaves, 
not worthy of consideration. Hermione (originally) sees elves as 
equals to humans, needing to be released from their bondage. After 
bouncing around somewhere between Ron and Hermione, Harry eventually 
learns that they aren't elves (collective), they are individuals. 

He "unlearns" treating them as a group and reverts back to treating 
them as if they each have their own motivations, no matter how simple-
minded they be. Even if he treats Kreacher as his slave, he treats 
him as an individual worthy of respectful treatment within the 
confines of his individual motivations. That is, Kreacher is a house 
elf and takes pride in his house elfness as long as he's treated as a 
being with feelings.



> > Mike:
> > In the end, Harry has come to accept Hermione's revised 
> > slave definition, he just had to go back to treating 
> > Kreacher the way he originally treated Dobby. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> How come? You yourself just said that Harry *didn't* treat Dobby 
> like a slave. He, however, most definitely treats Kreacher like a 
> slave, more specifically *his* slave (because that's what Kreacher
> is, after all). And Kreacher loves it.

Mike:
Did I explain myself better above?



> > Mike:
> > But, in the end, Harry has come to realize that 
> > Slytherins are individuals too. That he can't broad 
> > brush them in the way Hagrid did for him. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I think he always knew that. They just happen to be  particularly
> bad individuals -- with a very few exceptions. So few, in fact, 
> that it hardly counts. 

Mike:
I really don't think Harry thought of Slytherins as individuals. 
Notice the reaction Slughorn gets when he reveals himself as the 
former Slytherin HoH. Until DH, which Slytherin stood out for Harry 
as different from his/her brethren? None, unless you want to count 
Riddle as standing out as exceptionally psychotic. 

I definitely see the parallel between House Elves and Slytherins from 
Harry's perspective with regard to their individuality. In DH, Harry 
learns of the individuality of several Slytherins, not all revealed 
as better than he thought either. 

He learns Crabbe is more than just one of Draco's cronies, he's even 
more cruel than he thought. He learned that Draco had got himself in 
over his head, and probably regretted it. He learned Sirius' brother 
had more depth to him than just another mind numbed robot DE, even at 
such an early age. He learned Slughorn had more backbone than he had 
originally given him credit. He learned that Pansy was willing to 
stand up and be counted, though not favorably towards Harry. He 
learned Narcissa loved her son so much that she was willing to defy 
Voldemort to protect him. And most of all, he learned that Severus 
Snape would risk his life, and lose it, to protect the son of the 
woman he loved. (Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange had already 
revealed their detestable individualities, imo)

That about covers the list of significant Slytherins in this series, 
wouldn't you say?

Mike




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sat Dec 29 06:48:10 2007
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:48:10 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character.
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAWmxZSZ85+0Ge7G6+G3y5vwEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <fl4qja+derf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180094

"Bruce Alan Wilson" <bawilson at ...> wrote:

> Percy may be ambitious, but he is a Weasley,
> and wouldn't have dreamed of asking to be
> put in Slytherin. 

Apparently so, apparently in the end JKR decided a Weasley could not
do anything REALLY bad, but I believe that was a artistic mistake on
JKR's part; a delightfully evil, mustache twirling, Hannibal Lector
style villainous Weasley would have been far more fun. Instead we get
 yet another Weasley who was led astray but basically had a hart of
gold, and a Weasley who was also dull as dishwater. It seemed to me
that in 6 books she had set things up perfectly to have a very very
interesting subplot in the last book, and then she just lost her
nerve. I would even go so far as say that the character of Percy is
the single biggest error in the entire Potter saga. 

Don't get me wrong, I think most of the criticism I've read about JKR
around here are very unfair, and the Percy error hasn't prevented the
book series from being one of the best in the English language, but
nobody is perfect and I believe she made a mistake with the character
of Percy.

 Eggplant   







From Schlobin at aol.com  Sat Dec 29 09:15:35 2007
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:15:35 -0000
Subject: anyone seen the latest clip from the JKR biography?
Message-ID: <fl537n+p24l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180095

Woooooooo!

We find out that it IS James Sirius (son of Harry and Ginny), that 
George married Angelina, and had Fred and Roxane 
that Percy married Audrey and had Molly and Lucy...
that Harry and Ginny's daughter Lily's middle name is Luna....
that Bill and Fleur had not only Victoire (named because she was born 
one year after the Battle of Hogwarts was one) but also Dominique and 
Louis....and that Luna married Rolf Scamander (grandson of Newt) and 
had Lorcan and Lysander.....

Susan






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Dec 29 11:36:19 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:36:19 -0000
Subject: anyone seen the latest clip from the JKR biography?
In-Reply-To: <fl537n+p24l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl5bfj+1g5n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180096

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176" <Schlobin at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Woooooooo!
> 
> We find out that it IS James Sirius (son of Harry and Ginny), that 
> George married Angelina, and had Fred and Roxane 
> that Percy married Audrey and had Molly and Lucy...
> that Harry and Ginny's daughter Lily's middle name is Luna....
> that Bill and Fleur had not only Victoire (named because she was born 
> one year after the Battle of Hogwarts was one) but also Dominique and 
> Louis....and that Luna married Rolf Scamander (grandson of Newt) and 
> had Lorcan and Lysander.....


Potioncat:
Lily Luna? Lucy, Louis, Lorcan, Lysander?----That's one L of a 
generation.

Dominque? Too much like Bellatrix. Better watch that one.

And Lysander Scmander?  Actually I kind of like that one. 




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Dec 29 15:02:39 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:02:39 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl5nif+v6sl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180097

CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Chapter Ten: Kreacher's Tale

 
Potioncat:
What a great summary and discussion! And what a wonderful response! 
I'm responding to all the posts in this one, but I'd like to address 
this bit of summary first:

>Harry feels the letter is a treasure, proof that his mother actually
>lived. He rereads the letter several times,
.

I think it was a nice piece of storytelling for Harry to treasure 
what someone had discarded as trash, and for us to discover later 
that Snape was also treasuring the same letter and photo. We see 
Harry searching for the other pieces, just as Snape must have. 

The fact that even Regulus's room was searched, makes me think that 
Mundungus is the one who scattered stuff about.  I think Snape found 
the house in the same situation as Harry did, and like Harry, found 
the treasure that was Lily's letter.

>Harry moves on to the next line of "Wormy was here" and wonders if 
Peter was
aware this was the last time he was seeing James and Lily alive?

Potioncat:
Isn't this a flint? Or at least an odd guess? At the time of the 
letter Harry should be 12 months old. His parents won't die for 
another 6 months.
 
Questions:

1. Sirius' room is described as dusty and there is a spider's web and
mice inhabiting it. The decorations are also from his teen years as
well. Do you think that Sirius actually stayed in his old room in
"The Order of the Phoenix" or that he stayed in another bedroom?

Potioncat: 
I have bowed to the overwhelming viewpoint that this was Teen!
Sirius's bedroom, and that certain of his belongings were brought 
here after he went to Azkaban. Cough*Lily'sletter*cough.  I find it a 
little creepy that adult?Sirius would have slept in this room with no 
changes to it; so no, I don't he used this room. 

The house has been in bad shape for many years, and it's been at 
least a year since anyone has "lived" here. It's unclear how often 
the Order used it after Sirius's death. So it's not surprising that 
there are spiders and mice. But, just how big is this house? At one 
time it held Sirius, Remus, 7 Weasleys, Hermione, Harry and Buckbeak. 
Yet neither Sirius's or Regulus's rooms appear to have been used.


3. Why is Lily's letter addressed to "Padfoot" instead of Sirius? Is
this just a term of affection or was Sirius underground at the time of
the letter? If a term of affection, why doesn't she call James
"Prongs" in the letter? She calls Peter "Wormy", so it seems she
does know about the nicknames.

Potioncat:
Since the Potters were in hiding, it would be wise to refer to 
friends or compatriots by their code names. But it wouldn't make 
sense to refer to her own husband in the same way.  Sending it to 
Padfoot was like Harry sending letters to Snuffles.

4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
heart. Does this new bit of information seem to contradict Sirius'
story about his relationship with his family?

Potioncat:
Kreacher's story contradicts a lot of previous canon but I think in 
one sense, it gives the other point of view.  If you look closely, 
you'll see that very little of Sirius's information has stood the 
test of time. So it isn't surprising that this falters too. Kreacher 
also describes young Sirius and young Regulus very differently than 
Sirius did in previous books.

The part that intrigues me is that Kreacher says of Sirius, "Master 
Sirius ran away, good riddance, for he was a bad boy and broke my 
Mistress's heart with his lawless ways." Which "lawless" ways? 
Attempted murder at 16 on an innocent Slytherin youth?  Frequent 
episodes of being out of bounds at Hogwarts?  Owning a magically 
enhanced Muggle motorcycle? Would the Black family have viewed Sirius 
as many of us do--rash, unthinking, self-centered? (Young Black, that 
is)

Kreacher describes Regulus as "had proper pride" "dignity of pure 
blood."  He said that Regulus talked of LV who "was going to bring 
the wizards out of hiding to rule
" 

As has been suggested before, Regulus sounds like a young man, bred 
to responsibility and leadership. His ideals sound very similar to 
young DD's. I don't think he expected the DEs to delight in torturing 
and killing.

5. Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that Voldemort
really had no age limit for his recruits. 

Potioncat: 
I think LV used whomever he could with no regard for their best 
interest.


6. After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to Regulus,
where do you think Regulus went? Regulus' return to Kreacher shows a
Regulus with a disturbed state of mind, strange, according to
Kreacher. Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did book
research?

Potioncat:
Research. No one seems to have any information about the cave, the 
locket or about Regulus. I wonder why he didn't go to DD? Do you 
think the Slytherins so distrusted DD?

He must have said something, or done something to give the idea of 
having cold feet. And maybe LV had ordered him to be killed. Regulus 
then went to the Lake knowing he would die. LV "felt" his death  (can 
he do that?) and thought orders had been carried out.


8. How did you feel when Regulus' death was revealed? I found this to
be the most tragic death of all of the deaths in the series. Do you
feel that Regulus redeemed himself?

Potioncat:
Once everyone guessed that RAB was Regulus, everyone seemed to think 
he was a right hero. So, I'd say he was redeemed. We'll never know 
the full reason for his turning. I don't think it was just because of 
LV's treatment of Kreacher.

9. Do you think Regulus should have done more to let others know what
Voldemort was up to?

Potioncat:
I've given up on the WW. They do so like their little secrets.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 15:19:47 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:19:47 -0000
Subject: Sirius and his lawless ways WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl5nif+v6sl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl5oij+9d0o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180098

Potioncat:
<SNIP>

The part that intrigues me is that Kreacher says of Sirius, "Master
Sirius ran away, good riddance, for he was a bad boy and broke my
Mistress's heart with his lawless ways." Which "lawless" ways?
Attempted murder at 16 on an innocent Slytherin youth? Frequent
episodes of being out of bounds at Hogwarts? Owning a magically
enhanced Muggle motorcycle? Would the Black family have viewed Sirius
as many of us do--rash, unthinking, self-centered? (Young Black, that
is)<SNIP>

Alla:

I am not sure that "attempted murder at 16 of innocent Slytherin 
youth"  is something that occurred before Sirius run away from home, 
so I am not sure how she would have known, but I can be fuzzy on 
timelines. I am putting it in parenthesis, because that is as I am 
sure you know not my description of the prank, had never been one 
and 
especially not one after DH which convinced me one hundred percent 
that Snape knew or at least suspected very much who Remus was and 
still went there. So, innocent in my mind Snape was not and 
attempted murder I see no proof in canon either. But that is 
obviously my opinion.


In any event, certainly what you describe can be Sirius' lawless 
ways 
that Ma Black had in mind or maybe that is what Kreacher had in mind.

But it can also be that Sirius' lawless ways in Ma Black head were 
his 
determination to be the first Black to change the order of the 
things, 
the unwritten laws that Blacks do not get sorted into Gryffindor.

For some reason I am not sure how Ma Black would learned about 
Sirius' 
being out of bound with other Marauders either.

So, yeah, what I am trying to say I do not know where and how Blacks 
would have learned about those episodes of rule breaking or law 
breaking that you described.

I mean, motocycle I can see them knew, I guess, but anything else?

Dumbledore did not know about them being animagi and Blacks family 
did? I am not sure.

JMO,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 15:55:45 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:55:45 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl4hal+jsvb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl5qm1+s0c2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180099

Mike wrote:
<snip>
> Kreacher is bound to the Black family, he does not have allegiences 
> outside of the family. Kreacher is mostly beholden to Walburga, who 
> we learn was heartbroken when Sirius leaves. In OotP, Sirius has 
> moved back into the house. If Kreacher is so loyal to the Black 
> family, why does he hold Sirius in such contempt to the point of 
> betraying him? <snip>

Carol responds:

I don't understand the bit about Kreacher's "betraying" Sirius Black.
After all, there was no plot to kidnap and torture Sirius, or to get
him killed. The kidnap and torture part was a false vision implanted
in Harry's head to get *him*, not Black, to the MoM, and neither
Kreacher nor the DEs nor Voldemort wanted the Order to show up to
rescue Harry. Black was not supposed to be killed; he was just tricked
into staying out of the way when Harry checked on his whereabouts. So
Kreacher went to Narcissa, the only Black he felt any loyalty to who
was both alive and out of Azkaban. He gave her and her DE husband
information about Harry's affection for Sirius, and he took part in
their plot to get *Harry* to the MoM by injuring Buckbeak. (Not nice,
I admit, but he paid for it by ironing his hands, if I interpret the
bandages correctly. Either that, or Buckbeak fought back.) And he
tricked Harry by saying that "master" would never come from the MoM
when, in fact, "master" was safely upstairs with Buckbeak. That Black
*chose* to go to the MoM was no part of Kreacher's/Narcissa's/LV's
plan. Nor was his death at the hands of Bellatrix (which would not
have happened had he not been recklessly fighting on the dais with his
back to the Veil, undersestimating and taunting his opponent) any part
of that plan. Kreacher can't *betray* the Order or Harry since he had
no loyalty to either, and while he does trick his master into staying
upstairs and reveal small tidbits of information that the Malfoys can
use, they have no direct connection with Black's death.

Carol, who uses "Black" to parallel Snape and Lupin, Black's
contemporaries, rather than "Sirius," which makes Black sound like
he's Harry's age





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Dec 29 17:15:39 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:15:39 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl5qm1+s0c2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl5vbr+ciit@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180100


> Mike wrote:
> <snip>
> > Kreacher is bound to the Black family, he does not have 
allegiences 
> > outside of the family. Kreacher is mostly beholden to Walburga, 
who 
> > we learn was heartbroken when Sirius leaves. In OotP, Sirius has 
> > moved back into the house. If Kreacher is so loyal to the Black 
> > family, why does he hold Sirius in such contempt to the point of 
> > betraying him? <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
snip
 Black was not supposed to be killed; he was just tricked
> into staying out of the way when Harry checked on his whereabouts. 
So
> Kreacher went to Narcissa, the only Black he felt any loyalty to who
> was both alive and out of Azkaban. He gave her and her DE husband
> information about Harry's affection for Sirius, and he took part in
> their plot to get *Harry* to the MoM by injuring Buckbeak. 
 

Potioncat: 
Kreacher's loyalty was to the Black family. His comments in general 
were in line with the superiority of Pureblood. Sirius, as far as 
Kreacher was concerned, had betrayed the Black family and was 
unworthy. Kreacher was in the position of having to obey him while 
not really accepting him. (War of the Roses, anyone?)

I don't think anyone's "being nice" to him played into this at all. I 
think he accepted the right of his wizarding family to treat him 
anyway they liked. So he went to Narcissa--who may have had much in 
common with Regulus--and he followed her orders.

IMHO, Kreacher accepted Harry once Harry took on Regulus's mission, 
and acknowledged Kreacher's good service to Regulus.





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 17:41:39 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:41:39 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl3un7+tho8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl60sj+rlg8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180101

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
> Magpie:
<snip>
> Even Harry's supposed Slytherin qualities I've heard rumors JKR 
> corrected as being the hat "reading" Tom Riddle in him.
> 
> -m


lizzyben:

Yep. "(Harry) himself was not contaminated by carrying this bit of
parasitic soul. He's going through a dark time, and that piece of soul
is enjoying it, and making its presence felt, but he doesn't know what
he's feeling, of course. Also, I always imagine that the Sorting Hat
detected the presence of that piece of soul when Harry first tried it
on, because it's strongly tempted to put him in Slytherin. So that's
how I see it." 

So, the Hat detected the evil Horcrux & that's why it wanted to put
Harry in Slytherin house. All this supports that Slytherin = evil. But
then when challenged on this position, JKR says this:

"Well, they're not all bad. I know I've said this before, I think I
said it to Emerson. Well, far from it, as we know, at the end, they
may have a slightly more highly developed sense of self-preservation
than other people. A part of the final battle that made me smile was
Slughorn galloping back with the Slytherins, but they'd gone off to
get reinforcements first. You know what I'm saying, so yes, they came
back, they came back to fight. I'm sure many people would say, well
that's common sense isn't it, isn't that smart, to get help, get more
people and come back?"

Slughorn *galloping back with the Slytherins*? When did this happen?


lizzyben






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 17:45:34 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:45:34 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl4hal+jsvb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl613v+kr67@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180102

> Mike:
> Let me flesh this out a little bit. Dobby is the oddball elf. He 
not 
> only refuses to follow his master's way of thinking, he wants to be 
> free. No other elf is shown to think the way Dobby does. So when 
> Dobby discovers a plot that he thinks will harm Harry Potter, his 
> most noble hero, he tries to do something about it. He's still 
bound 
> by his enchantment to punish himself for speaking ill of his 
master, 
> but he thinks it's worth it.
> 
> Kreacher is bound to the Black family, he does not have allegiences 
> outside of the family. Kreacher is mostly beholden to Walburga, who 
> we learn was heartbroken when Sirius leaves. In OotP, Sirius has 
> moved back into the house. If Kreacher is so loyal to the Black 
> family, why does he hold Sirius in such contempt to the point of 
> betraying him? 

a_svirn:
Because Walburga and the rest of the family did. Sirius had rebelled 
against his family. I think it is only fair that his family paid him 
back by disowning him (even though they couldn't actually disinherit 
him). I am sure even Sirius himself would agree that it's fair. 
Sirius rebelled against the family, and Kreacher rebelled against 
Sirius. Seems logical to me. 

> Mike: 
> Compare Kreacher to Winky. The enmity between Crouch Senior and 
> Junior is a chasm compared to the ditch between Sirius and his 
> mother. Yet Winky is loyal to both. 

a_svirn:
Oh, no. She isn't. She is loyal solely to Mr. Crouch Sr. Honestly, 
Mike, she has been acting as a *jailer* to young Barty ? how loyal is 
it? She used her not inconsiderable magic to compel Barty to do all 
the things he didn't want. Granted, "for his own good". But most 
certainly against his will. It is anything but loyalty. 

If you say that she loved both, I would agree. She loved Barty, 
perhaps even more that she did his father, but she was loyal 
exclusively to the latter. And it was because she failed Crouch Sr. 
while performing this most important task she got fired. 

Kreacher, on the contrary, was loyal to both Regulus and Walburga and 
had to balance his divided loyalties when Regulus disappeared. But in 
any case I don't really see what it proves. Yes, their situations 
were somewhat different. Yet, both Winky and Kreacher did their best 
to serve their true masters' interests as they understood them. 

> Mike: 
Which elf am I supposed to 
> believe Kreacher is more like, Dobby or Winky? Before DH, I would 
> have said Dobby. But after DH, I see that Kreacher has the simple 
> mindedness of Winky, able to act the role of a proper elf after 
> Harry's simple act of treating him with kindness. And despite 
Sirius 
> never showing Kreacher kindness, he wasn't mistreated in the way 
> Dobby was by the Malfoys. 

a_svirn:
I think you do both Dobby and Kreacher injustice. Dobby did not rebel 
against the Malfoys only because he'd been mistreated. First and 
foremost, he did so because he was an "oddball" as you say ? he 
wanted to be free. He would want it in any case, even if he weren't 
badly treated. And second, he did so because he was Harry's fan and 
was concerned about Harry's safety. 

Kreacher, on the other hand, wasn't really concerned about himself. 
He wanted to avenge his true mistress, Walburga. He wanted to punish 
Sirius who had caused so much grief to his parents in the past and 
proceeded to wage a war on his dead relatives (not exactly noble 
endeavour, by the way, since they couldn't respond). Kreacher did not 
really care how he was treated by Sirius; in fact, he did everything 
to provoke him. Just like Sirius himself had done as a boy, when he 
had gone out of his way to provoke his parents. 

> Mike: 
> Shouldn't Kreacher have had more of a reason to betray Sirius than 
he 
> broke his mother's heart by leaving? Shouldn't his returning have 
> been an occasion for celebration for Kreacher? 

a_svirn:
Was it a cause for celebration for Walburga? 

> Mike:
There's a cognitive 
> dissonance in Kreacher's love for the Blacks and his hatred of the 
> last Black. Especially since this hatred seemed to be there from 
the 
> moment Sirius returned to 12 GP.

a_svirn:
I really don't see it. It was the last Black who hated his family. 
Whereas Kreacher loved it. How could Kreacher get round that one? How 
could anyone? 

> Mike:
> Finally, Dobby's simple minded goal was to protect Harry Potter. 
> Kreacher's simple minded goal was to get revenge on Sirius by 
helping 
> his enemies. Get revenge on Sirius for whom? The mother that 
grieved 
> when he left? 

a_svirn:
For the family Sirius had denounced. Or, as Kreacher undoubtedly saw 
it, had betrayed. After all it wasn't merely Sirius's absence that 
caused Walburga grief. It was his betrayal of his noble blood. 

> Mike:
Where would Kreacher get the idea that Walburga would 
> want to see her estranged son hurt?

a_svirn:
>From Walburga's portrait? 

> Mike:
<snip> Harry started out with the premise 
> that Dobby is just another creature deserving of as much respect as 
> any human. In GoF, Harry's friends give him two new views to 
> consider. 
> 
> Harry is already confused by Dobby and his desires when he 
encounters 
> the other elves. Ron (originally) sees elves as no more than 
slaves, 
> not worthy of consideration. Hermione (originally) sees elves as 
> equals to humans, needing to be released from their bondage. After 
> bouncing around somewhere between Ron and Hermione, Harry 
eventually 
> learns that they aren't elves (collective), they are individuals. 

a_svirn:
I still don't think Harry has ever seen elves as group. From the get 
go he treated Dobby as an individual. I'd say there has been some ups 
and downs in their relationships (I think HBP counts as a "down"), 
but it simply not in Harry's nature to treat people as group 
representatives. It is more of Hermione's thing. He liked Dobby from 
the start and wanted to help him. He disliked Kreacher ? who was 
being obnoxious ? from the start, then he hated him, then he pitied 
him. He also accepted in HBP the fact that Kreacher was his property 
and has made use of him ever since. That's all there is to it.

> Mike:
> He "unlearns" treating them as a group and reverts back to treating 
> them as if they each have their own motivations, no matter how 
simple-
> minded they be. Even if he treats Kreacher as his slave, he treats 
> him as an individual worthy of respectful treatment within the 
> confines of his individual motivations. 

a_svirn:
No, he doesn't. He treats Kreacher with kindness, yes. But it is 
impossible to treat your own slave with respect. The fact that you 
own him or her is already somewhat disrespectful, wouldn't you say? 

> Mike:
That is, Kreacher is a house 
> elf and takes pride in his house elfness as long as he's treated as 
a 
> being with feelings.

a_svirn:
But Harry always treated Kreacher as a being with feelings. He didn't 
always understand his motivations, yes, but that has nothing to do 
with not seeing Kreacher as an individual and seeing him as a group 
representative instead. If anything, Harry lacked this generalised 
vision at first, and it was only because of Hermione's newfound 
insight in general elfish psychology that he achieved a greater 
degree of understanding. 
 
 
> Mike:
> I really don't think Harry thought of Slytherins as individuals. 
> Notice the reaction Slughorn gets when he reveals himself as the 
> former Slytherin HoH. Until DH, which Slytherin stood out for Harry 
> as different from his/her brethren? None, unless you want to count 
> Riddle as standing out as exceptionally psychotic. 

a_svirn:
That's because they were all jerks both individually and as a group. 
Or did we really see any decent Slytherins before DH? How could Harry 
see what simply wasn't there? 

> Mike:
> I definitely see the parallel between House Elves and Slytherins 
from 
> Harry's perspective with regard to their individuality. In DH, 
Harry 
> learns of the individuality of several Slytherins, not all revealed 
> as better than he thought either. 
> 
> He learns Crabbe is more than just one of Draco's cronies, he's 
even 
> more cruel than he thought. He learned that Draco had got himself 
in 
> over his head, and probably regretted it. He learned Sirius' 
brother 
> had more depth to him than just another mind numbed robot DE, even 
at 
> such an early age. He learned Slughorn had more backbone than he 
had 
> originally given him credit. He learned that Pansy was willing to 
> stand up and be counted, though not favorably towards Harry. He 
> learned Narcissa loved her son so much that she was willing to defy 
> Voldemort to protect him. And most of all, he learned that Severus 
> Snape would risk his life, and lose it, to protect the son of the 
> woman he loved. (Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange had already 
> revealed their detestable individualities, imo)
> 
> That about covers the list of significant Slytherins in this 
series, 
> wouldn't you say?

a_svirn:
Out of all of the above only three count as decent, though. 
Definitely not enough to redeem the House. I mean, Sodom and Gomorrah 
could probably boast a couple of righteous people between them. But 
it simply wasn't enough. (And I am not sure that Slughorn Snape and 
Regulus Black could count as righteous. Repentant sinners, more 
like.) All in all I'd say Harry could be pardoned if he saw all 
Slytherins as a group, and an unpleasant one at that. But in fact his 
attitude towards them was always personal: he disliked Draco even 
before he learned about Slytherin, he hated Snape, because Snape had 
bullied him from the first lesson, and he was wary of Slughorn 
because of Dumbledore's warning. For the very same reason he was wary 
of Scrimgeour, in fact. Dumbledore warned him off both men on the 
same occasion. In all those cases Harry's attitude was personal from 
the start. 

a_svirn




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Dec 29 17:53:40 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:53:40 -0000
Subject: Sirius and his lawless ways WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl5oij+9d0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl61j4+929l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180103

 
> Alla: 
> In any event, certainly what you describe can be Sirius' lawless 
> ways that Ma Black had in mind or maybe that is what Kreacher had 
in mind.

Potioncat:
I listed the events as others saw them. Even if Black had already run 
away from the Blacks, wouldn't Hogwarts report any misbehavoir to his 
parents until he was 17? The animagus would be breaking the law, but 
as you say, no one knew about it. (Unless DD was not telling the 
truth, but in any event, he wouldn't tell.) We know that Hogwarts 
notifies parents of misbehavior, because Molly comments on the 
letters that were sent home about the twins.

>Alla: 
> But it can also be that Sirius' lawless ways in Ma Black head were 
> his determination to be the first Black to change the order of the 
> things, the unwritten laws that Blacks do not get sorted into 
Gryffindor.

Potioncat:
By the end of DH, it appears the child has influence over the Sorting 
Hat, but does the WW really understand that? I think the Hat's 
decision is a big surprise, and not considered something the child 
could control. So I could see the Blacks being disappointed, but not 
that it was considered "lawless."

If there were laws in effect that limited what Muggleborns were 
allowed to do, and if Sirius countered those laws, then his family 
might see him as lawless.

What I'm really considering, for the first time really, is the Black 
family PoV.





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 18:05:07 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:05:07 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl41lo+mkvp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl628j+msvd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180104


> a_svirn:
> What do you mean "unlearn"? Kreacher is still a slave at the end of 
> the series. If anything, it was Hermione who had to unlearn the 
> liberal spewish rubbish. 
<snip>
> How come? You yourself just said that Harry *didn't* treat Dobby like 
> a slave. He, however, most definitely treats Kreacher like a slave, 
> more specifically *his* slave (because that's what Kreacher is, after 
> all). And Kreacher loves it. 


lizzyben:

Not sure if this is relevant, but I just felt compelled to add...
Helga Hufflepuff, plantation mistress, noble slaveowner! 

>From JKR's latest interview:

"JN: What I'm telling Sue is that if she remembered from when we
talked about this in New York, (JKR: Yes.) Jo said that Helga
Hufflepuff was a plantation owner (SU: No! She gave them refuge!
Refuge! R-E...) of House Elves...

JKR: (laughs) Refuge!

SU: (whispers) Refuge. (MA: Oh, Jo.) She didn't enslave them.

JKR: Yeah, it's a complicated issue. I would say that Hufflepuff gave-
Hufflepuff did what was the most moral thing to do at that time, and
we are talking about over a thousand years ago. So that would be to
give them good conditions of work. There was no kind of activism
there, so no one's going to say, "Here's an idea, let's free them.
(SU: Yeah.) Let's pay them." It was just, "Well we'll bring them
somewhere they can work and not be abused." 


http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/12/23/transcript-of-part-1-of-pottercast-s-jk-rowling-interview





From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Sat Dec 29 19:41:59 2007
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:41:59 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl60sj+rlg8@eGroups.com>
References: <fl60sj+rlg8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4776A307.60506@btopenworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180105

lizzyben wrote:

> lizzyben:
> 
> Yep. "(Harry) himself was not contaminated by carrying this bit of
> parasitic soul. He's going through a dark time, and that piece of soul
> is enjoying it, and making its presence felt, but he doesn't know what
> he's feeling, of course. Also, I always imagine that the Sorting Hat
> detected the presence of that piece of soul when Harry first tried it
> on, because it's strongly tempted to put him in Slytherin. So that's
> how I see it." 

Gee, and here I thought for a moment that Dumbledore was telling a tiny 
bit of truth in the end of year 2, you know, about Harry having some 
qualities that would make Salazar happy. Silly me. Of course, nothing so 
dirty for our boy.


> JKR:
> "Well, they're not all bad. I know I've said this before, I think I
> said it to Emerson. Well, far from it, as we know, at the end, they
> may have a slightly more highly developed sense of self-preservation
> than other people. A part of the final battle that made me smile was
> Slughorn galloping back with the Slytherins, but they'd gone off to
> get reinforcements first. You know what I'm saying, so yes, they came
> back, they came back to fight. I'm sure many people would say, well
> that's common sense isn't it, isn't that smart, to get help, get more
> people and come back?"
> 
> Slughorn *galloping back with the Slytherins*? When did this happen?
> 

That woman could make some psychoanalyst very happy. A rare case of 
conscious and subconscious in essence divided. :-) In the context of her 
novels it made a perfect sense to have Slytherins the convenient evil, 
so nothing on page points to any of the Slytherins coming back. But when 
she has a chance to reconsider, the conscious mind takes over.

Irene



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 20:13:27 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:13:27 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale - House of Black
In-Reply-To: <fl5nif+v6sl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl69p7+vtg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180106

--- In "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

> 
>  
> Potioncat:
> ...
>  
> Questions:
> 
> 1. Sirius' room is described as dusty and there is a 
> spider's web and mice inhabiting it. .... Do you think that
> Sirius actually stayed in his old room in "The Order of the
> Phoenix" or that he stayed in another bedroom?
> 
> Potioncat: 
> I have bowed to the overwhelming viewpoint that this was
> Teen! Sirius's bedroom, and that certain of his belongings 
> were brought here after he went to Azkaban. ... I find it a 
> little creepy that adult?Sirius would have slept in this 
> room with no changes to it; so no, I don't he used this room. 
> 
> The house has been in bad shape for many years, and it's been
> at least a year since anyone has "lived" here. It's unclear 
> how often the Order used it after Sirius's death. So it's not 
> surprising that there are spiders and mice. But, just how big
> is this house? At one time it held Sirius, Remus, 7 Weasleys, 
> Hermione, Harry and Buckbeak. Yet neither Sirius's or Regulus's
>  rooms appear to have been used.
> 
> ...
>

bboyminn:

Just a couple of points before I run off on my own tangent.

Did Sirius stay in his own room? Pure speculation, but I 
think he did, though I agree it would have been difficult for
him. I suspect Remus took Regulus's room and Sirius kept his
own. Unless you have Slash leaning, then we could speculate
they shared a room. Being the generous guys that they are and
both being used to sleeping in the rough, I think they would 
have told Molly that they would take care of cleaning their 
own rooms, and then only done a (pardon the expression) 
half-assed job of it.

They would have tidied the room sufficiently to be used and
left it at that. Like I said, these are two bachelors who are
used to living rough and sleeping in the wild. A little dust
and a few cobwebs wouldn't have mattered much to them.

Since the rooms were only vaguely clean to begin with, it 
wouldn't take them long to revert to their apparently long
abandon and disused look. 

Now to the tangental question; 'just how big is this house?'.

Big I think, I think in it's day it was a very grand townhome.

I speculate at least 6 bedrooms and certainly more than one
bath.

I haven't cataloged everything, but from the beginning of OotP
we have the following.

Though first a tangental tangent. The British have a funny
way of designating /floors/ in their houses. We have references
to Ground Floor, Main Floor, First Floor, and Third Floor.

Are Ground Floor and Main Floor the same, or is ground floor
essentially the half-underground basement, and the Main Floor
is the level at which most people enter the building? Then
are First Floor and Main Floor the same? Usually, UK buildings
are Main Floor (at roughly street level) then First Floor (
one floor above street level) and so on. 

I think in any case since there is a third floor referenced,
we can assume this is a four floor building; four above
ground floors, and the basement/kitchen. 

Back to the house; so 6 bedroom at least. There is a reference
to the Upstairs bathroom, which implies a second downstairs
bathroom; so two at least though I suspect at least three. 

We know the Drawing Room with the Bogart Desk and the Black
Family tapestry is on the first floor (second floor in the
USA). We know there is a little used Dining Room on the
'ground' floor. We know there is a Grandfather Clock that shot
bolts that is not mentioned in the Drawing Room. 

I suspect reasonably that their is a Study/Den/Library room
as well, it seems very unlikely that a nice house like this
wouldn't have one.

Now, is the Drawing Room the same as the Living Room or Lounge,
or would those be other rooms in the house?

So -

6 bedrooms
3 baths
Drawing Room
Dining Room
Study/Library
maybe a Living Room/Lounge

Not a bad little place. If this was within sight of the river,
it would probably be an easy seven figure place. Though as it
stands, it is in what was probably a grand neighborhood at one
time, but the gentry have moved on to bigger and better home, 
and left the neighborhood to fall into working class apartments,
which have then in turn deteriorated into one of London's 
shabbier neighborhoods.

I speculate that the Black House is in the N7 postal code 
(Islington/Barnsbury) because it is about a 20 minute walk
to Kings Cross. A 5 bedroom / 2 bath house in this area is
selling for $1,395,000 (US$2.8 million). 

http://www.primelocation.com/uk-property-for-sale/details/id/WIKT999001334/

That should give you some indication, but since Grimmauld Place
has yet to be redeveloped, I think the housing prices are
lower.

I have always pictured the Black House as looking distinctly 
out of place. Amoung somewhat modern brick and stone house,
it would have a very dark and dreary castle-like quality to
it.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Dec 29 23:28:42 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:28:42 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl613v+kr67@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl6l7a+a6ab@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180107


> 
> a_svirn:
> No, he doesn't. He treats Kreacher with kindness, yes. But it is 
> impossible to treat your own slave with respect. The fact that you 
> own him or her is already somewhat disrespectful, wouldn't you say? 

Pippin:
I can't answer for Mike, obviously, but...
Disrespectful of what? Kreacher's godgiven right to be a free being?
But it wasn't Harry who robbed Kreacher of his ability to exercise that
right. Kreacher is no more capable of being his own master than the
Longbottoms. He, like them, can have the respect of not being despised
for his condition, which he did not choose. 

> a_svirn:
> Out of all of the above only three count as decent, though. 
> Definitely not enough to redeem the House. I mean, Sodom and Gomorrah 
> could probably boast a couple of righteous people between them. But 
> it simply wasn't enough. (And I am not sure that Slughorn Snape and 
> Regulus Black could count as righteous. Repentant sinners, more 
> like.) 

Pippin:
The repentant sinner *is* a righteous person in Western thought
and more to be valued than one who never strayed.
But Harry disliked Slytherins as a class and canon tells us so -- he
considers it his duty to hate Blaise Zabini on sight for no other reason.


Pippin




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Dec 29 23:41:05 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:41:05 -0000
Subject: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <4776A307.60506@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <fl6luh+dcvr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180108

 
> > JKR:
> > "Well, they're not all bad. I know I've said this before, I think 
I
> > said it to Emerson. Well, far from it, as we know, at the end, 
they
> > may have a slightly more highly developed sense of self-
preservation
> > than other people. A part of the final battle that made me smile 
was
> > Slughorn galloping back with the Slytherins, but they'd gone off 
to
> > get reinforcements first. You know what I'm saying, so yes, they 
came
> > back, they came back to fight. I'm sure many people would say, 
well
> > that's common sense isn't it, isn't that smart, to get help, get 
more
> > people and come back?"
> > 
> > Slughorn *galloping back with the Slytherins*? When did this 
happen?
> > 
Irene:
> That woman could make some psychoanalyst very happy. A rare case of 
> conscious and subconscious in essence divided. :-) In the context 
of her 
> novels it made a perfect sense to have Slytherins the convenient 
evil, 
> so nothing on page points to any of the Slytherins coming back. But 
when 
> she has a chance to reconsider, the conscious mind takes over.

Magpie:
You know, I try to stay away from any psychoanalyzing and I still 
don't have anything to say about JKR as a person, but these 
interviews really do make the world crumble even more to pieces or 
show big holes in it--at least to me. There is no fricken' moment of 
Slughorn galumphing back with any Slytherins. The Slytherins just 
leave in the book. And if they were supposed to have a triumphant 
return it would have to be there. Instead we got 7 books of the 
opposite and no moment where the narrator or Harry says, "Hey, look! 
The Slytherins didn't leave at all! They just went to get other 
people!" 

And the same with the thing Lizzyben just quoted about Hufflepuff the 
planatation owner: "It was a thousand years ago, blah blah blah..." 
This isn't our world, you can't just fall back on the idea that the 
WW had the same kind of history with civil rights as our own did in 
some vague way, especially when in the world you've actually created 
still has slavery not only going strong but reinforced as the only 
humane way for House Elves to live. 

It's just weird to me that, as you say, she seems to have no problem 
*in the book* of taking the strong position that Slytherins are 
genuinely inferior people who are untrustworthy and House Elves are 
inferior beings who enjoy being enslaved by superior wizards...but 
when that's put to her in an interview she's got another way to put 
it--not a way that holds up or is coherent really, imo, but just 
something that's a little mushier because the statements the books 
make sound kind of harsh. Surely she didn't just write a quarter of 
the school as really evil and not deserving of being there, or say 
that a whole race should be enslaved? Yeah, she did. Very 
straightforwardly. 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 23:57:59 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:57:59 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl6luh+dcvr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl6mu7+gfft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180110

> Magpie:
> You know, I try to stay away from any psychoanalyzing and I still 
> don't have anything to say about JKR as a person, but these 
> interviews really do make the world crumble even more to pieces or 
> show big holes in it--at least to me. There is no fricken' moment 
of 
> Slughorn galumphing back with any Slytherins. The Slytherins just 
> leave in the book. And if they were supposed to have a triumphant 
> return it would have to be there. Instead we got 7 books of the 
> opposite and no moment where the narrator or Harry says, "Hey, 
look! 
> The Slytherins didn't leave at all! They just went to get other 
> people!" 
><SNIP>

Alla:

I do want to put my POV on this one out.

When I heard that interview, I laughed, but I did not laugh because 
I 
thought that JKR is going to make pyschoanalyst very happy or 
anything 
like that.

I laughed because I thought that for her it may have been obvious 
that 
since their Head of the house came back that other Slytherins came 
back too and she did not feel a need to write it in.

Now, why would you ask she did not feel a need to do that if we do 
not 
see the triumphant return in the book?

Indeed we do not, but I think that she may not have felt a need to 
treat it as major issue and just sort of wrote as default position - 
Slughorn comes back and that means that some of his students do too.

Like she did not feel that she wanted "triumphant" return to give to 
Slytherins, just the return behind Slughorn if that makes sense.

I mean, I do not care either way, but if you remember, some people 
DID 
assume that Slughorn comes back means his students do too, they sort 
of followed where JKR wanted them to, no?

I found this very funny, yes.

JMO,

Alla




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 29 23:59:45 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 23:59:45 -0000
Subject: Sirius and his lawless ways WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl6mi9+acfe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl6n1h+grp5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180111

> Alla:
> > In any event, certainly what you describe can be Sirius' lawless
> > ways that Ma Black had in mind or maybe that is what Kreacher
had
> in mind.
>
> Potioncat:
> I listed the events as others saw them. <SNIP>

Alla:

Well, yeah I understand that you listed events as others saw it.
What I am disputing is whether Ma Black knew about them. Does
Hogwarts notify parents? Sure, I agree if child lives at home it is
likely. But if child does not live at home, I think both
possibilities are equally likely. IMO of course.




> >Alla:
> > But it can also be that Sirius' lawless ways in Ma Black head
were
> > his determination to be the first Black to change the order of
the
> > things, the unwritten laws that Blacks do not get sorted into
> Gryffindor.
>
> Potioncat:
> By the end of DH, it appears the child has influence over the
Sorting
> Hat, but does the WW really understand that? I think the Hat's
> decision is a big surprise, and not considered something the child
> could control. So I could see the Blacks being disappointed, but
not
> that it was considered "lawless."


Alla:

What I was trying to argue and apparently not very succesfully is
that we do not know of what exactly "his lawless ways" mean. It
could be something taken literally as in what you listed or any
other rule breaking by Sirius of course. But IMO it can also be
taken sort of metaphorically as in when Kreacher says that Sirius
broker his mistress heart with his lawless ways, that could mean
that Sirius sorting, Sirius' defying Black family traditions by
being sorting in Gryffindor, you know?

Black's family motto is always pure, yes? I am saying that Sirius
broke this motto, this "law" by being sortet to Gryffindor as well.

Potioncat:
> If there were laws in effect that limited what Muggleborns were
> allowed to do, and if Sirius countered those laws, then his family
> might see him as lawless.

Alla:

Sure.


Potioncat:
> What I'm really considering, for the first time really, is the
Black
> family PoV.


Alla:

Eh, I did consider Black's family POV in the past, really. I just do
not deem it worthy of respect. Is it possible that Ma Black loved
her son (Sirius) I mean at some point? I would say it is very likely
BUT is it possible that she loved Sirius as of "who he is"? Well,
no, not in my opinion.

It just so happened that I know personally, socially a family
situation right now where a mother does everything she can to
prevent her teen from fulfilling her life dreams, her potential,
everything, everything. I am trying to make it as short and
impersonal as possible to not give any details and relevant to this
argument.
Does it mean that mother does not love her kid? Oh, I am pretty sure
she does, but she does not love her for who she is.

To go back to mother Black, I believe ( unless she abused Sirius and
I think it is very possible, but since canon does not tell us flat
out, I have to leave it as speculation) that she loved Sirius as
long as he is continuing traditions of Blacks and when he did not,
it may as well broke her heart.

IMO of course.

Alla







From glaubman at sbcglobal.net  Sat Dec 29 21:44:19 2007
From: glaubman at sbcglobal.net (Sarah Glaubman)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 13:44:19 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>
References: <fktl2a+smb7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5C6D642F-3EC8-4094-A897-9A0119EAF599@sbcglobal.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 180112


On Dec 26, 2007, at 5:30 AM, colebiancardi wrote:

> > 4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's
> > heart. Does this new bit of information seem to contradict Sirius'
> > story about his relationship with his family?
>
> Jeanette: I would say no. It is entirely possible her heart was  
> broken because
> of the REASON that Sirius left and not the fact of his leaving. To
> have a son reject everything she believed in and walk away from the
> traditions and responiblities she felt were of the utmost importance
> could be heart-breaking.

Sarah: I agree with Jeanette. I had the impression that Sirius's  
attitude and behavior as a whole broke his mother's heart, not only  
the fact of his running away. What Kreacher says is, "he broke my  
Mistress's heart with his lawless ways."

> 5.	Regulus joined the DEs when he was 16, which means that Voldemort
> really had no age limit for his recruits. How does this contrast with
> the Order of the Phoenix? Ignoring that the DE's are evil and the
> Order is good, do you think that the DEs support the notion of
> fighting for what you believe in, regardless of age? In other words,
> do you agree with the Order's stance of not allowing underage wizards
> to join or do you agree with the Death Eater's stance instead?

Sarah: Sirius told us that Voldemort would kill anyone who tried to  
leave his service. It was, like everything LV did, really unethical  
to recruit young kids to something they might not really understand  
so they would be committed for life, or die a horrible death. It  
wasn't like young people participating in a political movement where  
they were free to change their minds. Young people are easy targets  
for manipulation. I can't separate this from the DEs being evil.

There seems to be kind of a contradiction about the Order protecting  
underage kids from joining, and the way the trio were always doing  
the most dangerous work as kids. Given their involvement in the  
danger, I don't think they should have been shut out from hearing  
about what was going on, as the Order tried to do at the beginning of  
book five. I think it was reasonable for the OP to have a minimum age  
for people to do dangerous missions, but this didn't seem to be what  
actually happened (but these kids were special, eh?) Maybe DD's views  
on the subject were not the same as the rules of the Order as a whole.

> 6.	After Kreacher returns from the cave and tells his tale to Regulus,
> where do you think Regulus went? Regulus' return to Kreacher shows a
> Regulus with a disturbed state of mind, strange, according to
> Kreacher. Do you think Regulus talked to anyone or just did book
> research?

Sarah: I really wondered about this question, about when and how  
Regulus "discovered [the Dark Lord's] secret." As far as I can  
remember, none of the other DEs knew about the Horcruxes. Snape was  
trying until the end to get Dumbledore to explain Harry's mission to  
him, and didn't know why LV should come to "fear for the life of his  
snake." Bellatrix didn't really know the significance of the thing LV  
asked her to hide. They were close to LV. Interesting that Regulus  
figured out something Snape didn't, with all Snape's knowledge of  
Dark Magic, and being at LV's side for so long. I don't think Regulus  
would have seen LV again after hearing Kreacher's story and telling  
him to hide in the house, considering LV's Legillimency power.

I hadn't thought of colebiancardi's point, that Regulus may still  
have been at school and might have talked to Slughorn or Dumbledore.  
Though as someone else pointed out, Slughorn's (cowardly, I say) lips  
were probably sealed.

>
> a.	Despite what Harry knew about the note that Regulus left in the
> locket, did he think badly of Regulus because he was a Slytherin? Do
> you feel that Harry is showing his old biases here?

Sarah: I think Harry would think badly of Regulus because he was a  
Death Eater, more than because he was a Slytherin.
>
>
> 8.	How did you feel when Regulus' death was revealed? I found this to
> be the most tragic death of all of the deaths in the series. Do you
> feel that Regulus redeemed himself?

Sarah: I absolutely feel that Regulus redeemed himself, and I am  
surprised if this is a controversial question. He quietly subjected  
himself to a really horrible death, unknown and unappreciated at the  
time, in order to try to do much more to stop Voldemort than he had  
ever done to help him. I think he made a bigger sacrifice than anyone  
who died with the understanding and comradeship of their friends.
>
>
> 9.	Do you think Regulus should have done more to let others know what
> Voldemort was up to?

Sarah: I wouldn't fault Regulus for that, given what he knew. The  
note suggests that he thought the locket was the only Horcrux, and  
that he thought he would succeed in destroying it. If he had told  
anyone else, there was a chance that LV might find out before he  
successfully carried out his mission. And as others have said, he was  
very concerned to protect his family.
>
>
> 10.	How do you feel about Kreacher at the end of this tale? Did you
> feel empathy for him? Is Kreacher's attitude now explainable and
> understandable?

Sarah: I don't blame Kreacher for anything, though I don't really  
feel much empathy for him. I do agree with Hermione about the  
treatment of house-elves and the impact it had on them psychologically.
>
>
> 11.	Does Hermione's explanation - Voldemort's contempt for house-elves
> was his downfall in Kreacher's escape from the cave - make sense? Do
> you think her parallel of Voldemort's and Sirius' attitude towards
> house-elves was warranted, or a bit extreme?

Sarah: I think it makes sense that Voldemort would not know about the  
power of house-elf magic because he thought they were so far beneath  
his great and powerful self, but that this is something typical of  
Voldemort, and it wasn't only with house-elves. He was such an  
egomaniac he thought no one else had used the Room of Hidden Objects,  
even though it was full of stuff he hadn't put there, and he didn't  
think anyone could find out about the Horcruxes, though he had talked  
to Slughorn about them and left a trail of murder and collection of  
precious objects behind him. He held love in contempt and didn't know  
how Lily's sacrifice magic worked either.

I think Sirius's insensitive attitude toward the feelings of house- 
elves were pretty conventional in the wizarding world, and similar to  
Ron's in the earlier books. I think Sirius was mean to Kreacher  
because Kreacher was part of the home he had hated, was loyal to  
those family members and parroted those beliefs that Sirius hated. So  
I think the cases are quite different, with Sirius typically Sirius  
and Voldemort typically Voldemort. I didn't hear Hermione actually  
equate them. Voldemort did something worse to Kreacher than Sirius  
ever could have done.

> 12.	Harry's attitude finally changes towards Kreacher, with his tale
> and Hermione's explanation. Is this a turning point for Harry in
> regards for empathy and understanding or do you feel that Harry has
> already made strides in this area with other characters? Do you have
> examples, if the latter?

Sarah: I think Harry is a remarkably nice kid, considering the  
circumstances of his upbringing. He was brought up by Muggles who  
treated him horribly and prevented him from having relationships with  
anyone else, and his only good experiences were with wizards, and yet  
he was never attracted at all by the anti-Muggle ideas of some  
wizards. Despite the fact that Snape is so mean to Harry, he is  
appalled by his father's and Sirius's behavior toward Snape in  
Snape's Worst Memory, and he feels urgently that he must talk to  
Sirius about it. Someone mentioned the change in his appreciation for  
Luna, which can be seen in HBP when it occurs to him that she, like  
him, has lost a parent, and he would rather go to Slughorn's party  
with her than with a "normal" person. He is way ahead of Ron there,  
and earlier with realizing that Hermione was right that Ron could  
have asked her to the Yule ball sooner instead of as an afterthought,  
if he was unhappy that she went with Krum. In HPB Harry is horrified  
to see that he has used a really harmful spell on Draco  
(Sectumsempra), after Draco started the fight and tried to Crucio  
him. He doesn't defend himself for this, or to Snape when he throws  
him out of the office after he sees the memory.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 00:54:52 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 00:54:52 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl6l7a+a6ab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl6q8s+i7ok@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180113

> > a_svirn:
> > No, he doesn't. He treats Kreacher with kindness, yes. But it is 
> > impossible to treat your own slave with respect. The fact that 
you 
> > own him or her is already somewhat disrespectful, wouldn't you 
say? 
> 
> Pippin:
> I can't answer for Mike, obviously, but...
> Disrespectful of what? Kreacher's godgiven right to be a free being?
> But it wasn't Harry who robbed Kreacher of his ability to exercise 
that
> right. Kreacher is no more capable of being his own master than the
> Longbottoms. He, like them, can have the respect of not being 
despised
> for his condition, which he did not choose. 

a_svirn:
Is that what you usually mean when you say that X treats Y with 
respect? That X refrain from despising Y for something Y can't help? 
I'd say it is somewhat convoluted. 

Also, the Longbottoms, as far as we could see *are* treated with 
respect. No one owns them, makes fun of them or uses them. 


> > a_svirn:
> > Out of all of the above only three count as decent, though. 
> > Definitely not enough to redeem the House. I mean, Sodom and 
Gomorrah 
> > could probably boast a couple of righteous people between them. 
But 
> > it simply wasn't enough. (And I am not sure that Slughorn Snape 
and 
> > Regulus Black could count as righteous. Repentant sinners, more 
> > like.) 
> 
> Pippin:
> The repentant sinner *is* a righteous person in Western thought
> and more to be valued than one who never strayed.

a_svirn:
Was Lot a repentant sinner then? There was that dubious business with 
his daughters, but it happened after he left Sodom, and I am not sure 
he repented anyway. 

> Pippin:
> But Harry disliked Slytherins as a class and canon tells us so -- he
> considers it his duty to hate Blaise Zabini on sight for no other 
reason.

a_svirn:
There is a big difference between considering hating all Slytherins 
as a duty and really hating them. Harry only really hated or 
distrusted people for personal reasons, not because of any principle. 





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Dec 30 01:06:44 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:06:44 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl6mu7+gfft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl6qv4+lruc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180114

> Alla:
> 
> I do want to put my POV on this one out.
> 
> When I heard that interview, I laughed, but I did not laugh because 
> I 
> thought that JKR is going to make pyschoanalyst very happy or 
> anything 
> like that.
> 
> I laughed because I thought that for her it may have been obvious 
> that 
> since their Head of the house came back that other Slytherins came 
> back too and she did not feel a need to write it in.
> 
> Now, why would you ask she did not feel a need to do that if we do 
> not 
> see the triumphant return in the book?
> 
> Indeed we do not, but I think that she may not have felt a need to 
> treat it as major issue and just sort of wrote as default position -
 
> Slughorn comes back and that means that some of his students do too.
> 
> Like she did not feel that she wanted "triumphant" return to give 
to 
> Slytherins, just the return behind Slughorn if that makes sense.

Magpie:
Yeah, it makes sense but it doesn't hold up. She's already had people 
challenge her with the "why don't they just kill them?" question. She 
was careful enough to set them up as turncoats with all 
the "Slytherin needs to choose sides NOW" followed by them being 
ordered out *at wandpoint* after dramatically siding against Harry 
and a whole book of Slytherin being associated with Voldemort and 
left out when the other houses band together, just as they did in 
OotP. She hasn't characterized the Slytherins to be able to just join 
in the good fight without us being told that. She didn't characterize 
them that way in DH. It's not just that it wasn't triumphant, it's 
that it wasn't there.

Even the very sentence she's referring to says Slughorn returns with 
the relatives of the students who stayed to fight (no Slytherins 
there) and the shopkeepers in Hogsmeade (so not students). She 
actually did think it was a good idea to tell us who returned there. 
She just didn't say it was any Slytherins. So this is a place where 
for me, there's no question: what's written in the book far trumps 
the author's mis-remembering of the event. (JKR also thought Colin's 
camera didn't work at Hogwarts when it did in canon.) I 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 01:24:34 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:24:34 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl6qv4+lruc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl6s0i+q3ho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180115

Magpie:
Yeah, it makes sense but it doesn't hold up. She's already had people
challenge her with the "why don't they just kill them?" question. She
was careful enough to set them up as turncoats with all
the "Slytherin needs to choose sides NOW" followed by them being
ordered out *at wandpoint* after dramatically siding against Harry
and a whole book of Slytherin being associated with Voldemort and
left out when the other houses band together, just as they did in
OotP. She hasn't characterized the Slytherins to be able to just join
in the good fight without us being told that. She didn't characterize
them that way in DH. It's not just that it wasn't triumphant, it's
that it wasn't there. <SNIP>

Alla:

I am not saying that she was sloppy or forgot to write in Slytherins 
coming back. I am saying that she wrote Slughorn coming back and let 
readers filling in the blanks. I am saying that in her mind the 
issue of Slytherins fighting or NOT fighting is of very secondary 
importance and she felt it is okay to write it symbolically - 
meaning to write only their head of the house coming back.

That is obviously my interpretation only of her possible intentions. 
But if you think that it is perfectly fine and in line with canon 
for example to assume that Dumbledore killed people because the job 
of leader of the war often requires that, even though we see in 
canon Dumbledore killing no people whatsoever, then I do not see how 
it is so different from filling out the blanks that some of 
Slytherin students came back to fight with their head of the house. 
Especially since Slughorn's return IS there.

Does it have to be the only intepretation? Surely not, since I am 
not disputing that there is no explicit mention of any Slytherin 
students 
coming back. But I do think that symbolism could be there, is there 
and 
Slughorn symbolises his house, especially since we know that 
Slughorn only year ago was running from DE. And he overcame his 
cowardice. I do not see why his return cannot be a symbol for some 
of his students.

JMO,

Alla




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Dec 30 01:26:18 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:26:18 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl6q8s+i7ok@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl6s3q+su2o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180116

> a_svirn:
> Is that what you usually mean when you say that X treats Y with 
> respect? That X refrain from despising Y for something Y can't help? 
> I'd say it is somewhat convoluted. 
> 
> Also, the Longbottoms, as far as we could see *are* treated with 
> respect. No one owns them, makes fun of them or uses them. 

Pippin:
I'm saying it's not disrespectful of the Longbottoms to deprive 
them of rights they can't use and which would endanger them.
As you say, the Longbottoms are treated with respect,
though not by Draco who makes fun of mentally incapacitated people.


It doesn't mean much to say the Longbottoms aren't "owned." 
They are not free to leave St Mungo's or to make decisions about
their care. 

I don't think it's "using" Kreacher to *ask* him to perform tasks 
which are within his ability and make him feel useful. It might be
more harmful to him to refuse to give him any work. 


> a_svirn:
> Was Lot a repentant sinner then? There was that dubious business with 
> his daughters, but it happened after he left Sodom, and I am not sure 
> he repented anyway. 
> 

Pippin:
I was thinking of repentant sinners like King David (adultery), Moses
(murder), Jonah (refusing to carry God's word to Ninevah) and Paul 
(persecuting followers of Jesus). 

Lot, IMO, wasn't saved because he was repentant but because he was 
Abraham's nephew and because he did try to save his guests from 
the citizens of Sodom (though by the hardly admirable expedient
of offering his daughers instead.) 

> a_svirn:
> There is a big difference between considering hating all Slytherins 
> as a duty and really hating them. Harry only really hated or 
> distrusted people for personal reasons, not because of any principle.
>

Pippin:
This is way too convoluted for me. Do you see canon making any
distinctions between hating people and "really" hating them?

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 02:13:28 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:13:28 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl6qv4+lruc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl6us8+4evo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180117

Magpie wrote:
> <snip> She 
> was careful enough to set them up as turncoats with all the
"Slytherin needs to choose sides NOW" followed by them being ordered
out *at wandpoint* after dramatically siding against Harry <snip>

Carol responds:

*One* student (Pansy Parkinson) dramatically sided against Harry, at
which point most of the school pointed their wands at Slytherin and
McGonagall ordered them all out. They were dramatically *treated as*
traitors, but all most of them did was take advantage of the
opportunity to save their skins. (Only Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle
dropped out, and Draco's motives seem to b mixed rather than evil).
And, as no one seems to acknowledge, the underage Slytherins (more
than 5/7 of the group) would have been sent to safety with the
underage students from the other Houses in any case.

Magpie:
> Even the very sentence she's referring to says Slughorn returns with
the relatives of the students who stayed to fight (no Slytherins 
there) and the shopkeepers in Hogsmeade (so not students). She 
actually did think it was a good idea to tell us who returned there.
She just didn't say it was any Slytherins. So this is a place where 
for me, there's no question: what's written in the book far trumps 
the author's mis-remembering of the event. <snip>

Carol responds:

Let's look first at what she actually wrote:

". . . Harry saw Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace slughorn, who was
still wearing his emerald pajamas. They seemed to have returned at the
head of what looked like the families and friends of every Hogwarts
student who had remained to fight, along with the shopkeepers and
homeowners of Hogsmeade" (DH 734). We are, of course, seeing from
Harry's perspective, and the words "what looked like" indicate that
he's interpreting the scene. It makes no sense that Slughorn would
have brought the parents of the students who remained at Hogwarts to
fight. Much more likely that he'd have brought the parents of the
students he accompanied to the Hog's Head. And the students most
likely to follow him into battle are the students of his own House.

I agree that what JKR wrote and what she thinks she wrote are
different, but what she did write is sufficiently vague that it dpes
not reclude the idea of Slughorn leading the (older) Slytherins (or
some of them) into battle, along with non-DE Slytherin parents.
Phineas Nigellus' boast about Slytherin playing its part makes more
sense if Slughorn did, indeed, lead at least a handful of older
Slytherins into battle. No doubt that's what JKR *intended.*
Unfortunately, she didn't clearly transmit that intention to the reader.

On another note entirely, someone in another forum mentioned that
Scorpius's middle name is Hyperion. Where did that come from? Can
anyone provide a link?

Carol, who thinks that some older Slytherins following their HoH into
battle is entirely plausible if not probable and wishes that JKR had
made it clear in the book that they did so




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 02:38:54 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:38:54 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl6mu7+gfft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl70bu+qv5g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180118


> Alla:

> I laughed because I thought that for her it may have been obvious 
> that 
> since their Head of the house came back that other Slytherins came 
> back too and she did not feel a need to write it in.
> 
> Now, why would you ask she did not feel a need to do that if we do 
> not 
> see the triumphant return in the book?
> 
> Indeed we do not, but I think that she may not have felt a need to 
> treat it as major issue and just sort of wrote as default position - 
> Slughorn comes back and that means that some of his students do too.
> 
> Like she did not feel that she wanted "triumphant" return to give to 
> Slytherins, just the return behind Slughorn if that makes sense.


lizzyben:

OK, here is the sentence from Deathly Hallows:

""Harry saw Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace Slughorn, who was still
wearing his emerald pyjamas. They seemed to have returned at the head
of what looked like the families and friends of every Hogwarts student
who had remained to fight along with the shopkeeps and homeowners of
Hogsmeade."

Slughorn is leading two groups of people 1.) Friends & families of
every Hogwarts student who had remained to fight. Well, we know that
McGonegal kicked out all of the Slytherin students in the Great Hall,
and not one remained to fight. So, when the text says "friends of
students who remained to fight", that necessarily excludes the
Slytherin students. 2.) Hogsmeade shopkeeps & homeowners - Slytherin
students are not Hogsmeade shopkeepers or homeowners, so they are
excluded from this group as well. 

JKR doesn't add "and some Slytherin students." Or just note that
Slughorn lead a crowd, without noting who was in that crowd. It
would've been very easy to do this, but she didn't. She has Harry
notice exactly who returns, and has him note two non-Slytherin groups
of people. The structure of the sentence precludes Slytherins. It
takes the most torturous interpretation possible to say that the text
says something opposite to what it says. 


Magpie:

It's just weird to me that, as you say, she seems to have no problem
*in the book* of taking the strong position that Slytherins are
genuinely inferior people who are untrustworthy and House Elves are
inferior beings who enjoy being enslaved by superior wizards...but
when that's put to her in an interview she's got another way to put
it--not a way that holds up or is coherent really, imo, but just
something that's a little mushier because the statements the books
make sound kind of harsh.


lizzyben:

What it tells me is that we'll never get a straight answer from JKR
about any of this. She'll just deny that she wrote what she wrote.
Even if she does have a harsh morality, I'd respect it more if she
stood behind that. But this is just ret-coning in response to
criticism, and that seems almost dishonest. While writing DH, how
could she be laughing at the thought of the returning Slytherin
students... and then write the exact opposite? 


lizzyben





From sherriola at gmail.com  Sun Dec 30 05:33:28 2007
From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:33:28 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <5C6D642F-3EC8-4094-A897-9A0119EAF599@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <47772dab.20588c0a.6d5b.1154@mx.google.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180119

Michele:
> > 4. Kreacher mentions that Sirius' leaving home broke his mother's 
> > heart. Does this new bit of information seem to contradict Sirius'
> > story about his relationship with his family?
>
> Jeanette: I would say no. It is entirely possible her heart was broken 
> because of the REASON that Sirius left and not the fact of his 
> leaving. To have a son reject everything she believed in and walk away 
> from the traditions and responiblities she felt were of the utmost 
> importance could be heart-breaking.



Sherry:

I thought the line about breaking his mother's heart was just more of
Kreacher's hostility toward Sirius.  Mrs. black's portrait sure didn't seem
to sound off with any love for Sirius or heart break either.  At any rate, I
can't begin to feel sorry for someone who would disown her own son for any
reason, but then, I come from a family who would never consider such a
thing, even though my dad's generation did plenty to break their mother's
heart.  I'm not inclined to take Kreacher's word for anything about Sirius.
There was some kind of history there, that we never got to see, but there's
got to be a reason Sirius hated Kreacher and Kreacher hated him.

Sherry




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 07:21:50 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:21:50 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl6us8+4evo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl7gue+7kn9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180120

> Carol responds:
> 
> Let's look first at what she actually wrote:
> 
> ". . . Harry saw Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace Slughorn, who
> was still wearing his emerald pajamas. They seemed to have
> returned at the head of what looked like the families and friends 
> of every Hogwarts student who had remained to fight, along with
> the shopkeepers and homeowners of Hogsmeade" (DH 734).
>
> --<snipping and rearrainging Carol's post>--
>
> Phineas Nigellus' boast about Slytherin playing its part makes
> more sense if Slughorn did, indeed, lead at least a handful of
> older Slytherins into battle. No doubt that's what JKR *intended.*


> Alla:
> <snip>  but if you remember, some people DID assume 
> that Slughorn coming back means his students did too,
> they sort of followed where JKR wanted them to, no?

Mike:
:raising his hand: I was one of those, based on Phineas' comment, 
that assumed *some* Slytherins came back with Slughorn, after my 
first read through. I just assumed I missed it, or misremembered 
what was actually written.

But the actual words do not include any Slytherins besides Horace. 
That makes me agree with Magpie and lizzyben, it's not there.

I refuse to put stock in any JKR interview, they're not canon, imo.
I'm not going to be hypocritical and say, 'Obviously that's what JKR 
intended, based on her interview' even if that would match my WW 
view. What she intended and what she wrote are not the same.


> Carol:
> I agree that what JKR wrote and what she thinks she wrote are
> different, but what she did write is sufficiently vague that it
> does not preclude the idea of Slughorn leading the (older)
> Slytherins (or some of them) into battle, along with non-DE
> Slytherin parents. Unfortunately, she didn't clearly transmit
> that intention to the reader.

Mike:
On such an important point as this, I can't give JKR the benefit 
of the doubt. If she meant to **finally** show us that there really 
were some *good* Slytherins, she had to write it plainly and clearly.
She didn't! After 4,076 pages (US editions) of showing us that 
Slytherins are bad people, I refuse to assume what she may or may 
not have wanted me to assume. To deny the Slytherin personae put 
forth in those previous four thousand plus pages is completely 
unrealistic, imo.


> Carol: 
> We are, of course, seeing from Harry's perspective, and the words
> "what looked like" indicate that he's interpreting the scene. 
> It makes no sense that Slughorn would have brought the parents 
> of the students who remained at Hogwarts to fight. Much more 
> likely that he'd have brought the parents of the students he 
> accompanied to the Hog's Head. And the students most likely to 
> follow him into battle are the students of his own House.

Mike:
I'm with you in spirit, Carol, but there's a problem. It said 
Slughorn was "at the head" in a way that could be easily interpreted 
to mean that Slughorn was simply in front. He doesn't have to 
necessarily be "leading" anyone. He might have been the one that 
broke through some charm or barrier and that was why he was 
initially in front.


Mike,
asking lizzyben what "ret-coning" means? 




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 11:52:13 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:52:13 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying
 Character
In-Reply-To: <fl6us8+4evo@eGroups.com>
References: <fl6us8+4evo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4777866D.2010603@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180121

Carol blessed us with this gem On 30/12/2007 10:13:

> Let's look first at what she actually wrote:
> 
> ". . . They seemed to have returned at the
> head of what looked like the families and friends of every Hogwarts
> student who had remained to fight, along with the shopkeepers and
> homeowners of Hogsmeade" (DH 734). We are, of course, seeing from
> Harry's perspective, and the words "what looked like" indicate that
> he's interpreting the scene. It makes no sense that Slughorn would
> have brought the parents of the students who remained at Hogwarts to
> fight. Much more likely that he'd have brought the parents of the
> students he accompanied to the Hog's Head. And the students most
> likely to follow him into battle are the students of his own House.

Hmm, doesn't work for me. Harry would surely still recognize Slytherins, 
especially those old enough to fight, having spent five or six years in 
school with them. That he might misinterpret the people rolling in on 
Slughorn's coattails at the least indicates they were people unknown, or 
barely known, to him, not Slytherins themselves.

Teacher, teacher! Can I change my answer? I've decided the Most Annoying 
Character in HP is JKR.

CJ



From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sun Dec 30 16:14:23 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:14:23 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <4777866D.2010603@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fl8g4v+lj9a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180122

> Carol blessed us with this gem On 30/12/2007 10:13:
> 
> > Let's look first at what she actually wrote:
> > 
> > ". . . They seemed to have returned at the
> > head of what looked like the families and friends of every 
Hogwarts
> > student who had remained to fight, along with the shopkeepers and
> > homeowners of Hogsmeade" (DH 734). We are, of course, seeing from
> > Harry's perspective, and the words "what looked like" indicate 
that
> > he's interpreting the scene. It makes no sense that Slughorn would
> > have brought the parents of the students who remained at Hogwarts 
to
> > fight. Much more likely that he'd have brought the parents of the
> > students he accompanied to the Hog's Head. And the students most
> > likely to follow him into battle are the students of his own 
House.

Lee: 
> Hmm, doesn't work for me. Harry would surely still recognize 
Slytherins, 
> especially those old enough to fight, having spent five or six 
years in 
> school with them. That he might misinterpret the people rolling in 
on 
> Slughorn's coattails at the least indicates they were people 
unknown, or 
> barely known, to him, not Slytherins themselves.
> 
> Teacher, teacher! Can I change my answer? I've decided the Most 
Annoying 
> Character in HP is JKR.

Magpie:
That's fast becoming my vote. It's just ridiculous to me that that 
sentence could be interpreted in any way to include what JKR is now 
misremembering or reinventing in her interview--a scene where 
Slughorn is galloping in with the Slytherins who left. It doesn't say 
that. It didn't happen. If that kind of interpretation works one 
might as well say that Voldemort won, Harry and Hermione wound up 
together and Hagrid died in canon. How can we say it "makes no sense" 
that Slughorn would have brought back the parents of students who 
stayed to fight when not only is that no more or less sensical than 
anything else, it's exactly what it says he did in canon. The "what 
looked like" imo does not refer to Harry misinterpreting who's there, 
but refers to the "every"--it looked like the parents of *every* 
student who stayed to fight. 

And what would be the point of this kind of bizarre, roundabout way 
of putting it if she means the Slytherins Harry saw leave and knows 
perfectly well by sight have returned? She gave us the image of 
Slughorn returning with the parents of non-Slytherins and 
shopkeepers. If that could really mean Harry needs new glasses and it 
was really his classmates he'd know by sight it could just as easily 
mean Slughorn had brought the Dursleys or the cast of Cheers. 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 16:24:24 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:24:24 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl7gue+7kn9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl8gno+5oir@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180123

Alla:
> <snip> but if you remember, some people DID assume
> that Slughorn coming back means his students did too,
> they sort of followed where JKR wanted them to, no?

Mike:
<SNIP>
:raising his hand: I was one of those, based on Phineas' comment,
that assumed *some* Slytherins came back with Slughorn, after my
first read through. I just assumed I missed it, or misremembered
what was actually written.

But the actual words do not include any Slytherins besides Horace.
That makes me agree with Magpie and lizzyben, it's not there.

I refuse to put stock in any JKR interview, they're not canon, imo.
I'm not going to be hypocritical and say, 'Obviously that's what JKR
intended, based on her interview' even if that would match my WW
view. What she intended and what she wrote are not the same.


Alla:

Oh, very good one of those readers, hehe. But you said that you only 
assumed it after your first read? Meaning that when you reread and 
did not find the explicit words there you changed your mind?

If I understood you correctly, this is not quite what I am talking 
about.  I am talking about reader who read what JKR wrote as vague 
enough ( what Carol said) to fill in the blanks that way.

I mean, there are plenty of places in canon where I fill in the 
blanks as I see fit. Sometimes it is in line with JKR's intent, 
sometimes probably not. But I think that as long as some reasons for 
filling in the blanks are in the text are there, it is totally 
reasonable.

For example, despite the fact that I totally did not predict the 
extent of DD puppet master, I always considered some of his actions 
to be in line with it, I just I guess tried to excuse his general 
character more than I should have been ( NOT for killings that he 
supposedly committed, I am talking only about his manipulativeness 
here).

In book 1, I always assumed that Dumbledore wanted to test Harry and 
forced the stone test upon him. I based this assumption on Harry's 
speech of Dumbledore's giving him a chance to face Voldemort, etc.

But you know, with this assumption come questions of such variety as 
how Dumbledore knew when it is going to happen, how he knew to leave 
the school, to come back, etc. I just filled in the blanks the way I 
saw fit. I think he arranged all that somehow. It is not written in 
canon, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to fill in the blanks 
that way, if you believe what Harry says in that little speech.

Another thing ? how Dumbledore knew what occurred in GH? I filled in 
the blanks at some point that Snape told him all about it, but when 
it was disproved, I absolutely thought that there was some kind of 
spell on the house to let him know. I assumed it at least couple 
months before JKR said so and would have think that way whether she 
would say it or not.

I think the same way about Slytherins coming back. It does not 
change my view all that much or none at all whether they come back 
or not, but like for example when we see Mcgonagall on the Quidditch 
pitch, we sort of assume that Gryffindor house is there watching, I 
do not see a need for JKR to explicitly mention it whether she does 
or not.

But you will tell me that the issue of Slytherins coming back is 
much more important than watching Quidditch. I will tell you no, I 
do not think so that it is so very important for JKR ? only for part 
of fandom IMO. I mean important in a sense that people argued unless 
Slytherins are redeemed, series are a failure.


I mean, I happen to think that the issue of whether Dumbledore 
killed anybody ( not contributed mind you, but killed) is of much 
more importance then whether some of Slughorn's students are back 
and it seems to be fine and in line with the books to just assume 
that he did, but when head of the house comes back with the crowd, 
where every single person is not named, it is not Ok to fill in the 
blanks that just maybe some of them are his students?

It is just strange to me. IMO of course.

Mike:
On such an important point as this, I can't give JKR the benefit
of the doubt. If she meant to **finally** show us that there really
were some *good* Slytherins, she had to write it plainly and clearly.
She didn't! After 4,076 pages (US editions) of showing us that
Slytherins are bad people, I refuse to assume what she may or may
not have wanted me to assume. To deny the Slytherin personae put
forth in those previous four thousand plus pages is completely
unrealistic, imo.

Alla:

Same question ? IS it such an important issue that it cannot be left 
to the readers to fill in the blanks? I think the issue of Harry 
winning the fight, speaking with Dumbledore, deciding what to do 
next ? was of utmost importance and needed to be spell out, but this 
one? Why?

I mean, it is not like she is saying that Slytherins become 
wonderful people now and Pansy Parkinson did not attempt to commit 
the ultimate betrayal. It is not like Slytherin house stopped having 
their poisonous ideology. It is all still there. All that she is 
saying in essence is the same thing that she said before ? they are 
not all bad. Um, in GoF even Harry sees few Slytherins that stand up 
for Cedric. I think it gives a rather big hint that they are not all 
bad. It is also IMO not like Harry would have been oh so very 
surprised had he specifically told us that some Slytherin students 
came back with Horace. I have not noticed him being very shocked 
when he sees Slughorn. It is also not like it is a big shock for him 
that Slytherin can be anti Voldemort ? witness Regulus. It is just a 
matter of whether few students come back, the ones who are over the 
age.

JKR showed me that Slytherins are not all bad people regardless of 
whether she wrote the words that some students come back with 
Slughorn. I see no problems filling in the blanks that some of them 
did.

JMO,

Alla





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Dec 30 16:45:51 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:45:51 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl6us8+4evo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl8hvv+c5k2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180124

Carol:
> I agree that what JKR wrote and what she thinks she wrote are
> different, but what she did write is sufficiently vague that it dpes
> not reclude the idea of Slughorn leading the (older) Slytherins (or
> some of them) into battle, along with non-DE Slytherin parents.
> Phineas Nigellus' boast about Slytherin playing its part makes more
> sense if Slughorn did, indeed, lead at least a handful of older
> Slytherins into battle. No doubt that's what JKR *intended.*
> Unfortunately, she didn't clearly transmit that intention to the reader.

Pippin:
But surely the ambiguity is intentional? We're supposed to be in
suspense about  whether Harry's feelings towards Slytherin have
changed, and remain so into  the epilogue. That can't happen if,
to borrow Potioncat's excellent phrase, heck *anyone* could see
that Slytherins aren't all bad. 

Besides which, it would be out of character for Harry to pick
Millicent, Blaise and Theo out of a crowd of strangers unless he
was looking for them, still less the three unnamed Slytherin 
witches of Harry's year and the sixth years, whom neither
Harry nor the reader would recognize without an introduction.
This is the kid who didn't know who Theo was, remember?
(I sympathize as I too have a terrible memory for names and
faces.) 

 Then we learn *how* Harry's feelings have changed but not why. 
We are encouraged to go back and re-read more carefully, at least 
from The Prince's Tale onward, both to resolve this and to understand 
what happened with the Elder Wand. 

It is not only Phineas's assertion that Slytherin played a part, but
also McGonagall's restoration of the house tables and the hall
being thronged with students who aren't sitting by house. That,
as I've said before, really doesn't make sense if no Slytherins
returned and the only ones present are the Malfoys sitting by
themselves.

Why leave it so ambiguous? IMO, because overcoming prejudice needs to
be about overcoming assumptions by ceasing to make them, not by
marshalling  contrary facts. What would you say about
someone who said, "I'll believe that blacks aren't inferior 
when somebody shows me that they're just as good as other
people" ?

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 17:33:17 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:33:17 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl8gno+5oir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl8kot+bcs4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180125

Alla wrote:
> 
> Oh, very good one of those readers, hehe. But you said that you only
assumed it after your first read? Meaning that when you reread and 
did not find the explicit words there you changed your mind?
> 
> If I understood you correctly, this is not quite what I am talking
about.  I am talking about reader who read what JKR wrote as vague
enough (what Carol said) to fill in the blanks that way.
> 
> I mean, there are plenty of places in canon where I fill in the 
blanks as I see fit. Sometimes it is in line with JKR's intent, 
sometimes probably not. But I think that as long as some reasons for
filling in the blanks are in the text are there, it is totally 
reasonable. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree. Setting aside JKR's statement of her intention (I don't trust
any author's "intention," and JKR's memory of what she wrote, or
intended, is as bad as her math), Phineas Nigellus's statement makes
no sense unless at least *some* Slytherin students (in my own mind,
those include Theo, Blaise, and Daphne Greengrass, future
sister-in-law of Draco Malfoy)), fought on Hogwarts's side in the battle.

Alla:
> Another thing ? how Dumbledore knew what occurred in GH? I filled in
the blanks at some point that Snape told him all about it, but when 
it was disproved, I absolutely thought that there was some kind of 
spell on the house to let him know. I assumed it at least couple
months before JKR said so and would have think that way whether she 
would say it or not.

Carol:
Where did you read that, Alla? Can you provide a link? I always
assumed that his sudden remembrance that the Potters were hiding in
Godric's Hollow told him that the Fidelius charm had been broken and
that the Potters were in danger or dead, and that he used the silvery
instruments in his office to determine what had happened. (Of course,
I also thought that snape had come rushing in to tell DD that his Dark
Mark had given him excruciating pain and then disappeared. Alas, I was
wrong on that point.)
> 
Alla:
> I think the same way about Slytherins coming back. <snip> I do not
see a need for JKR to explicitly mention it whether she does or not.
<snip>

Carol responds:
Same here, for the reasons I gave earlier. It makes more sense for
Slughorn to lead (or appear "at the head of" his own students than any
others). And Harry's quick glimpse of a crowd of adults and young
people certainly doesn't preclude that interpretation. Had the
narrator said, "Not a single Slytherin was among them," it would be
different. (I do wish, though, that she'd mentioned Theo Nott or
Blaise Zabini by name, and it would be delicious to see Blaise's
notoriously beautiful and presumably murderous mother fighting the DEs.)

Alla: 
> JKR showed me that Slytherins are not all bad people regardless of 
whether she wrote the words that some students come back with 
Slughorn. I see no problems filling in the blanks that some of them  did.

Carol:

I agree. (Of course, I already believed, most of the time, that Snape
was essentially good despite his acerbic personality and sardonic wit.)

Carol, who found the Scorpius Hyperion reference on JKR's website and
takes it as a sign of hope for Scorpius, along with the fact that
Draco did not marry Pansy Parkinson (whom we can hope remained
unmarried, along with Gregory Goyle)





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Dec 30 17:57:38 2007
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 30 Dec 2007 17:57:38 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/30/2007, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1199037458.8.47381.m55@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180126

Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday December 30, 2007
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2007 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20071230/63d77b8a/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec 30 18:44:19 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:44:19 -0000
Subject: Percy / Kreachur /  Snape /  Poison / Harry
Message-ID: <fl8ou3+liii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180127

Eggplant wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180038>:

<< If [Percy] had never existed how would the series be poorer? >>

Percy may have been invented to be the red herring in CoS. Where they
find him in a Diagon Alley junk shop reading a book called PREFECTS
WHO GAINED POWER, then keeping secrets about why he went to the
dungeons while the basilisk was attacking. 

Colebiancardi summarized chapter 10 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180052>

<<  Narcissa and Bellatrix were probably lovely to Kreacher and he did
them a favor. >>

This has never quite worked for me. Why would Narcissa be kinder to
Kreachur than she was to Dobby? Why would Bellatrix, who is Narcissa's
sister who was raised with her, be any kinder to House Elves than
Narcissa is? If Narcissa was being kind to Kreachur because she
figured she could use him in the Dark Lord's service, how could she
make crazy Bella also be kind to Kreachur? Bella doesn't seen able to
dissemble. 

Dobby said, back in CoS, that when the Dark Lord was in power, all
House Elves were treated like vermin. When the Dark Lord was in power,
Kreachur was not treated by vermin by at least one of his owners,
Regulus, who joined the Death Eaters.

Dobyy said Dobby was still treated like vermin, but the other House
Elves were better off now. I've always thought it unlikely that the
Dark Lord's reign would make wizards opposed to the Dark Lord any
crueler to House Elves than usual, but wizards siding with the Dark
Lord may have felt that they had been freed from any law against
abusing House Elves. Hermione said in this chapter that it was
perfectly normal for wizards, not just Dark wizards, to test a poison
on a House Elf, which suggests there was no law against abusing House
Elves, so why would they stop doing it?   

And why would the Black Family, which mounted House Elf heads on the
wall, and lobbied to decriminalize Muggle-hunting, produce a loyal son
with proper family pride, who was not only so kind to his House Elf as
to give his own life to avenge a wrong done to the House Elf, but was
also so naive as to be surprised that the Dark Lord had wronged a
House Elf? He expected the Dark Lord to be kinder than the average wizard?

And why wasn't Kreachur named Kreachy?

Brady wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180055>:

<< I still do feel, personally, that Snape should have been give the
honour of destroying one of them too, for all he has done. It would
have been a fitting act for one who was so brave. IMO, Neville could
have destroyed the diadem (need not necerraily with FiendFyre) and
Snape could have destroyed the Snake (before he died or better still
survived). Just my two pence for whatever its worth. >>

Alas, Rowling still disliked Snape even while she proclaimed his
courage, and wasn't about to give him any more glory. But as you
listed Crabbe as destroying one Horcrux (yes, I agree it was his
FiendFyre, but it wasn't his intention), it seems she didn't c0nsider
destroying a Horcrux to be a reward for heroic behavior.

Allie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180073>:

<< Here's a creepy thought - I can see Voldemort checking and double
checking his protections. Maybe Regulus wasn't the only one asked,
and Kreacher wasn't the only house elf that had to drink the poison.>>

Maybe he used humans under the Imperius Curse to drink the poison the
other times.

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180091>:

<< I suspect that Dumbledore and any of the other staff would have
forbid Harry to go after the [CoS] Monster. They would have taken his
information and gone themselves. But, again, Harry is not going to
waste precious hours trying to convince the adults. He is not going to
risk being told to 'go to bed' again when Ginny's life is at stake.
Above and beyond the call of duty, he is determined to take actions
NOW. >>

Well, actually, his original intention to do what an obedient kid
would do -- he had information, so he tried to give his information to
the staff member assigned to go after the monster. It was when
Lockhart followed his little speech bragging of his evilness by trying
to Obliviate Harry and Ron that they disarmed him in self-defense. I'm
not sure that at that point it was particularly logical to force
Lockhart to accompany them on the rescue mission. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 19:08:50 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:08:50 -0000
Subject: Percy / Kreachur /  Snape /  Poison / Harry
In-Reply-To: <fl8ou3+liii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl8qc2+qg3q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180128

Colebiancardi summarized chapter 10 in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180052>
> 
> <<  Narcissa and Bellatrix were probably lovely to Kreacher and he
did them a favor. >>
> 
> This has never quite worked for me. Why would Narcissa be kinder to
Kreachur than she was to Dobby? Why would Bellatrix, who is Narcissa's
sister who was raised with her, be any kinder to House Elves than
Narcissa is? If Narcissa was being kind to Kreachur because she
figured she could use him in the Dark Lord's service, how could she
make crazy Bella also be kind to Kreachur? Bella doesn't seen able to
dissemble. 
<snip>

Carol responds:

Colebiancardi is summarizing Hermione's position. Apparently, both
Hermione and JKR are forgetting that when Kreacher (n "u") originally
went to visit Narcissa over the Christmas holiday, Bellatrix was still
in prison. As for Narcissa treating Kreaacher nicely, possibly she
did. After all, he came to her and was known to be loyal to the Black
family (except "blood traitor" Sirius), so why not be nice to him and
coax out as much information from him as she could?

We can't know what happened, of course, but Narcissa, like Snape, can
be charming when she chooses.

Carol, agreeing that Bellatrix seems unable to dissemble and wondering
how she could possibly have taught Draco even the rudiments of Occlumency




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Dec 30 19:40:30 2007
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:40:30 -0000
Subject: Pottercast (was CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl628j+msvd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl8s7e+k6cd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180129

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...> wrote:
>
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/12/23/transcript-of-part-1-of-pottercast-s-jk-rowling-interview
>
Thanks for the link. I'm sorry I don't have anything to say about
Helga Hufflepuff, slave-mistress, except to ask whether the Leaky folk
arguing about it before Rowling came on reflects something previously
posted on the Web?

I jumped at: << There are two things I think that are too horrible,
actually, to go into detail about. (laughs) One of them is how
Pettigrew brought Voldemort back into a rudimentary body. (SU: Yeah.)
'Cause I told my editor what I thought happened there and she looked
as though she was gonna vomit. (SU and JN laugh) >>

I take it as confirmation for my theory that poor Bertha's womb was
the vessel, and her egg and Wormy's sperm were ingredients along with
Nagini's venom and a lot of magic.

<< If we're talking about prejudiced people within the Wizarding
world, what they care most about is your blood status. So I think you
could be gay, pureblood, and totally without any kind of criticism
from the Lucius Malfoys of the world. >>






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Dec 30 20:25:27 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 20:25:27 -0000
Subject: Sirius and his lawless ways WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl6n1h+grp5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl8urn+qb1i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180130

 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, yeah I understand that you listed events as others saw it.
> What I am disputing is whether Ma Black knew about them. 

Potioncat:
I've got it! Mrs. Black kept a list of Sirius's lawless ways and that 
list was in Slughorn's pajama pocket when he led all those Slytherins 
into battle at Hogwarts!

 
> Alla:
> 
> What I was trying to argue and apparently not very succesfully is
> that we do not know of what exactly "his lawless ways" mean.

Potioncat:
I know, and that's what I was wondering. I think rebellious would 
have been a better word. Now, did JKR choose "lawless" for a reason, 
or was she just careless?
 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Eh, I did consider Black's family POV in the past, really. I just do
> not deem it worthy of respect. Is it possible that Ma Black loved
> her son (Sirius) I mean at some point? I would say it is very likely
> BUT is it possible that she loved Sirius as of "who he is"? Well,
> no, not in my opinion.

Potioncat:
In this chapter we see Regulus from a different light and also, we 
see Kreacher differently. We see his devotion to Regulus who was 
doing a heroic deed. We also see that in many ways, Kreacher doesn't 
have any idea what is going on. 

Kreacher gave us a different PoV on Regulus and I was looking at how 
that new PoV affected what we know about Sirius. Regardless, it would 
not change the Blacks. They were not good people, nor were they good 
parents. As bad as Narcissa and Lucius are, I don't think they would 
have disowned Draco for anything.









From monalila662 at earthlink.net  Sun Dec 30 22:09:08 2007
From: monalila662 at earthlink.net (dillgravy)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:09:08 -0000
Subject: Damn Sorting Hat
Message-ID: <fl94u4+cf38@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180131

Perhaps this has been discussed, please don't egg me, but I can seem to figure out how in 
the heck Peter Pettigrew was sorted into Griffendor. I don't think he showed an ounce of 
bravery- exemplifying cowardice in every situation he was in. If you go just by his student 
life, it would seem even then he was a clear cut Slytherin. Any thoughts on this? Anyone have 
any real objections to some of the sorting that went on? I, personally, thought maybe Percy 
and Luna may have been sorted incorrectly as well. 




From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Dec 30 17:43:06 2007
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:43:06 -0500
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAr+P9JJ97JU6fMtEplC/66wEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 180132

M-

"Even the very sentence she's referring to says Slughorn 
returns with the relatives of the students who stayed to 
fight (no Slytherins there) and the shopkeepers in Hogsmeade 
(so not students). She actually did think it was a good idea 
to tell us who returned there. She just didn't say it was 
any Slytherins. So this is a place where for me, there's 
no question: what's written in the book far trumps the 
author's mis-remembering of the event. (JKR also thought 
Colin's camera didn't work at Hogwarts when it did in 
canon.) I "

I think that a few years down the road, when the dust 
settles, JKR should think about doing a revised edition 
of the books to fill in some of those holes and tighten 
up some of the inconsistancies, much as Katherine Kurtz 
is doing with some of the early Dernyi novels.

Bruce Alan Wilson

"The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. 
Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only 
the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Dec 30 22:21:33 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:21:33 -0000
Subject: Damn Sorting Hat
In-Reply-To: <fl94u4+cf38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl95ld+gbl1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180133

 "dillgravy" <monalila662 at ...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps this has been discussed, please don't egg me, but I can seem 
to figure out how in 
> the heck Peter Pettigrew was sorted into Griffendor. I don't think he 
showed an ounce of 
> bravery- exemplifying cowardice in every situation he was in. If you 
go just by his student 
> life, it would seem even then he was a clear cut Slytherin. Any 
thoughts on this? Anyone have 
> any real objections to some of the sorting that went on? I, 
personally, thought maybe Percy 
> and Luna may have been sorted incorrectly as well.



Potioncat:
Well, of course it's been discussed, but what hasn't? ;-)
It used to be a fun topic try to determine House-type for adult witches 
and wizards. Just seeing how much we disagreed show what a difficult 
job the Hat has.

Now that Harry tells Sevvie, I mean Al, that he can pick---well, why do 
they bother with the Sorting Hat at all!

As for Pettigrew. He doesn't have ambition, but he may be cunning, 
can't say. He's most likely pureblood. He isn't hard working or smart---
yet he managed to brew a tricky potion and carried out some complex 
dark magic. Bravery doesn't seem to enter in at all! Maybe he asked for 
it?





From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sun Dec 30 22:25:50 2007
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:25:50 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
Message-ID: <fl95te+45pc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180134

Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000 posts 
in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to stop so 
many posts?

We are continuing with chapter discussions of the last book.
A lot of readers had unanswered questions from the final book.
JKR interviews have added new insights into character backgrounds.

... so to me it seems as though there is still fuel to keep posts 
staying high until we finish the chapter discussions at least.

>From your own experience, was any of the suprising or shocking 
interviews turn you off JKR's writing? If so, seems like the "loyal 
fan base" she has enjoyed will not hurry out for her future works.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Dec 30 22:35:39 2007
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:35:39 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <fl95te+45pc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl96fr+emu7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180135

 "Hagrid" <aussie_lol at ...> wrote:
 
> From your own experience, was any of the suprising or shocking 
> interviews turn you off JKR's writing? If so, seems like the "loyal 
> fan base" she has enjoyed will not hurry out for her future works.


Potioncat:
It's been very difficult to get discussions going. Even the chapter 
discussions--for the most part---haven't generated a lot of print. 
There have been a few fairly strong threads, but just a few.

I think it's hard to discuss issues now that the books are done. It was 
much easier when a future book could prove your point correct--if only 
you had enough canon to back you up!

I'll be in line for her next book, and the one after that. There are 
flaws and problems within the series of HP books, but oh, what a 
wonderful web she wove!





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 22:44:11 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:44:11 -0000
Subject: Percy / KREACHER /  Snape /  Poison / Harry
In-Reply-To: <fl8ou3+liii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl96vr+8rjp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180136

---  "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> ...
> 
> Colebiancardi summarized chapter 10 in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180052>
> 
> <<  Narcissa and Bellatrix were probably lovely to Kreacher 
> and he didthem a favor. >>
> 
> Catlady:
>
> This has never quite worked for me. Why would Narcissa be 
> kinder to Kreacher than she was to Dobby? Why would Bellatrix,
> who is Narcissa's > sister who was raised with her, be any 
> kinder to House Elves than Narcissa is? If Narcissa was being
> kind to Kreachur because she figured she could use him in the
> Dark Lord's service, how could she make crazy Bella also be 
> kind to Kreacher? Bella doesn't seen able to dissemble. 
> 


bboyminn:

I see your point but I think you are looking from the wrong
perspective. You are assuming after Kreacher's arrival, he 
would be treated like a common servant; I don't see that as
likely.

Picture this -

Narcissa and Bella (N&B) are sitting around the dining room
sipping tea and rhapsodizing about what a hot stud Voldemort
is and how they would love to jump his bones. 

SNAP! Suddenly there stands the HouseElf of !!!SIRIUS BLACK!!!.
You don't see an element of curiosity rising here? What are 
they more likely to say 'Keacher, go bake us a cake' or 
'Kreacher come sit down and tell us when you are here'? 

I think curiosity is going to will out.

N&B: Kreacher, tell us why you have come?

K: Kreacher can not, Kreacher has been forbidden to tell
what is going on at the house of his mistress.

N&B: Ahhhh! So, there IS something going on at the House of
Black. What can you tell us Kreacher?

Blah blah blah

K: Kreacher can only tell you that Harry Potter is very fond
of Master Sirius.

N&B: Hummmm, maybe the Dark Lord can use that some how. 
Kreacher, wait here, we'll be right back. 

Blah blah blah etc....

Given Kreacher's tendency to mutter things as if no one can
hear him, it is likely he gave away enough to induce them
to ask the right questions, leading to the hatching of the
'Plan'. 

It hinges on which you think is the more likely reaction to
Kreachers sudden appearance -

'Kreacher, go bake us a cake.' 'Kreacher, go clean the toilet.'

or

'Kreacher, why are you here?'

Personally, 'why are you here?' wins out.


> Catlady continues:
> 
> And why wasn't Kreachur named Kreachy?
> 

bboyminn:

Because then his name wouldn't be strikingly similar to
'creature'. I think it is sort of a pun. Personally, even
though I know 'creature' is the preferred pronunciation,
I still call him 'Kretcher'. 


> ...
> 
> Allie wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180073>:
> 
> << Here's a creepy thought - I can see Voldemort checking 
> and double checking his protections. Maybe Regulus wasn't 
> the only one asked, and Kreacher wasn't the only house elf 
> that had to drink the poison.>>
> 
> Maybe he used humans under the Imperius Curse to drink the
> poison the other times.
> 

bboyminn:

I don't think so. That would be like hiding a treasure that
you didn't want anyone to find, then returning to it all the 
time and bringing a friend with you. That is not how you keep
a secret. I think once the enchantments were in place, he would
trust them to do the job. He would also trust the no one could
ever make the connection between Voldemort and the locations
he chose.

Notice, that when Voldemort takes Kreacher to the Cave, he is
finalizing that Horcrux hiding place and the protective 
enchantments. He drops the Locket Horcrux into the
container, and then plans to dispose of the only witness, and
to never needs to come there again. Who could even make the 
connection between the cave and Voldemort? Who would even 
think of coming to this highly enchanted and cursed place, and
having a look around. Seems very very unlikely.

It also seems very unlikely that anyone would come to the 
Gaunt shack. I'm guessing legends of hauntings and dark
happening would have permanently scared people off. 

Though, I could see the possibility of the nearest city 
declaring the place a hazardous eyesore, condemning it and
trying to tear it down. Still, the placed seemed reasonably
hidden from view, so the locals probably just put the dark
place out of their mind and ignored it. Likely Voldemort was
the rightful owner of the place, and as long as he paid his 
taxes, there probably wasn't much anyone could do. Further,
what wizard could even make the connection between Voldemort
and the Gaunts? Why would anyone ever even think of looking 
there unless Voldemort kept returning to the place and drawing
attention to it?

> Steve bboyminn wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180091>:
> 
> << I suspect that Dumbledore and any of the other staff would
> have forbid Harry to go after the [CoS] Monster. They would 
> have taken his information and gone themselves. But, again, 
> Harry is not going to waste precious hours trying to convince
> the adults. ... >>

>Catlady continues: 
>
> Well, actually, his original intention to do what an obedient
> kid would do -- he had information, so he tried to give his
> information to the staff member assigned to go after the 
> monster. It was when Lockhart followed his little speech 
> bragging of his evilness by trying to Obliviate Harry and 
> Ron that they disarmed him in self-defense. I'm not sure 
> that at that point it was particularly logical to force 
> Lockhart to accompany them on the rescue mission.
>

bboyminn:

Well, of course, I was giving the Short Version simply to 
make my point. Yes, in this case, Harry did go to the 
seemingly appropriate adult, naively thinking that Lockhart
was actually going to do his job. Also, naively not getting
the sarcasm behind the other staff setting Lockhart this job.

I think they took Lockhart with them because they knew that
this was a dark and dangerous job. Having the Defense Against
Dark Arts teacher, even if he was a bit of a phony, was to 
their advantage. Again, naively not realizing what a murderous
traitor Lockhart was.

But, regardless of the minor details, the point I was making
was that Dumbledore is not making Harry do anything. If fact
in every case, Harry is going against the wishes and sometimes
even the orders of the adults around him. Dumbledore isn't
pushing Harry, Harry is taking the initiative on his own, and
taking action above and beyond the call of duty. Ginny would
have died, but Harry could have reasonable stayed snug and
warm in his bed. I would not have been looked at as his
failure, but as a failure of the adults. Still Ginny would 
have been dead, and Harry simply could not stand by and let
that happen. But again, and most important, I don't see 
Dumbledore manipulating Harry into doing anything. 

Just a few thoughts.
Steve/bboyminn





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 22:52:44 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:52:44 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl6s3q+su2o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl97fs+go7r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180137

> Pippin:
> I'm saying it's not disrespectful of the Longbottoms to deprive 
> them of rights they can't use and which would endanger them.

a_svirn:
It isn't. It is neither disrespectful, nor respectful. Respect 
doesn't come into it. You are talking about two separate issues here. 
It wasn't the stuff of St. Mungo's who deprived the Longbottoms of 
their ability to use their free will ? the Lestranges did that. And 
they certainly didn't treat Neville's parents with respect. The stuff 
of St. Mungo's treats them with respect, but cannot return them their 
ability to use free will. 

> Pippin:
> As you say, the Longbottoms are treated with respect,
> though not by Draco who makes fun of mentally incapacitated people.
> 
> 
> It doesn't mean much to say the Longbottoms aren't "owned." 
> They are not free to leave St Mungo's or to make decisions about
> their care. 

a_svirn:
No, of course not. Theirs is a tragic story. Kreacher's story is a 
happy one, though. Unlike the Longbottoms Kreacher is conscious about 
his dependant state and happy about it. Not something that inspires 
respect, I'd say. I certainly don't remember Harry expressing his 
respect for Kreacher. Pity, disgust, sympathy, and pity again, but 
not respect. 


> Pippin:
> I don't think it's "using" Kreacher to *ask* him to perform tasks 
> which are within his ability and make him feel useful. 

a_svirn:
I don't quite see why you use quotation marks for "using", as though 
there is some doubt about Kreacher's being used. He most certainly is 
being used, and he is not being *asked*. He is being ordered. 

> Pippin:
It might be
> more harmful to him to refuse to give him any work. 

a_svirn:
It might. I still say that it does not inspire respect. 
> 
> 
> > a_svirn:
> > Was Lot a repentant sinner then? There was that dubious business 
with 
> > his daughters, but it happened after he left Sodom, and I am not 
sure 
> > he repented anyway. 
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> I was thinking of repentant sinners like King David (adultery), 
Moses
> (murder), Jonah (refusing to carry God's word to Ninevah) and Paul 
> (persecuting followers of Jesus). 

a_svirn:
None of whom is usually described as righteous though. Unlike Lot who 
is.

> Pippin: 
> Lot, IMO, wasn't saved because he was repentant but because he was 
> Abraham's nephew and because he did try to save his guests from 
> the citizens of Sodom (though by the hardly admirable expedient
> of offering his daughers instead.) 

a_svirn:
Yeah, I am with you on that one. But I have a feeling that our 
opinion is a trifle unorthodox. 
> 
> > a_svirn:
> > There is a big difference between considering hating all 
Slytherins 
> > as a duty and really hating them. Harry only really hated or 
> > distrusted people for personal reasons, not because of any 
principle.
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> This is way too convoluted for me. Do you see canon making any
> distinctions between hating people and "really" hating them?

a_svirn:
It would be way too convoluted for me too. But that's not what I 
said. I said that there is a difference between *considering* hating 
someone and really *hating* them. 

a_svirn




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Sun Dec 30 22:57:08 2007
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:57:08 -0900
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy / KREACHER /  Snape /  Poison / Harry
In-Reply-To: <fl96vr+8rjp@eGroups.com>
References: <fl96vr+8rjp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <DA1315EC-34FB-425D-9910-C6AB8A4183E9@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 180138


On 2007, Dec 30, , at 13:44, Steve wrote:

>> Allie wrote in
>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180073>:
>>
>> << Here's a creepy thought - I can see Voldemort checking
>> and double checking his protections. Maybe Regulus wasn't
>> the only one asked, and Kreacher wasn't the only house elf
>> that had to drink the poison.>>
>>
>> Maybe he used humans under the Imperius Curse to drink the
>> poison the other times.
>>
>
> bboyminn:
>
> I don't think so. That would be like hiding a treasure that
> you didn't want anyone to find, then returning to it all the
> time and bringing a friend with you. That is not how you keep
> a secret. I think once the enchantments were in place, he would
> trust them to do the job. He would also trust the no one could
> ever make the connection between Voldemort and the locations
> he chose.

How did all the Inferi get into the lake in the cave?  Did
Voldemort bring them there?  Banish them there?

Laura
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From Schlobin at aol.com  Sun Dec 30 23:15:19 2007
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:15:19 -0000
Subject: Percy / Kreachur /  Snape /  Poison / Harry
In-Reply-To: <fl8ou3+liii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl98q7+vdb8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180139

> Colebiancardi summarized chapter 10 in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180052>
<<  Narcissa and Bellatrix were probably lovely to Kreacher and
he did them a favor.>>

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:

> This has never quite worked for me. Why would Narcissa be
> kinder to Kreachur than she was to Dobby? Why would Bellatrix,
> who is Narcissa's sister who was raised with her, be any kinder
> to House Elves than Narcissa is? If Narcissa was being kind to
> Kreachur because she figured she could use him in the Dark
> Lord's service, how could she make crazy Bella also be kind
> to Kreachur? Bella doesn't seen able to dissemble.


Well, I don't know. Tom Riddle was known for his ability to be
charming and manipulative (to Hepzibah, Grey Lady, Dippet, etc.)
-- it might definitely be something the DEs would do once they
figured out that Kreacher might be useful to them.

Susan



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 23:29:14 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:29:14 -0000
Subject: Damn Sorting Hat
In-Reply-To: <fl95ld+gbl1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl99ka+l8v7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180140

---  "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  "dillgravy" <monalila662@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps this has been discussed, please don't egg me, but
> > I can seem to figure out how in the heck Peter Pettigrew 
> > was sorted into Gryffindor. I don't think he showed an 
> > ounce of bravery- exemplifying cowardice in every situation
> > he was in. If you go just by his student life, it would 
> > seem even then he was a clear cut Slytherin. Any thoughts
> > on this? Anyone have any real objections to some of the 
> > sorting that went on? I, personally, thought maybe Percy 
> > and Luna may have been sorted incorrectly as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Well, of course it's been discussed, but what hasn't? ;-)
> It used to be a fun topic try to determine House-type for
> adult witches and wizards. Just seeing how much we disagreed
> show what a difficult job the Hat has.
> 
> Now that Harry tells Sevvie, I mean Al, that he can pick---
> well, why do they bother with the Sorting Hat at all!
> 

bboyminn:

Well, I think you are misconstruing what Harry said to Albus.
The Hat didn't let Harry choose, and I suspect it will not
let other students choose, but it will take into 
consideration that fact that you chose to try and influence
the Hat, it will consider that you do have a preference. Having
a preference, in an of itself, says something about your 
character. 

I really don't see the Hat as accommodating. I think it tries
to see the true Self, even if you can't see the same in yourself,
and places you in the House you match. But that process weighs
a lot of factors, and one of those factors might be your
preference. But your preference could simply be that your
friend is Gryffindor and so you want to be Gryffindor too.
Yet, that shows an element of loyalty and friendship, elements
that are important to you, and are therefore relevant to the
Hat. 

But I flatly refuse to believe you can tell the Hat which 
House you want to be in, and it will comply, even if that
goes against what it see in your mind. 

> Potioncat:
>
> As for Pettigrew. He doesn't have ambition, but he may be 
> cunning, can't say. He's most likely pureblood. He isn't 
> hard working or smart---yet he managed to brew a tricky 
> potion and carried out some complex dark magic. Bravery 
> doesn't seem to enter in at all! Maybe he asked for it?
>

bboyminn:

I will remind you what I said when we discussed this before;
that there are all kinds of courage. Usually when we say
'courage' what we really mean is 'Heroic Courage', but I
think there is a darker and far less heroic kind of courage.

To some extent, Peter draws his courage from the 'group 
mentality' or in another sense, 'the mob mentality'. Peter is
courageous when he has courageous people with him. He was
brave enough to be come an animagus, and to use that skill
to break tons of school rules and go sneaking off on 
dangerous adventures.

Again, if we think of 'mob mentality' we see people who are
caught up in the moment, feeding of the mob frenzy, who do
exceptionally brave, though usually foolish things. I see
Peter in gross and subtle ways feeding off the courage of
the group.

Also, keep in mind that courage is not the absents of fear,
it is action even in the presences of fear. Peter takes 
action. Peter does things even when he is filled with fear.
If fact, sometime because he is filled with fear. Peter
returned to find Voldemort in Albania. That was not a
fearless task. Just traveling to Albania would be scary and
dangerous enough. Then wandering around the dark and rugged
forest for the specter of the darkest wizard in a century,
is no task for the faint of heart. 

So, Peter does display, time and time again, his own brand of
dark cowardly courage. His actions are never heroic, but he
does overcome great fear, and is motivated into action because
of that fear; and that is an odd off-brand of courage. 

If Peter were really a coward totally lacking in courage, I
think he would be paralyzed. I would be too afraid to act. 
Too afraid to ever do anything but cower in fear. But Peter
does take action, and that is a mark of his own dark courage.

Just my opinion.

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Dec 30 23:41:01 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:41:01 -0000
Subject: Percy / KREACHER /  Snape /  Poison / Harry
In-Reply-To: <DA1315EC-34FB-425D-9910-C6AB8A4183E9@acsalaska.net>
Message-ID: <fl9aad+5h8g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180141

---  Laura Lynn Walsh <lwalsh at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> On 2007, Dec 30, , at 13:44, Steve wrote:
> 
> >> Allie wrote in
> >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180073>:
> >>
> >> << Here's a creepy thought - I can see Voldemort checking
> >> and double checking his protections. Maybe Regulus wasn't
> >> the only one asked, ...>>
> >>
> >> Maybe he used humans under the Imperius Curse to drink the
> >> poison the other times.
> >>
> >
> > bboyminn:
> >
> > I don't think so. That would be like hiding a treasure that
> > you didn't want anyone to find, then returning to it all the
> > time and bringing a friend with you. That is not how you keep
> > a secret. I think once the enchantments were in place, he
> > would trust them to do the job. ...

> Laura:
> 
> How did all the Inferi get into the lake in the cave?  Did
> Voldemort bring them there?  Banish them there?
> 
> Laura
> -- 


bboyminn:

I'm assuming what you are getting at is that the many Inferi
are the bodies of people Voldemort brought with him when
he came to check the Locket. I suspect it is possible that
/some/ of them are, but also note that according to the books,
Voldemort had great armies of Inferi at his command during
the first war. So, I really don't think there was any 
shortage. 

I also suspect that some of them are just random wizards who
wandered in wondering why such an obscure and seemly 
meaningless cave had such a powerful aura of magic about it. 
When they went in to explore, one or more of the protective 
enchantment got them.

I don't see any reason to suspect they were all living 
individual brought there by Voldemort to keep testing his
protections. I think more likely they were just a small
portion of his existing army of Inferi.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Dec 30 23:58:46 2007
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:58:46 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <fl95te+45pc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl9bbm+diod@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180142

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" <aussie_lol at ...> wrote:
>
> Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000 posts 
> in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to stop so 
> many posts?
> 
> We are continuing with chapter discussions of the last book.
> A lot of readers had unanswered questions from the final book.
> JKR interviews have added new insights into character backgrounds.
> 
> ... so to me it seems as though there is still fuel to keep posts 
> staying high until we finish the chapter discussions at least.
> 
> From your own experience, was any of the suprising or shocking 
> interviews turn you off JKR's writing? If so, seems like the "loyal 
> fan base" she has enjoyed will not hurry out for her future works.

Geoff:
Speaking for myself, i've posted very rarely in the last few weeks. Why? 
Because many of the threads just don't grab me and, in several cases, they 
go round and round with same arguments being propounded by the same 
members who never seem to move their position and who seem to believe 
that if they say the same thing often enough, everyone else will accept their 
view....

...and who seem to believe that if they say the same thing often enough, 
everyone else will accept their view....

...and who seem to believe that if they say the same thing often enough, 
everyone else will accept their view....

<fades gently into silence>





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 00:03:42 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:03:42 -0000
Subject: Damn Sorting Hat
In-Reply-To: <fl95ld+gbl1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl9bku+hfhf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180143

"dillgravy wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps this has been discussed, please don't egg me, but I
can['t] seem to figure out how in the heck Peter Pettigrew was sorted
into Griffendor. I don't think he showed an ounce of bravery-
exemplifying cowardice in every situation he was in. If you go just by
his student life, it would seem even then he was a clear cut
Slytherin. Any thoughts on this? Anyone have any real objections to
some of the sorting that went on? I, personally, thought maybe Percy
and Luna may have been sorted incorrectly as well.

> Potioncat:
<snip>
> It used to be a fun topic try to determine House-type for adult
witches and wizards. Just seeing how much we disagreed show what a
difficult job the Hat has.
> 
> Now that Harry tells Sevvie, I mean Al, that he can pick---well, why
do they bother with the Sorting Hat at all!
> 
> As for Pettigrew. He doesn't have ambition, but he may be cunning,
can't say. He's most likely pureblood. He isn't hard working or
smart---yet he managed to brew a tricky potion and carried out some
complex dark magic. Bravery doesn't seem to enter in at all! Maybe he
asked for it?
>
Carol responds to both:

Do I detect a hint of cynicism from our cheerful Potioncat?

I don't think a child's choice is the only factor the hat considers,
especially since the Muggleborn kids wouldn't have a clue which House
they belonged in (unless, like Hermione, they did their research). I
think that the Hat really is looking for the characteristics that the
Founders would have wanted in their students and whether a kid would
fit in. If the kid really has a strong preference for, or aversion to,
a particular House, that might be the deciding factor, but in Harry's
case, it only meant "not Slytherin" despite the Slytherin traits the
Hat sensed in him (not all of which were necessarily the result of the
soul bit's presence). Family history would also play a role. (Why
Parvati and Padma ended up in different Houses, I have no idea. One of
them must have expressed a silent preference, or else, despite being
identical, they somehow had different personalities and abilities.)

I personally think that Percy ended up in Gryffindor because of family
history and because he simply *expected* to go there. He wasn't at
odds with his family at that point, he shows courage both at the QWC
and in the Battle of Hogwarts, so he wasn't out of place; and the
Twins in their own way are as ambitious as he is. Luna, I think, is
properly Sorted. She's very smart, just not as dependent on books (or
not the same books) as Hermione is. She's the one who figured out that
they should fly on Thestrals to the MoM, and she easily answered the
Ravenclaw common room's riddle. (She's also evidently artistically
gifted, but there's no House for that.) Many a genius has been
regarded, with reason, as eccentric if not "loony."

As for Pettigrew, I think he was the Muggle-born DE that JKR hinted at
in an interview (unless she was referring to Stan Shunpike). If that
were the case, he certainly wouldn't have been Sorted into Slytherin.
He may have overheard Sirius and James talking about Gryffindor and
wanted to be with them. Either that, or the Sorting Hat sensed a seed
of courage in the heart of the fattest and most timid Hob--erm,
Wizard. I think that Peter was both smarter and more talented than his
friends gave him credit for, but he was also lazy, if his Scabbers
persona is any indication, so he probably didn't want to work hard or
be an intellectual. He wasn't loyal, either, as he later proved. So if
he couldn't be Sorted into Slytherin despite being cunning (I see no
sign of ambition in him) because he was Muggleborn, and he wasn't
loyal or hard-working enough for Hufflepuff, the Hat would have had to
look either for preference or for a hint of courage or intellect and
made the best of a bad fit. Maybe Peter had already figured that James
and Sirius were about to become the biggest bullies on the playground,
known that James, at least, wanted to go to Gryffindor, and made his
choice based on that. (Lily, BTW, may have wanted to go into Slytherin
to be with Sev but been placed in Gryffindor because neither her
personality nor her Muggle-born status qualified her for that House.)

Carol, who thinks that the real reason those students got Sorted into
those Houses is that JKR wanted them there





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 00:40:10 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:40:10 -0000
Subject: Kreacher
In-Reply-To: <fl98q7+vdb8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl9dpa+9e4m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180144

Colebiancardi summarized chapter 10
> <<  Narcissa and Bellatrix were probably lovely to Kreacher and
> he did them a favor.>>
> 
Catlady wrote:
> 
> > This has never quite worked for me. Why would Narcissa be kinder
to Kreachur than she was to Dobby? Why would Bellatrix, who is
Narcissa's sister who was raised with her, be any kinder to House
Elves than Narcissa is? <snip>

Susan responded:
> Well, I don't know. Tom Riddle was known for his ability to be
> charming and manipulative (to Hepzibah, Grey Lady, Dippet, etc.)
> -- it might definitely be something the DEs would do once they
> figured out that Kreacher might be useful to them.

Carol notes:
Forgive me for repeating myself, but Bellatrix was not present when
Kreacher was ordered "out!" of 12 GP by Sirius Black and went to
Sirius's cousin, Narcissa, "the only Black family member for whom he
had any respect left," as DD puts it (OoP Am. ed. 830). Granted,
Kreacher also respected, indeed adored, Miss Bellatrix, but she was in
Azkaban at the time.

Kreacher disappears just as Harry and the Weasleys arrive at 12 GP at
the beginning of the Christmas holiday (473) and reappears right after
Christmas, having ostensibly been hiding in the attic (516). Bellatrix
and her fellow DEs don't escape until the night of Harry's first
Occlumency lesson, which happen in the evening of his first day back
at Hogwarts (543-45).  

Evidently, either Hermione or JKR or both forgot that Bellatrix was
not present when Kreacher had his conversation with Miss Narcissa,
though very likely Lucius was. (Draco, BTW, would have been home for
the Christmas holiday, but I doubt that he was present or he'd have
dropped some snide hint to Harry.)

Carol, wishing that JKR would consult her own books to make sure that
they don't dontradict one another





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 01:45:14 2007
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 01:45:14 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <fl7gue+7kn9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl9hja+l68o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180145

> Mike:
<snip>
> I refuse to put stock in any JKR interview, they're not canon, imo.
> I'm not going to be hypocritical and say, 'Obviously that's what JKR 
> intended, based on her interview' even if that would match my WW 
> view. What she intended and what she wrote are not the same.

lizzyben:

This is a pretty good policy IMO, but JKR herself says that her
interview statements should be considered canon & part of the
"official version" of the series.

"It gives me a certain satisfaction actually to say what I thought
happened ... and to tell other people that. Because I would like my
version to be the official version still, even though I've not written
it in a book. Because it's my world."

I think Carol posted about the "author is dead" school of thought,
which holds that the text is the only thing that matters, and the
author's own statements of intent/interpretation are meaningless. But
how can the author be dead when the author is alive & kicking &
insisting that her interpretation (or changing) of events is the only
correct way to view them? It's even worse because she sometimes
contradicts herself in interviews (e.g. saying both that Ron is an
auror & that he is working at the joke shop.) So.. are both versions
the official version of Potterverse reality?


> Mike,
> asking lizzyben what "ret-coning" means?


lizzyben:

Retcon is short for "retroactive continuity". This happens when an
author changes established past facts & events from the series. It
happens a lot in comic books & soap operas because they have so many
episodes, but it's usually seen as a cop-out and bad writing. For
example, "Dallas" brought a character back to life who'd been dead for
two years by claiming that the last two years of the series were just
a dream. 

Retcons occur in the fictional series itself. As if in HP8, Harry
complained that the Slytherins didn't return for the battle, and
Hermione told him "Oh, didn't you notice, they all came back with
Slughorn!" "So they're not all evil!" That would be a retcon. But here
the fictional series is already finished, and JKR is attempting to
change things that have already occurred in the novels, purely through
outside statements & interviews. So this is actually a post hoc
retcon, which I'm not sure has ever been attempted before. JKR's
breaking bold new ground here.


lizzyben




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 03:15:03 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:15:03 -0000
Subject: What are House Elves (was: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale)
In-Reply-To: <fl613v+kr67@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl9mrn+eurd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180146

> Carol responds:
> I don't understand the bit about Kreacher's "betraying" Sirius 
> Black.

Mike:
I'm not sure what else to call it, so I used the term that was used 
in canon.
"You see, Kreacher was not able to betray us totally..." ^1
"He knew that Kreacher . . . but the idea of owning him, of having 
responsibility of the creature that had betrayed Sirius . . ."^2

That's DD in OotP and Harry in HBP. I'll try another way. See below.


> a_svirn:
> Oh, no. She isn't. She is loyal solely to Mr. Crouch Sr. Honestly, 
> Mike, she has been acting as a *jailer* to young Barty ? <snip>
> 
> If you say that she loved both, I would agree. She loved Barty, 
> perhaps even more that she did his father, but she was loyal 
> exclusively to the latter. <snip>

Mike:
OK, Winky "loved" both of the Crouches, that works for me. But can I 
add to that with, "Winky keeps her master's secrets..."^3  Maybe 
that's what I was looking for. Kreacher's "betrayal" was a matter of 
revealing his master's secrets. Say Winky had known that Barty Jr was 
disguised as Moody, would Winky have told anyone that? She actually 
remarks that "we is getting in trouble" when Barty Jr is revealing 
secrets under veritaserum.

Even Dobby didn't reveal the Malfoy's secrets, he never came out and 
told Harry of the Diary that Lucius had. He never actually 
participated in a plot that ran counter to his master's objectives. 
Dobby just wanted Harry to be safe, he did nothing that would thwart 
Lucius from getting his revenge on the Weasleys. Kreacher not only 
revealed things about Sirius to Narcissa, he actively took part in 
the plot to get Harry to the MoM.

How should we interpret the House Elf condition? They speak in 
simplistic terms and for the most part adopt their master's positions 
towards others. They keep their master's secrets and aren't supposed 
to speak ill of them. Only Dobby called this condition "enslavement", 
the rest of them and DD, if I'm remembering correctly, called it 
their "enchantment". Their reason d'etre is to serve.

So, are house elves cognizant of their master's political leanings, 
or are they simply reiterating what they've heard their masters say 
about a particular subject? Does their internalizing of their 
master's positions mean they understand the ramifications of those 
positions, or are they reacting instinctively with just a little more 
intelligence than a dog?

To my way of thinking, house elves as a group may be magical beings, 
but they have only the intelligence needed to perform their duties 
according to their enchantment. Kreacher doesn't understand Harry's 
question about escaping the Cave's Inferi. He doesn't comprehend the 
meaning behind the question, because he only knows he did as he was 
told by his master. The esoterics of the question eludes Kreacher, 
even though he too is a magical being.

Dobby's simplistic approach to thwart Harry's return to Hogwarts, and 
his follow up effort to get him to leave doesn't show significant 
depth of thought. I'll take the approach that House Elves are simple 
minded automatons, for the most part, unless someone wants to 
convince me otherwise.


> a_svirn:
> Sirius had rebelled against his family. I think it is only  
> fair that his family paid him back by disowning him 
> <snip> 
> Sirius rebelled against the family, and Kreacher rebelled 
> against Sirius. Seems logical to me.

Mike:
The family disowned Sirius, sure, I've no problem with that. Kreacher 
taking it upon himself to rebel against Sirius on behalf of the rest 
of the deceased Black family is what I'm not buying. 

If Kreacher was shown as inable to move off the dime towards 
transferring his allegiences, as seen in OotP and HBP, I'd have 
bought it. But in DH, Kreacher comes to think of Harry as his master. 
So it should have been easy for him to transfer his allegience to 
Sirius, an actual Black. Because Kreacher was ultimately just a 
normal house elf, he wasn't possessed of strange ideas like Dobby.

Kreacher's desires, if one can call them that, were no different than 
your standard, run-of-the-mill elf, like Winky. He should have 
welcomed Sirius back, been pleased to have a master to serve again. 
He should never have gone to Narcissa and for sure never taken part 
in a plot that ran counter to his master's desires, something even 
Dobby doesn't do.




> > Mike: 
> > Shouldn't Kreacher have had more of a reason to betray Sirius 
> > than he broke his mother's heart by leaving? Shouldn't his 
> > returning have been an occasion for celebration for Kreacher? 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Was it a cause for celebration for Walburga?

Mike:
If it broke her heart when Sirius left, as Kreacher seems to believe, 
then wouldn't it have been joyful if he were to return? Shouldn't 
that be the thinking of Kreacher if he is just mimicking his dead 
mistress' attitudes?

I'm not counting the portrait of Walburga, mind you. She was little 
more than than a raving banshee, screaming at everything and 
everyone. I'm talking of the live Walburga and the way Kreacher would 
have interpreted her reaction to Sirius moving out and abandoning all 
things Black.




> a_svirn:
> I still don't think Harry has ever seen elves as group. From the 
> get go he treated Dobby as an individual. <snip>
> It is more of Hermione's thing. 

Mike:
That's what I was unsuccessfully trying to say. Harry looks upon 
every being as an individual until he learns to see differently from 
his friends (Ron) or how the rest of the WW treats them as a whole.
When The Trio meet Winky, Ron says "So that's a house-elf".^4 Harry 
then meets a whole lot more of them at Hogwarts. He soon lumps Winky 
in with the rest, albeit as a dismissed house elf. He starts to look 
at them as a species, not as individuals. Dobby was a special case 
from the beginning and stayed a special case because of his oddball 
leanings.

Kreacher is a repeat of Winky, for Harry. He sees an elf still 
beholden to his ex-master, not accepting his new master. He breaks 
the code when he empathizes with Kreacher's feelings for Regulus. He 
stops thinking of Kreacher as another house elf in the generic sense, 
and treats him as a separate entity who has feelings that count.



> a_svirn:
> No, he doesn't. He treats Kreacher with kindness, yes. But it is 
> impossible to treat your own slave with respect. The fact that you
> own him or her is already somewhat disrespectful, wouldn't you say?

> Pippin:
I can't answer for Mike, obviously, but...
Disrespectful of what? <

Mike:
Sure you can, Pippin. ;) But, a_svirn, I think you're doing what 
Hermione did, assigning human values to house elves. What is respect 
as far as Kreacher is concerned? Serving the noble house of Black is 
my answer. That's what Harry gives back to Kreacher and suddenly 
Harry is his new master. Sirius never gave that back to Kreacher 
because Sirius couldn't get over his hatred for everything Black. 
Still, I don't get why Kreacher shouldn't be pleased to have a Black 
to serve again. Maybe something happened off page that we're not 
aware of?



> a_svirn:
> Out of all of the above only three count as decent, though. 
> Definitely not enough to redeem the House. <snip>

Mike:
I wasn't talking about redeeming Slytherin. I was pointing out how 
most of these people exhibited an individuality that caused Harry to 
re-assess thinking of them as just another Slytherin.

> a_svirn:
>  All in all I'd say Harry could be pardoned if he saw all 
> Slytherins as a group, and an unpleasant one at that. But in 
> fact his attitude towards them was always personal <snip>

Mike:
I disagree. I think Harry started out thinking of individuals, but 
during his time in the WW came to think of all Slytherins as 
belonging to that hated class of people that align themselves with 
Voldemort. He's not simple minded, like the elves, so he understands 
there are degrees of Slytheriness. It's not until DH when he becomes 
aware of Slytherins that actually fought against Voldemort that he 
modifies his view of *all* Slytherins. 

Mike
*****************
^1 OotP, p. 831
^2 HBP, p. 52
^3 GoF, p. 382
^4 GoF, p. 99




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec 31 03:15:45 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 03:15:45 -0000
Subject: Percy / Kreachur /  Snape /  Poison / Harry
In-Reply-To: <fl8ou3+liii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fl9mt1+t689@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180147

Catlady:
> Colebiancardi summarized chapter 10 in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/180052>
> 
> <<  Narcissa and Bellatrix were probably lovely to Kreacher and he did
> them a favor. >>
> 
> This has never quite worked for me. Why would Narcissa be kinder to
> Kreachur than she was to Dobby? Why would Bellatrix, who is Narcissa's
> sister who was raised with her, be any kinder to House Elves than
> Narcissa is?

Pippin:
Because Kreacher was not a  rebellious House Elf in the same sense
that Dobby was. Kreacher had no problems with his place in the WW,
only with his lawless master. 

Catlady:
 Bella doesn't seen able to dissemble. 

Pippin:
She talked her way out of Azkaban the first time, according to Sirius in GoF.
That's why she was at large and could attack the Longbottoms. She may
have lost some of her abilities in Azkaban of course, but I think she more
likely lost the motivation. 

Catlady:
> And why would the Black Family, which mounted House Elf heads on the
> wall, and lobbied to decriminalize Muggle-hunting, produce a loyal son
> with proper family pride, who was not only so kind to his House Elf as
> to give his own life to avenge a wrong done to the House Elf, but was
> also so naive as to be surprised that the Dark Lord had wronged a
> House Elf? He expected the Dark Lord to be kinder than the average wizard?

Pippin:
Sirius speaks of his brother as 'soft' and having an
idealized view of what his own family and Voldemort were like. 

Bizarre as it seems the Blacks could have regarded beheading their aged
House Elves as a kindness. We've seen that House Elves do not
lose the compulsion to serve when they become too weak or incapacitated
to carry out their orders. They, like the DE's, are doomed to a lifetime of
service or death. 

Pippin




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 03:29:56 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:29:56 +0800
Subject: JKR=MAC (Was: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character)
In-Reply-To: <fl9hja+l68o@eGroups.com>
References: <fl9hja+l68o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47786234.1020905@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180148

lizzyben:

> JKR herself says that her interview statements should 
 > be considered canon & part of the "official version" of the series.

She said more than that, actually.

> "...Because I would like my version to be the official version 
 > still, even though I've not written it in a book. Because it's
 > my world."

This statement doesn't limit the "official version" to just interview 
statements. "My version" could encompass anything, including thoughts 
she's never spoken aloud. And that is problematic, to say the least, on 
so many levels. She's attempting a level of control over her works -- 
and even her readers' experiences of her works -- that is both 
unprecedented and impossible. It's sheer hubris.

I've said this before, but the WW of MY experience is not entirely of 
JKR's creation. We all bring our own backgrounds, imaginations and 
personalities to bear on the interpretation of what we read, and no two 
of us can read the same book and come away with the same experience 
(imagine if we did; there'd be no need for discussion. This and every 
other HP discussion forum would instantly vanish in a puff of logic 
(with respect to Douglas Adams)).

I, through my imagination and experience, played a creative role as 
well. And JKR's attempt to read over our shoulders, correct every 
interpretive act we perform that doesn't meet with her approval, and 
dictate the reading experience we must have is patronizing.

Carol is right. Once JKR's works were published, the author died to them.

My hat's off to you lizzyben. I tried to be polite as you, but I 
couldn't do it. JKR's really starting to annoy me. Fortunately, I AM 
free to ignore her interviews, JKR's own wishes on the subject 
notwithstanding.


CJ (who has to go now, because his daughter is asking him to interpret a 
book with her)



From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Dec 31 03:40:17 2007
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:40:17 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pottercast (was CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale
In-Reply-To: <fl8s7e+k6cd@eGroups.com>
References: <fl628j+msvd@eGroups.com> <fl8s7e+k6cd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40712301940j653d0f7bk6a661d2d0c28eb06@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180149

>  Catlady:
>  I jumped at: << ...snip quote... >>
>
>  I take it as confirmation for my theory that poor Bertha's womb was
>  the vessel, and her egg and Wormy's sperm were ingredients along with
>  Nagini's venom and a lot of magic.

Kemper now:
I was under the impression that Baby!Mort already existed prior to Bertha.
My thought is that Peter impregnated (physically, not by petri dish)
Nagini.  Vapor!Mort used Dark Magic to break Nature's separation of
species to possess one of Nagini's eggs.  Ick!  Peter ick!!!  ::throws
up in mouth... swallows::  yughk

That Peter is a dirty birdy.

Kemper, shipping Petigini, or is it Naginigrew?



From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 04:22:42 2007
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 12:22:42 +0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <fl9bbm+diod@eGroups.com>
References: <fl9bbm+diod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <47786E92.9060604@yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180150

"Hagrid" <aussie_lol@ ...> wrote:

> Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000 posts
> in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to stop so
> many posts?

Who knows? For myself, I think some of the flaws of the final book have 
dampened my enthusiasm for the series (much the same way as I stopped 
watching the first Matrix movie because the second and third were such 
disasters).

But I think in part the end of the series means a loss of a sense of 
anticipation and a sense of futility in the unknown. Loss of 
anticipation because nothing more will happen, and the sense of futility 
because any unknowns will stay unknown (no, JKR's interviews don't 
count). That seems to have taken away some of the point of -- or at 
least the motivation for -- discussion.

And to reply to another point, I don't expect I'll be first in line for 
the next JKR book.

CJ



From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Dec 31 04:33:53 2007
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:33:53 EST
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
Message-ID: <c7c.1dd7ce47.34a9cb31@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180151

 

M-

"Even the very sentence she's referring to says Slughorn  
returns with the relatives of the students who stayed to 
fight (no  Slytherins there) and the shopkeepers in Hogsmeade 
(so not students). She  actually did think it was a good idea 
to tell us who returned there. She  just didn't say it was 
any Slytherins. So this is a place where for me,  there's 
no question: what's written in the book far trumps the 
author's  mis-remembering of the event. (JKR also thought 
Colin's camera didn't work  at Hogwarts when it did in 
canon.) I "


 
Julie:
To be technical, the narrator did not state categorically that 
the group consisted only of relatives of students who stayed to
fight and shopkeepers. The narrator, speaking through Harry, said
"They *seemed* to have returned with what *looked like* the families
and friends...etc:
 
Both "seemed" and "what looked like" indicate that this is Harry's  best
guess upon his quick glance at the group. I agree if Harry immediately  saw
a Slytherin he recognized, like Blaise or Millicent, he would have stated 
so. But because he didn't see them or someone he recognized as being
a Slytherin or related to one doesn't mean they were not there. It may 
make the chances lesser, but the chance is still there, and it's these 
moments that are clearly part assumption in the books which allow us  to 
decide for ourselves exactly what is the "fact" of the matter.
 
For me, getting to deduce (and yes, choose), some of the  Slytherins and 
their 
families *did* come back, and were part of the Slytherins who did their  part
mentioned by Phineas. But that's my choice :-)
 
Julie 



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 04:34:13 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:34:13 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <47786E92.9060604@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <fl9rg5+keoo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180152

> "Hagrid" <aussie_lol@ ...> wrote:
> 
> > Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000 
posts
> > in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to stop so
> > many posts?
<SNIP>


Alla:

To me the answer is very simple, really. Canon is closed and untill 
encyclopedia and new interviews ( if you consider them canon of 
course) nothing new is coming up.

A lot of speculation is not possible any more, even though IMO some 
things are still open for it, but certainly we cannot speculate about 
end anymore, etc.

So while I think that there is still a lot to discuss about canon 
itself, the death of speculation IMO is one of the main reason to 
decrease the posting volume.

I think while we have very slow days, we still doing fine.


So that's my answer. I cannot predict what is going to happen soon - 
maybe the volume will permanently decrease eventually, but as long as 
there are some topics to discuss, I am sure there will be people to do 
it.

Call me optimist :)

And yes, I will be on line for her new book with anticipation.

Alla




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 06:28:13 2007
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:28:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale - Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <fl48g6+pjai@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <fla25t+sga@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180153


Mike:
Let me start with a Dumbledorian quote, told to Snape just after
the argument in the forest in HBP:

"We have protected him because it has been essential to teach him,
to raise him, to let him try his strength," <HBP p. 687, US Ed.>

Since Harry has done nothing to "try his strength" at this point in 
HBP, and since DD was clearly trying to keep the information of the 
prophesy *from* Harry in OotP, this kind of forces us to assume DD 
was referring to things Harry got up to in the first four books.


[PS/SS]
> bboyminn:
> 
> True Dumbledore built the series of chambers to protect the
> Stone and may have even thought Harry might have a go at it.
> But how did he manipulate Harry into doing it? He didn't as
> far as I'm concerned. <snip>

Mike:
Let's look at those chambers, shall we?
1) Getting past Cerberus,... I mean Fluffy. One had to get the 
secret out of Hagrid. Who did Dumbledore send to gather up Harry and 
introduce him to the WW? What were the chances Hagrid would take a 
shine to the boy?
2) Herbology with Devil's Snare. They'll have to be able to conjure 
fire. Hmm, any one of the Trio any good at that?
3) Quidditch Seeking, but of a slow flying key. Questions?
4) Transfiguration. What did they have to transfigure, you say? Well, 
nothing actually. They had to play chess. Is one of them any good at 
this?
5) Fun with Trolls. Ooh, finally something daunting. But wait, they 
already beat one of those. And, since they would be following 
Quirrell, they probably wouldn't have to defeat this one anyway.
6) Potions. What did they have to brew up? Uh, nothing,... again. 
It's a logic puzzle.
7) Divination. Well, what else should I call the Mirror of Erised? 
Anyway, I believe our charming headmaster accidently let slip how 
this thing works.

We only know that Fluffy was set up before school starts. The others 
could have been set up or changed later. So who were these chambers 
set up for? Who could "try his strength" overcoming these? Was there 
any chance Quirrell would gain the stone without Harry? No! So these 
chambers would be there for if-ever or whenever Harry decided to try 
his strength. Maybe DD did nothing to prompt Harry, or maybe he 
played on the boy's fear of Voldemort returning, during some of those 
times when Harry didn't know DD was watching him.


[CoS]
> bboyminn:
> 
> Again, I disagree, where is the proof, or even the indication,
> that Dumbledore knew what was harassing the castle? He knew
> /something/ was petrifying people, he knew it was probably
> the Slytherin monster, he knew it probably hid in the 
> Chamber of Secrets. But he didn't know what it was or where 
> it was. He knew there was /A/ Chamber of Secrets but he
> didn't know where it was or how to get in.

Mike:
This one is a little more dicey, I might have to give you this one. 
Though I doubt very much that Dumbledore didn't know what kind of 
monster petrifies it's victims, or kills without marking. I don't 
have a copy of FB, how many beasties in there turn their victims to 
stone?

DD also knew *who* opened the CoS, just not *how*. Knew the *who* 
spoke Parceltongue and that Harry did as well.

My problem here was DD looking at Harry and Ron, while they are 
under the IC in Hagrid's hut, and giving them the "those that ask for 
help" line. Then his faithful Phoenix provides the help, in more ways 
than one. Then we come to find that DD has been reinstated and is 
waiting in McGonnagall's office when the adventurers emerge from the 
Chamber. There are a few too many coincidents here for me to believe 
DD had no part in Harry's rescue attempt.


[PoA]
> bboyminn:
> 
> OK, this one I will /sort of/ give you. 

Mike:
I'll take it. ;)


[GoF]
> bboyminn:
> 
> Again, this isn't about Albus, it's about Harry. <snip>  Harry 
> could have coasted through the tournament and been quite safe.
> He could have participated according to the rule of the Binding
> Magical Contract, and still have been safe.

Mike:
This one is definitely the strongest one on the board. First off,
we have a long dormant tournament being resurrected in a mighty 
convenient timeframe, and Dumbledore is key to getting this done. 
Second, this whole thing with the "magical contract" should obviously 
not have applied to Harry, yet DD cleverly convinces all that it 
does. 



> bboyminn:
> 
> But Harry's determination to win, to succeed against all odds,
> it's the driving factor here. It seems that 'tanking it' is 
> what everyone expected Harry to do.

Mike:
Don't you think Dumbledore has taken the measure of Harry by now? I 
don't think Dumbledore expected Harry to "tank it". On the contrary, 
I think Dumbledore was counting on Harry's sense of honor to do his 
best.


> bboyminn:
> 
> Once again, we have a case of Harry going 'above and beyond
> the call of duty' when he really doesn't have to. 

Mike:
No argument here. But we wouldn't have much of a story if Harry 
wasn't the type of character to go "above and beyond".


> bboyminn:
> 
> Dumbledore, in my opinion, isn't polishing Harry, he is simply
> allowing Harry to shine.

Mike:
I harkin back to the quote. Teach him, raise him, try his strength. 
It makes no sense if Dumbledore was this master manipulator claiming 
these objectives for Harry's education, yet all these tests for Harry 
were purely accidental.



> bboyminn:
> 
> True, I must admit that Dumbledore is aware that Harry has 
> a dark, dangerous, and deadly path ahead of him, and that,
> whether he wants to or not, Voldemort will force Harry to 
> meet his ultimate fate. But, I really don't see this as
> Dumbledore's fault.

Mike:
Not his fault, Steve, his objective.




From lwalsh at acsalaska.net  Mon Dec 31 07:02:37 2007
From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:02:37 -0900
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <fl95te+45pc@eGroups.com>
References: <fl95te+45pc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <76E4FD38-0C9C-4D91-AE6C-203344DA6F65@acsalaska.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 180154


On 2007, Dec 30, , at 13:25, Hagrid wrote:

> Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000 posts
> in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to stop so
> many posts?

I am not sure, but I have actually been posting more than
I did before - a combination of more time and the ability to
get a word in edgewise, so to speak.

Laura W.
-- 
Laura Lynn Walsh    lwalsh at acsalaska.net
http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 14:15:47 2007
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:15:47 -0000
Subject: What are House Elves (was: CHAPDISC: DH10, Kreacher's Tale)
In-Reply-To: <fl9mrn+eurd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flatij+d3m4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180155

> Mike:
> Even Dobby didn't reveal the Malfoy's secrets, he never came out 
and 
> told Harry of the Diary that Lucius had. He never actually 
> participated in a plot that ran counter to his master's objectives. 
> Dobby just wanted Harry to be safe, he did nothing that would 
thwart 
> Lucius from getting his revenge on the Weasleys. Kreacher not only 
> revealed things about Sirius to Narcissa, he actively took part in 
> the plot to get Harry to the MoM.

a_svirn:
Of course he did. He rebelled against Sirius (as far as he was able). 
Good for him. 

> Mike:
> How should we interpret the House Elf condition? They speak in 
> simplistic terms and for the most part adopt their master's 
positions 
> towards others. They keep their master's secrets and aren't 
supposed 
> to speak ill of them. Only Dobby called this 
condition "enslavement", 
> the rest of them and DD, if I'm remembering correctly, called it 
> their "enchantment". Their reason d'etre is to serve.

a_svirn:
Yes, but not to any master. They want to serve a good and true 
master. Kreacher simply did not accept Sirius as one. Because Sirius 
had rebelled against his family and was disowned by them. 

> Mike: 
> So, are house elves cognizant of their master's political leanings, 
> or are they simply reiterating what they've heard their masters say 
> about a particular subject? 


a_svirn:
I think Hermione answered this particular question. They aren't 
concerned in the wizarding politics. They only want to serve their 
true masters' interests. 


> Mike:
Does their internalizing of their 
> master's positions mean they understand the ramifications of those 
> positions, or are they reacting instinctively with just a little 
more 
> intelligence than a dog?
> 
> To my way of thinking, house elves as a group may be magical 
beings, 
> but they have only the intelligence needed to perform their duties 
> according to their enchantment. Kreacher doesn't understand Harry's 
> question about escaping the Cave's Inferi. He doesn't comprehend 
the 
> meaning behind the question, because he only knows he did as he was 
> told by his master. The esoterics of the question eludes Kreacher, 
> even though he too is a magical being.

a_svirn:
What is so esoteric about that question? Elves aren't the world' best 
thinkers, yes. But they aren't completely stupid either. Certainly 
they can follow instructions and keep secrets better than, say, 
Hagrid. 

> Mike:
> Dobby's simplistic approach to thwart Harry's return to Hogwarts, 
and 
> his follow up effort to get him to leave doesn't show significant 
> depth of thought. I'll take the approach that House Elves are 
simple 
> minded automatons, for the most part, unless someone wants to 
> convince me otherwise.

a_svirn:
You'll have to cancel the entire OotP plot, for that approach to hold 
water. 
 
> 
> > a_svirn:
> > Sirius had rebelled against his family. I think it is only  
> > fair that his family paid him back by disowning him 
> > <snip> 
> > Sirius rebelled against the family, and Kreacher rebelled 
> > against Sirius. Seems logical to me.
> 
> Mike:
> The family disowned Sirius, sure, I've no problem with that. 
Kreacher 
> taking it upon himself to rebel against Sirius on behalf of the 
rest 
> of the deceased Black family is what I'm not buying. 
> 
> If Kreacher was shown as inable to move off the dime towards 
> transferring his allegiences, as seen in OotP and HBP, I'd have 
> bought it. But in DH, Kreacher comes to think of Harry as his 
master. 
> So it should have been easy for him to transfer his allegience to 
> Sirius, an actual Black. 

a_svirn:
It's like saying that it would be easy for Harry to pledge his 
allegiance to Sirius Black on the grounds that Sirius was his 
godfather. Never mind, that as far as Harry knew at the time Sirius's 
had betrayed his parents to Voldemort. For Kreacher Sirius was the 
family traitor, the black sheep of the family, pardon the pun. (Red 
sheep, actually.) It would have been wonderful indeed if he had 
greeted him as a loyal elf should greet his master. 

> 
> > > Mike: 
> > > Shouldn't Kreacher have had more of a reason to betray Sirius 
> > > than he broke his mother's heart by leaving? Shouldn't his 
> > > returning have been an occasion for celebration for Kreacher? 
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > Was it a cause for celebration for Walburga?
> 
> Mike:
> If it broke her heart when Sirius left, as Kreacher seems to 
believe, 
> then wouldn't it have been joyful if he were to return? Shouldn't 
> that be the thinking of Kreacher if he is just mimicking his dead 
> mistress' attitudes?

a_svirn:
It was his lawless ways that broke her heart, mostly. His betrayal. I 
am sure she would rather see her eldest son dead, than fraternizing 
with mudbloods and werewolves. 

> Mike:
> I'm not counting the portrait of Walburga, mind you. She was little 
> more than than a raving banshee, screaming at everything and 
> everyone. 

a_svirn:
You may not count it, but Kreacher certainly did. And frankly, I 
don't understand why you shouldn't count her portrait. If 
Dumbledore's portrait could happily pull strings throughout DH, why 
couldn't Walburga influence Kreacher? 


> Mike:
> <snip> Harry looks upon 
> every being as an individual until he learns to see differently 
from 
> his friends (Ron) or how the rest of the WW treats them as a whole.
> When The Trio meet Winky, Ron says "So that's a house-elf".^4 Harry 
> then meets a whole lot more of them at Hogwarts. He soon lumps 
Winky 
> in with the rest, albeit as a dismissed house elf. He starts to 
look 
> at them as a species, not as individuals. Dobby was a special case 
> from the beginning and stayed a special case because of his oddball 
> leanings.

a_svirn:
On the contrary. It was only because Hermione explained him about 
generic house-elves' psychology Harry managed at last to understand 
Kreacher. 

> Mike:
<snip>But, a_svirn, I think you're doing what 
> Hermione did, assigning human values to house elves. 

a_svirn:
No, I don't. I am saying that from purely human point of view it is 
impossible to treat your own slave with respect, because owning him 
or her is in itself disrespectful. How it is translated into elvish 
way of thinking is a different matter. Perhaps he would think that 
kicks and slaps are the expression of respect and affection, but we 
know better, don't we?  

> Mike:
What is respect 
> as far as Kreacher is concerned? Serving the noble house of Black 
is 
> my answer. 

a_svirn:
There is some semantic confusion here. Serving noble house of Black 
may be a respectful occupation for a decent house-elf, yes. But for 
Harry to treat someone with respect would mean at the very least to 
treat them as an equal. 

> Mike:
That's what Harry gives back to Kreacher and suddenly 
> Harry is his new master. Sirius never gave that back to Kreacher 
> because Sirius couldn't get over his hatred for everything Black. 
> Still, I don't get why Kreacher shouldn't be pleased to have a 
Black 
> to serve again. 

a_svirn:
Because Sirius was not a true Black. He was a blood traitor, who had 
denounced his family. 

> > a_svirn:
> >  All in all I'd say Harry could be pardoned if he saw all 
> > Slytherins as a group, and an unpleasant one at that. But in 
> > fact his attitude towards them was always personal <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> I disagree. I think Harry started out thinking of individuals, but 
> during his time in the WW came to think of all Slytherins as 
> belonging to that hated class of people that align themselves with 
> Voldemort. He's not simple minded, like the elves, so he 
understands 
> there are degrees of Slytheriness. It's not until DH when he 
becomes 
> aware of Slytherins that actually fought against Voldemort that he 
> modifies his view of *all* Slytherins. 

a_svirn:
I didn't notice that his view on all Slytherins has been modified. 
And why should it? It's like judging all elves by Dobby's example. 

a_svirn, wishing everyone a very happy New Year!





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 14:41:51 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:41:51 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <c7c.1dd7ce47.34a9cb31@aol.com>
Message-ID: <flav3f+r0f9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180156

> >>Julie:
> To be technical, the narrator did not state categorically that 
> the group consisted only of relatives of students who stayed to
> fight and shopkeepers.
> <snip>
> But because he didn't see them or someone he recognized as being
> a Slytherin or related to one doesn't mean they were not there.
> <snip>
> For me, getting to deduce (and yes, choose), some of the           
> Slytherins and their families *did* come back, and were part of the 
> Slytherins who did their part mentioned by Phineas. But that's my   
> choice :-)

Betsy Hp:
Okay.  Just like I can assume that in "The Empire Strikes Back" when 
Vader says "join with me" Luke said "sure!", and what we see in the 
movie is actually a Jedi mind trick Vader used to confuse the 
audience?

Because, this strikes me as a similar thing.  Slytherins returning to 
fight *against* Voldemort shouldn't be something the reader has to 
either guess at or read so deeply between the lines one risks the 
accusation of making things up whole cloth.  (The accusation I'm 
leveling, actually <g>.)  If this *is* what JKR meant to have happen 
than she's a crap writer for making it so impossibly unclear.  If 
it's *not* what JKR meant to have happen, then she's just a very 
strange interviewee.

Betsy Hp




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 14:49:35 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:49:35 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <flav3f+r0f9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flavhv+9n6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180157

> Betsy Hp:
> Okay.  Just like I can assume that in "The Empire Strikes Back" 
when 
> Vader says "join with me" Luke said "sure!", and what we see in 
the 
> movie is actually a Jedi mind trick Vader used to confuse the 
> audience?

Alla:

Nope. I say just as we can imagine that more rebel forces 
participated in that last battle than we saw. IMO of course.

Betsy Hp: 
> Because, this strikes me as a similar thing.  Slytherins returning 
to 
> fight *against* Voldemort shouldn't be something the reader has to 
> either guess at or read so deeply between the lines one risks the 
> accusation of making things up whole cloth.

Alla:

Why not? What if this moment of same importance for JKR as 
Dumbledore knowing because of the spell what happened in DH? Very 
secondary one I mean.

To me it is clear that she showed that Slytherin is not all bad 
through individual stories. So she left it for us to fill in. To me 
it makes no difference whether they came or not, truly. I still 
think that their ideology is disgusting and dilution of such 
ideology is a good thing, but they are not all bad as individuals 
and here we go - some of them came.

And of course Phinelius' words as some people remarked make little 
or no sense if they did not. To me anyways.

Betsy Hp:
  (The accusation I'm 
> leveling, actually <g>.)  If this *is* what JKR meant to have 
happen 
> than she's a crap writer for making it so impossibly unclear.  If 
> it's *not* what JKR meant to have happen, then she's just a very 
> strange interviewee.


Alla:

Or she does not feel a need to spell out every detail. I will stick 
with this one.

I would call her to task if she was writing a book called the story 
of Slytherins and left this moment that unclear. 

JMO,

Alla




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 14:58:39 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:58:39 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <fl9bbm+diod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flb02v+nkif@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180158

> >>Hagrid:
> > Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000   
> > posts in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to 
> > stop so many posts?

Betsy Hp:
I think part of the problem is there's no "there" there, to grab a 
quote.  There's no deep message to ponder and discuss.  So, unlike 
finished series before it, digging into the minutia of Potter-verse 
becomes an exercise in frustration.  (I'm thinking in comparison to 
Tolkien's Ring series, Holmes' adventures, and also Dunnett's 
series.  All books that are finished, but all books that have 
discussion groups that are going strong and have been going strong 
for many years in different forums.)

But I think another problem is the complete lack of clarity.  As an 
example, we can't even, as a group, determine if Slytherin house was 
redeemed or condemned.  Which leads to what Geoff said (still echoing 
through the list <g>):

> >>Geoff:
> <snip>
> Because many of the threads just don't grab me and, in several     
> cases, they go round and round with same arguments being propounded 
> by the same members who never seem to move their position and who   
> seem to believe that if they say the same thing often enough,      
> everyone else will accept their view....
> <snip of echoes -- can echoes be snipped?>

Betsy Hp:
I absolutely agree with this.  And while I can be stubborn like mule 
and keep repeating a point I believe ad nauseam, even *I* get a bit 
tired of it. <bg>

But because JKR left us with no foundation to build from, we're stuck 
wading about in the mud, unable to even agree to a basic premise.  
Which means, nothing of interest can be built and eventually the 
builders fade away.  In comparison, everyone knows what happened with 
Gollum in Tolkien's tale.  There's no reading between the lines or 
guessing at tortured sentece structure.  So discussions move past 
*what* Gollum did and dig into the *whys*.  Which, IMO, is where the 
interesting stuff is found.

> >>Hagrid:
> > <snip>
> > >From your own experience, was any of the suprising or shocking 
> > interviews turn you off JKR's writing?
> > <snip>

Betsy Hp:
For myself, JKR's writing turned me off her writing. <g>  The 
interviews are just mad fun.  It's like a popcorn feature: what will 
JKR say next?!?  :-D

Betsy Hp




From bobjtc at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 14:15:03 2007
From: bobjtc at yahoo.com (Bob Connors)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
Message-ID: <30985.82503.qm@web52803.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180159

CJ - 
snip
"Who knows? For myself, I think some of the flaws of the final book have 
dampened my enthusiasm for the series (much the same way as I stopped 
watching the first Matrix movie because the second and third were such 
disasters)."

 
The flaws of the final book?  Is everyone here so perfect that we can throw stones like that?  May I see your seven volume masterpiece?  I don't know of a work out there that does not have some little error, such as items being used that had not been invented yet, people showing up in background, red herrings that go no where. So what?
 
Does that make the book bad? So bad that people do not want to talk about it?  I thought she did a great job.  I was not about to worry about every little piece, such as who was killed first, his mother of his father.
 
Also keep in mind, she had a ton of time to get the first one out, and even the second.  Since then things got a little pressured, WE could not wait, WE had to have it sooner, WE forced the work to be published MAYBE before it was ready.
 
Ok, my turn to stop ranting.  After all, I thought this was a 'discussion' list, not a 'criticism' list.
 
Bob 






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 15:35:09 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:35:09 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <30985.82503.qm@web52803.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <flb27d+qab7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180160

Bob:

> The flaws of the final book?  Is everyone here so perfect that we 
can throw stones like that?  May I see your seven volume 
masterpiece?  I don't know of a work out there that does not have 
some little error, such as items being used that had not been 
invented yet, people showing up in background, red herrings that go 
no where. So what?
>  
> Does that make the book bad? So bad that people do not want to 
talk about it?  I thought she did a great job.  I was not about to 
worry about every little piece, such as who was killed first, his 
mother of his father.
>  
> Also keep in mind, she had a ton of time to get the first one out, 
and even the second.  Since then things got a little pressured, WE 
could not wait, WE had to have it sooner, WE forced the work to be 
published MAYBE before it was ready.


Alla:

I am absolutely convinced that in some aspects JKR became a victim 
of her pupularity. I mean, yes, yes I am using it somewhat 
metaphorically, I know she made a ton of money, etc, but I am 
absolutely convinced that she never expected her books to be 
analysed so closely under microscope. I mean, I love doing that and 
love reading about others doing it, but yes plenty famous books have 
oh so very many mistakes.

And they still stood up a test of time, which I am totally convinced 
those books will do too.

I was in the bookstore recently and I saw the new translation of 
Three musketeers, which is one of my favorite books ever.

I flipped the pages and saw the note from translator and among other 
things it said something like this :


I left Duma's memory lapses intact and did not correct them 
(paraphrasing).

Eh, guys go and take a look on different names of the same 
characters, different dates, bad math throughout the book, etc.

What do you know? Book is alive and well for three centuries. Oh 
Dear I wish I would have time machine to confirm my conviction that 
Happy Potter books will be too.


Yes, I know JKR is being criticised for something deeper than math 
and memory lapses as well, but I saw this criticism a lot of times 
too ( more power to those who make it by all means) and I do not 
believe it is important at all. IMO of course.



Bob:  
> Ok, my turn to stop ranting.  After all, I thought this was 
a 'discussion' list, not a 'criticism' list.


Alla:

Actually it is most definitely both. ANY criticism of JKR is allowed 
and welcome here :)

Any counterargument is wellcome too, heheh.


Alla




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Dec 31 16:51:53 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:51:53 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <30985.82503.qm@web52803.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <flb6n9+s20s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180161

> CJ - 
> snip
> "Who knows? For myself, I think some of the flaws of the final book 
have 
> dampened my enthusiasm for the series (much the same way as I 
stopped 
> watching the first Matrix movie because the second and third were 
such 
> disasters)."

 
Bob:
> The flaws of the final book?  Is everyone here so perfect that we 
can throw stones like that?  May I see your seven volume 
masterpiece?  I don't know of a work out there that does not have 
some little error, such as items being used that had not been 
invented yet, people showing up in background, red herrings that go 
no where. So what?

Magpie:
Oh, now, that's just silly. Why is it throwing stones for somebody to 
say you know, they found the seventh book so flawed it dampened their 
enthusiasm. You don't have to have written anything to have an 
opinion about a book or to describe perceived flaws--and even be 
correct about them. Flaws don't have to ruin a book, it's true. 
Personally it wasn't the flaws alone that dampened my enthusiasm, it 
was the feeling that the author didn't have anything enlightening to 
say in the end. Is that asking alot? Definitely. Is it asking too 
much? I don't think so. As Betsy said, for a book to sustain 
discussions (which include criticism) there has to be something there 
people enjoy discussing. My problems of the book have nothing to do 
with little things like which Potter was killed first--that's exactly 
the kind of thing I can easily ignore or even not notice.

If I didn't care enough to discuss the flaws I wouldn't be on a 
discussion list.

Bob: 
> Also keep in mind, she had a ton of time to get the first one out, 
and even the second.  Since then things got a little pressured, WE 
could not wait, WE had to have it sooner, WE forced the work to be 
published MAYBE before it was ready.

Magpie:
LOL! As a member of the audience I bear no responsibility at all for 
her work schedule. I could have waited for years, personally, wasn't 
chomping at the bit for anything. If she needed more time I'd have 
been glad to give it to her. But as just a member of the public I had 
no say on it one way or the other. I didn't write up her contract. 
(And she took more time with OotP when she needed it anyway.) 

But for the reasons I didn't like the book, I don't think more time 
would have made a difference, because it was more the whole story 
conceived, not an inability to write that story. I just can't believe 
you just suggested that any flaw in the book is due to people like me 
bullying poor JKR into writing her book too fast and letting it go 
before she was ready. 

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Dec 31 17:11:45 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:11:45 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <flavhv+9n6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flb7sh+1ndu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180162

> > Betsy Hp:
> > Okay.  Just like I can assume that in "The Empire Strikes Back" 
> when 
> > Vader says "join with me" Luke said "sure!", and what we see in 
> the 
> > movie is actually a Jedi mind trick Vader used to confuse the 
> > audience?
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Nope. I say just as we can imagine that more rebel forces 
> participated in that last battle than we saw. IMO of course.

Magpie:
I raise your "nope" and say we can't--because we're not asked to 
imagine more rebel forces here, we're asked to imagine non rebel 
forces who shouldn't be there. Or more like if Han Solo had never 
appeared in A New Hope again after the scene where we see him leaving 
and we're just supposed to assume that he showed up unexpectedly and 
joined the battle. We see his return--we have to, because we saw him 
leave. We saw him choose to say this fight was not his own. That's 
why this Slytherin reading is going against what's actually there. 
They've been characterized as leaning the other way by nature and 
needing special circumstances to act otherwise. And we're never told 
they're there at all. 
 
> Betsy Hp: 
> > Because, this strikes me as a similar thing.  Slytherins 
returning 
> to 
> > fight *against* Voldemort shouldn't be something the reader has 
to 
> > either guess at or read so deeply between the lines one risks the 
> > accusation of making things up whole cloth.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Why not? What if this moment of same importance for JKR as 
> Dumbledore knowing because of the spell what happened in DH? Very 
> secondary one I mean.
> 
> To me it is clear that she showed that Slytherin is not all bad 
> through individual stories. So she left it for us to fill in. 

Magpie:
I'm not sure what spell you're referring to with Dumbledore, but I 
doubt I'd think it was the same thing. The point is, this isn't 
something she left for us to fill in--she filled it in herself in the 
book. She just filled it in differently than she's doing in the 
interview. Those "individual stories" are important because they show 
Slytherins going against what their first inclination was--individual 
Slytherins who have a reason to do that. In this case we're not only 
inventing individual reasons for characters we don't know, we're 
inventing the characters doing it in the first place because 
according to canon they don't do it. They leave. The only mention of 
those Slytherins after they leave is Voldemort talking about 
Slytherins other than Draco joining him. Then we have a scene where 
completely different people are described joining the battle later. 
If we were told that the Slytherins returned *then* we'd be filling 
in. As it is we're not filling in, we're re-writing. Why would I put 
them at the battle when the author made a point of telling me they 
weren't at the battle?

Alla:
> And of course Phinelius' words as some people remarked make little 
> or no sense if they did not. To me anyways.

Magpie:
They made perfect sense to me the first time--as they must since 
Slytherin students are not written as returning to fight in the book. 
Slytherin played an important part in the destruction of Voldemort 
without any return of the Slytherin students. Snape alone made a huge 
contribution.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
>   (The accusation I'm 
> > leveling, actually <g>.)  If this *is* what JKR meant to have 
> happen 
> > than she's a crap writer for making it so impossibly unclear.  If 
> > it's *not* what JKR meant to have happen, then she's just a very 
> > strange interviewee.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Or she does not feel a need to spell out every detail. I will stick 
> with this one.

Magpie:
Me too. Only I stick with saying this isn't leaving details not 
spelled out. This is writing one thing and misremembering or changing 
it in an interview. It's not like saying "Harry got his map back at 
the end of GoF." That's filling in, because we know he gave the map 
to Moody and then we know he has it again later. This isn't filling 
in that Draco's dad must have gotten him the Hand of Glory because 
even though he doesn't buy it in CoS he has it in HBP. (Though there 
again JKR seemed to have forgotten that she wrote Draco as not buying 
it in CoS.) Those things are filling in. This is making up whole 
cloth. 

Alla: 
> I would call her to task if she was writing a book called the story 
> of Slytherins and left this moment that unclear. 

Magpie:
I don't think anybody's really calling her to task in that way, 
though. They're just saying no, that's no what you wrote. The words 
are on the page. I mean, she wasn't writing The Story of Colin 
Creevey's Camera either, but that doesn't make her any less wrong 
when she says that Colin never really took any pictures, because it's 
right there on the page that he did. It's not an important detail, 
but it's still there. This detail is more important, and it's talking 
about things that aren't mentioned rather than what are, but still, 
if I can't go with plain words on the page what's the story made of? 
Slughorn returned with parents of non-Slytherins and shopkeepers. 

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 17:30:32 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:30:32 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <flb7sh+1ndu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flb8vo+tn3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180163

Magpie:
<SNIP>
Then we have a scene where
completely different people are described joining the battle later.
If we were told that the Slytherins returned *then* we'd be filling
in. As it is we're not filling in, we're re-writing. Why would I put
them at the battle when the author made a point of telling me they
weren't at the battle?

Alla:

The crowd of people was not described in detail, therefore I do not 
believe author made a point of telling us they were not there. I 
believe she left it vague for us to fill in.

Alla:
> And of course Phinelius' words as some people remarked make little
> or no sense if they did not. To me anyways.

Magpie:
They made perfect sense to me the first time--as they must since
Slytherin students are not written as returning to fight in the book.
Slytherin played an important part in the destruction of Voldemort
without any return of the Slytherin students. Snape alone made a huge
contribution.

Alla:

And they never made much sense to me. I remember your explanation 
but it did seem convoluted to me. How would he know about Regulus 
and Snape? 


Alla:
> I would call her to task if she was writing a book called the story
> of Slytherins and left this moment that unclear.

Magpie:
I don't think anybody's really calling her to task in that way,
though. They're just saying no, that's no what you wrote. The words
are on the page. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, the words are on page. The words about crowd of people leading 
by Slytherin head of the house. And as Carol said, there is not even 
an observation that not a single Slytherin was among them. I think 
it is filling in to assume that Slytherin head of the house brought 
some of his students back, I really do.

But would you mind explaining to me how is it different from making 
an assumption that Dumbledore killed people, please? I mean the 
words are on page which does not include Dumbledore killing anybody. 
I would say those are much more explicit than vague description of 
the crowd leading by Slytherin head of the house.

I do want to know when it is okay to make assumptions and when it is 
not. Somehow based on the fact that leading resistance may include 
killing your enemies is fine to assume that Dumbledore killed during 
his life time. And you know what? I accept this as filling in spaces 
even if I do not buy it at all. But I think this assumption based on 
so much more vague and another assumption based on RL. Maybe 
Dumbledore was the leader of the resistance who just managed not to 
kill anybody?

But here we have crowd of people with Slytherin LEADING it. Why is 
it so out of space to assume that some of his students to follow, I 
have no idea. Especially since we know that people were sitting not 
with their houses at the end, etc ( thank you Pippin).

I refuse to read the book without filling in based on what I believe 
is already there, especially when I believe that often enough author 
wants me to and deliberately leaves things ambiguous.

She decided to say it in the interview. I would have been fine if 
she did not as well, but I think it was a perfectly reasonable 
assumption to make. Which some readers made BEFORE she ever said it.

It was not me by the way. I never bought that Slytherins joined 
Voldemort, but I did not think they came back either. But as 
possibility? Sure I thought why not.

I think that part of the beauty is how she forces us to assume and 
then breaks our assumptions to pieces or just leaves them there 
hanging.

JMO,

Alla.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 17:39:51 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:39:51 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <fl95te+45pc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flb9h7+tiuo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180164

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" <aussie_lol at ...> wrote:
>
> Since this started, there have almost never been less than 1000 posts 
> in a month. So what happened since late Oct or early Nov to stop so 
> many posts?
> 
> We are continuing with chapter discussions of the last book.
> A lot of readers had unanswered questions from the final book.
> JKR interviews have added new insights into character backgrounds.
> 
> ... so to me it seems as though there is still fuel to keep posts 
> staying high until we finish the chapter discussions at least.
> 
> From your own experience, was any of the suprising or shocking 
> interviews turn you off JKR's writing? If so, seems like the "loyal 
> fan base" she has enjoyed will not hurry out for her future works.
>
Carol responds:

Speaking only for myself, I feel as if something inside me has died. I
didn't hate the last book--it was much more of an emotional roller
coaster ride for me than any of the previous books--and I had my share
of triumphs (Snape vindicated) and disappointments (Dumbledore) like
everyone else. Of course, I saw the flaws in the book, improbabilities
and inconsistencies, which somehow seemed more glaring than in
previous books, though all the books have them. (The later the book
occurs in the series, the more things the author forgets, and, to her
discredit, doesn't check.) But it was partly the reaction of certain
posters on this list, some of whom have dropped out, that I found
disturbing. Where was the fun we had had before? Surely, it wasn't
just the inability to speculate that had taken away our enjoyment. The
list itself seemed bitter and acrimonious. (I even found myself
believing at one point that JKR was evil and no child should be
allowed to read the books. Cold shower time, Carol!) And JKR herself,
acting as if she owns the characters she's sent into the world for our
enjoyment and our interpretation, drives me insane. Reading is a
creative process. It is not or should not be indoctrination,
brainwashing, with the reader seeing exactly what the author sees,
especially since the author's own interpretation is so inconsistent
and fluctuating. I think that she takes certain things for granted and
forgets that she hasn't put them into the text of the book. She
certainly forgets what she has actually said (and I'm not just talking
about making James fifteen when he's actually sixteen or the Charlie
Weasley mess, but things like the Death Eaters using Levicorpus when
only one of them did so and Ron knowing about the Hand of Glory that
Draco supposedly owned). But she doesn't understand that if it isn't
in the book, we have the right to speculate, and if it *is* in the
book, we have the right (and the intellectual need) to interpret and
to point out contradictions between one book and another or
improbabilities (even in a world with magic in it) or coincidences
that seem contrived.

I know that a lot of people were expecting something they didn't get,
and that disappointment has dampened our discussions. And, as Geoff
says, we seem to have a dearth of new topics and beat those we do have
to death, with the same people repeating the same points even though
the only people who'll be convinced are those who already agree with them.

A good book, or a good series of books, bears discussion despite the
inevitable flaws in the writing. A great book finds a place in the
hearts and minds of readers centuries or even millennia after its
author dies, differences of culture notwithstanding. The author's own
views matter little if at all. I don't think that the HBP books are
great books. Certainly, JKR is not a great author. I think, frankly,
that the Peter Principle has overcome her, and she's been raised to a
prominence she's not capable of sustaining. But, IMO, they're *good*
books. They've provided me many hours of enjoyment. I've spent far too
much time thinking about her characters and her world. But that's
because they're no longer her characters. They're outside her control
and have taken on a "reality" or existence of their own, which she
needs to recognize and honor. She needs to understand that no words of
hers outside the books will make readers who have formed their own
interpretation of the books and characters conform to her views or her
intentions, expressed or otherwise. Her possessive attitude doesn't
take away my pleasure in the books entirely, but it diminishes my
pleasure. I wish I could respect her, but I can't, because she doesn't
respect her own readers.

One more purely personal tidbit. Snape is dead, and while I believe
he's happy in the afterlife (yes, I do know he's a fictional
character), I can no longer think about him in the present. I wish she
had let him survive to be headmaster of Hogwarts or at least allowed
him to escape to a deserted island to put all of his marvelous
knowledge of Potions and DADA and spell invention into books that
would actually be useful to Hogwarts students. So much wasted
potential. It's a sadder loss, for me, even than the death of poor
Cedric at seventeen. The WW without Snape isn't the WW any more. For
me, I mean. I'm sure others feel otherwise.

Carol, for whom the joy and intellectual stimulation of posting has
diminished, along with the pleasure of rereading the books, thanks
primarily to JKR herself




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Dec 31 17:56:04 2007
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:56:04 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <flav3f+r0f9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flbafk+62oq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180165

> 
> Betsy Hp:

> Because, this strikes me as a similar thing.  Slytherins returning to 
> fight *against* Voldemort shouldn't be something the reader has to 
> either guess at or read so deeply between the lines one risks the 
> accusation of making things up whole cloth.  (The accusation I'm 
> leveling, actually <g>.)

Pippin:
But this is only an issue at all because you've set up an artificial
distinction between Slytherin students and Slughorn. It's Slughorn
who speaks for the  Slytherins when he says resistance is suicide
(just like Han Solo in Star Wars IV <g>) and so it's Slughorn 
whose return makes the "I knew there was more to you than..." 
point. If we'd heard from Theo or Blaise  separately then it would
be an issue whether they'd come back or not, but we didn't. 

If you consider all of JKR's comments on Slytherin it certainly
seems that ambiguity is  the whole point -- you can't generalize
about them. Some of them are certainly warped, but the qualities
that make it easy for them to make bad choices are also necessary
for survival and not just for Slytherins: where would the WW be without
resourcefulness, determination, a certain disregard for rules and
the desire to preserve itself?

Pippin




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 18:17:48 2007
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:17:48 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <flb7sh+1ndu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flbboc+48l2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180166

Magpie wrote:
> <snip>
> Slytherins going against what their first inclination
was--individual Slytherins who have a reason to do that. In this case
we're not only inventing individual reasons for characters we don't
know, we're inventing the characters doing it in the first place
because according to canon they don't do it. They leave. The only
mention of those Slytherins after they leave is Voldemort talking
about Slytherins other than Draco joining him. Then we have a scene
where completely different people are described joining the battle
later. If we were told that the Slytherins returned *then* we'd be
filling in. As it is we're not filling in, we're re-writing. Why would
I put them at the battle when the author made a point of telling me
they weren't at the battle?

Carol responds:

We know, however, that Voldemort is lying. Neither Crabbe nor Goyle,
the Slytherins most loyal to Voldemort, returned to fight in the
battle. They went to the RoR, where Crabbe was killed and Goyle
knocked out. The others went, on McGonagall's orders, with Slughorn to
the Hog's Head. We don't know what happened from there, but they
certainly didn't show up to fight for Voldemort or they'd have been in
the camp with the DEs. As for who showed up with Slughorn, not one
single individual student is identified, nor would Harry know whose
parents are whose. We only have his quick general impression, which is
that the parents of "every" student who fought against Voldemort
showed up, along with the people of Hogsmeade. Harry is only guessing
at what he briefly glimpses, and he has no way of knowing who is whom. 
> 
> Alla:
> > And of course Phinelius' words as some people remarked make little
or no sense if they did not. To me anyways.
> 
> Magpie:
> They made perfect sense to me the first time--as they must since
Slytherin students are not written as returning to fight in the book.
Slytherin played an important part in the destruction of Voldemort
without any return of the Slytherin students. Snape alone made a huge
contribution.

Carol responds:
I certainly don't dispute Snape's contribution, or Slughorn's, or the
dead Regulus's, or even, in a small way, Portrait!Phineas's own. But
he's speaking of Slytherin House in a way that seems to me to refer to
living Slytherins, to students as well as faculty members, living and
dead (and a dead boy who inspired the House-Elves to join the fight).
You're entitled to your own interpretation, but it certainly is not
the only possible way to view that ambiguous description, especially
since not a single person in the group that follows Slughorn and
Charlie is identified by name. (Both fat Slughorn, in his emerald
pajamas, and red-haired Charlie Weasley, would have been familiar to
Harry and instantly recognizable. But the parents of his fellow
students would not, nor, given his track record, would the students
themselves mixed in among the crowd.) Who's to say that the citizens
of Hogsmeade didn't include former Slytherins among them? And
logically, the parents who followed would not be those of the students
who stayed to fight but those of the students, Slytherins among them,
who went to the Hog's Head. (Harry, not known for logic, would not, of
course, have arrived at this conclusion. We only have what "seemed"
and "what looked like"--words that show Harry's hurried impression of
a chaotic scene, made more chaotic seconds later by the entrance of
the House-Elves. He does not stay to identify the new arrivals.
Instead, he hurries off, invisible, to find Voldemort. When he reaches
the Great Hall, the center of the battle, we get specific names, but
(aside from Slughorn), they are all Death Eaters, Order members, or DA
members--people Harry knows and has reason to love or hate.

Carol, who thinks that JKR "intended" for Slughorn to lead the
Slytherins back and for readers to understand that he did so from
Phineas Nigellus's words but concedes that her "intention" didn't make
it to the page because of Harry's limited point of view, enabling or
forcing the reader to provide his or her own interpretation





From witherwing at sbcglobal.net  Mon Dec 31 18:33:51 2007
From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (witherwings999)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:33:51 -0000
Subject: JKR=MAC (Was: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character)
In-Reply-To: <47786234.1020905@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <flbcmf+10pre@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180167

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
Posted by: "Lee Kaiwen"  leekaiwen at yahoo.com  ?   leekaiwen 

Lee Kaiwen:
 "My version" could encompass anything, including thoughts 
 she's never spoken aloud. And that is problematic, to say the least, on 
 so many levels. She's attempting a level of control over her works -- 
 and even her readers' experiences of her works -- that is both 
 unprecedented and impossible. It's sheer hubris.

Witherwing: 
Unprecedented? Does anyone know of another comparable case of an author/artist 
making overtures/interviews, trying to keep their work *theirs*? I am familiar with the old 
problem of the artist's intent versus the interpretation of the viewer/critic... Back in my 
Film Studies days, I was first exposed to this dilemma reading the Francois Truffaut 
interview with Alfred Hitchcock. Truffaut, clearly a devoted fan, asks Hitchcock about the 
moment when a character walks out of the frame, and then walks back in, moments later. 
This had waxed poetic for Truffaut. The director explains that this was done for practical 
reasons, not artistic - something about the actor or set necessitating the break... Does 
that mean the critic is a fool for singling out that moment for its artistry?

The dilemma for the audience/reader/viewer is clear. We CANNOT know the intention. 
Even if the artist is there to tell us their intention, can it be believed? However, as a fan, I 
tend to want to know everything, and ravenously seek out the interviews.  As well as the 
views of fans who spend time with a critical eye on Canon, and so thanks to all of you who 
contribute to this list;o) There are countless posts on this list that have made me exclaim 
aloud, or given me fuel for many ponderings. My experience of the books is inseparable 
from the consensual information I've absorbed from you all! 

I guess I view JKR's post-publication riffs on parr with the views of you all! And I thank 
you!

Lee Kaiwen:
 I've said this before, but the WW of MY experience is not entirely of JKR's creation. We all 
bring our own backgrounds, imaginations and personalities to bear on the interpretation 
of what we read, and no two of us can read the same book and come away with the same 
experience (imagine if we did; there'd be no need for discussion.  <SNIP> I, through my 
imagination and experience, played a creative role as well. And JKR's attempt to read over 
our shoulders, correct every interpretive act we perform that doesn't meet with her 
approval, and dictate the reading experience we must have is patronizing.

Witherwing: 
I don't view JKR's pronouncements as patronizing. For one thing, she (and Warner 
Brothers) have been very generous with the fans in allowing anyone who wants to, to 
rewrite, appropriate, skew and reinvent the characters and the world of HP, for creativity of 
every kind! The fanfic, the knitting patterns, the recipes, the paintings, videos, etc. I guess 
I can forgive an occaisional "It's my world," from JKR. But believe it? 

In the meantime, happy new year to you all, and keep the posts rolling in!

-Witherwing




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 18:49:04 2007
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:49:04 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <flbafk+62oq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flbdj0+s6bb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180168

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Because, this strikes me as a similar thing.  Slytherins         
> > returning to fight *against* Voldemort shouldn't be something the 
> > reader has to either guess at or read so deeply between the lines 
> > one risks the accusation of making things up whole cloth.  (The   
> > accusation I'm leveling, actually <g>.)

> >>Pippin:
> But this is only an issue at all because you've set up an artificial
> distinction between Slytherin students and Slughorn.

Betsy Hp:
Um, no, there's nothing "artificial" about it.  There is a definite 
distinction between Slughorn and Slytherin.  Maybe if JKR had used 
Snape (the real head of Slytherin, not a Johnny-come-lately) or more 
correctly, Draco, who's been the face of the Slytherin students 
throughout the series, maybe then I'd have bought the suggestion that 
Harry recognized shop-keepers and students' parents, but not his 
fellow classmates.

But this idea that Slughorn, introduced in the eleventh hour and 
apologetic about Slytherin from the get go, is supposed to suddenly 
be the face of Slytherin...  Once again, it's crap writing if that's 
what JKR was going for; a lazy and confusing use of symbolism, IMO.

> >>Pippin:
> It's Slughorn who speaks for the  Slytherins when he says          
> resistance is suicide (just like Han Solo in Star Wars IV <g>) and 
> so it's Slughorn whose return makes the "I knew there was more to   
> you than..." point. If we'd heard from Theo or Blaise  separately   
> then it would be an issue whether they'd come back or not, but we   
> didn't. 

Betsy Hp:
We *did* hear from Draco, however.  Who *did* come back.  To capture 
Harry for Voldemort.  When you've got the kid who's stood for 
Slytherin since we learned of Slytherin's existance doing one thing, 
the author needs to be *very* clear if she's expecting us to stick 
another symbol in his place doing something completely different.


> >>Pippin:
> If you consider all of JKR's comments on Slytherin it certainly
> seems that ambiguity is  the whole point -- you can't generalize
> about them.

Betsy Hp:
But if you ignore her comments and go with the books, generalizing 
Slytherin is the proper thing to do.  There's no depth there.  They 
really are greedy, bigoted, failures.  A few manage to scrape above 
their level, but in the end, Slytherin is the loser house.

> >>Pippin:
> Some of them are certainly warped, but the qualities
> that make it easy for them to make bad choices are also necessary
> for survival and not just for Slytherins: where would the WW be    
> without resourcefulness, determination, a certain disregard for    
> rules and the desire to preserve itself?

Betsy Hp:
But those qualities aren't really Slytherin, are they?  They're 
Gryffindor.  (Though I'll grant you the desire to preserve oneself.)

Betsy Hp




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 19:06:26 2007
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:06:26 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <flbdj0+s6bb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flbeji+7dan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180169

> Betsy Hp:
> Um, no, there's nothing "artificial" about it.  There is a definite 
> distinction between Slughorn and Slytherin. ><SNIP>


Alla:

According to whom? From the moment Slughorn was introduced in HBP I 
thought - OMG, this is a guy who represents everything Slytherin 
stands for. He does not join Voldemort, but he runs from DE to save 
his own neck. He is in no hurry to join the fight as heroes do, but he 
is not joining maniac either. I think it is very appropriate if JKR 
intended him to stand for Slytherin and to experience such significant 
change of heart.

IMO of course.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Dec 31 19:27:02 2007
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:27:02 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character
In-Reply-To: <flbdj0+s6bb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flbfq6+441h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180170

> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > Because, this strikes me as a similar thing.  
Slytherins         
> > > returning to fight *against* Voldemort shouldn't be something 
the 
> > > reader has to either guess at or read so deeply between the 
lines 
> > > one risks the accusation of making things up whole cloth.  
(The   
> > > accusation I'm leveling, actually <g>.)
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > But this is only an issue at all because you've set up an 
artificial
> > distinction between Slytherin students and Slughorn.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Um, no, there's nothing "artificial" about it.  There is a definite 
> distinction between Slughorn and Slytherin.  Maybe if JKR had used 
> Snape (the real head of Slytherin, not a Johnny-come-lately) or 
more 
> correctly, Draco, who's been the face of the Slytherin students 
> throughout the series, maybe then I'd have bought the suggestion 
that 
> Harry recognized shop-keepers and students' parents, but not his 
> fellow classmates.

Magpie:
I don't think it's even that complicated--Slughorn=Slughorn, just as 
any character=themselves. Slughorn might be fat, but he doesn't 
encompass all the students in his house. The line is describing a 
perfectly straightforward thing: Slughorn is running at the head, and 
behind him are shopkeepers and parents of non-Slytherin students who 
stayed. The word Slughorn represents Slughorn, the only thing it 
could represent. All the symbolism in the world can't make that 
sentence tell us that there are different people in that crowd than 
the ones described. However much Slughorn symbolizes Slytherin he's 
not leading any of them in that sentence. Even if it had been Draco 
or Snape at the head there it would still be Draco or Snape and non-
Slytherins.

-m




From jferer at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 19:48:25 2007
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:48:25 -0000
Subject: Less than 1000 posts in a month - why now?
In-Reply-To: <fl96fr+emu7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flbh29+6pla@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180171

Hagrid: "From your own experience, was any of the suprising or
shocking  interviews turn you off JKR's writing? If so, seems like the
"loyal  fan base" she has enjoyed will not hurry out for her future
works."

Potioncat: "It's been very difficult to get discussions going. Even
the chapter discussions--for the most part---haven't generated a lot
of print. There have been a few fairly strong threads, but just a few."

======================

Add in no more predictions, no more Draco love, no more shipping and
no more Theory Bay and it seems natural to me there's going to be less
posts. With every fan wanting her own world, nobody got everything
they wanted (no way they could have). There are so many stories left
to tell, though - we could spend a lot of time discussing those and
how the wizard world works, but there seems little interest in it. 

I don't post much any more because my posts rarely get replies. I'm
sure some others feel the same. It's nobody's fault. 

The nature of discussion here has changed a lot over the years. I have
a perspective here because I'm a charter member - I was here when this
was a Yahoo Club, then an e-group, as it was called, before Yahoo!
bought out e-groups and made them Yahoo! Groups. There was a sense of
discovery that may be impossible to recapture.

Jim Ferer




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 31 21:14:34 2007
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:14:34 -0000
Subject: Slytherins come back  - Slytherin Perspective
In-Reply-To: <flbeji+7dan@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <flbm3q+qe08@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 180172

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Betsy Hp:
> > Um, no, there's nothing "artificial" about it.  There is
> >  a definite > distinction between Slughorn and Slytherin.
> > ><SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> According to whom? From the moment Slughorn was introduced in
> HBP I thought - OMG, this is a guy who represents everything 
> Slytherin stands for. He does not join Voldemort, but he runs
> from DE to save his own neck. He is in no hurry to join the 
> fight as heroes do, but he is not joining maniac either. I 
> think it is very appropriate if JKR intended him to stand for 
> Slytherin and to experience such significant change of heart.
> 
> IMO of course.
>

bboyminn:

As rare as it is, I agree with Alla, from the moment Slughorn
appreared on the page, he was the most deliciously 
Slytheriny-Slytherin we've seen. But he was not evil, he was
such self-serving and self-absorbed in the way Slytherins are. 

What bothers me, and what I would like JKR to clear up, is
that she opened the concept of the Houses joining together,
then never followed through on it. I needed just the briefest
reference to one student who saw Voldemort in charge as a
bad thing. But it has to be a student. We have Slughorn and
Snape as 'good Slytherins', but i needed a student, just one.

Now, I propose that any student against Voldemort was against
him for very Slytherinish reason. I don't expect altruistic
Gryffindorish motivations. I have speculated in the past
that the anti-Voldemort Good Slytherin logic would go 
something like this. Good Slytherin speaks, 'I plan to be 
rich. What is good for business, is good for Slytherin. But
Voldemort absolutely will NOT be good for business, and 
therefore will not be good for me. If I want to be rich
anytime soon, then I have to oppose Voldemort'. 

Typical Slytherin logic, but absolutely true. Voldemort
in charge would have been an economic disaster, and any
reasonably wise Slytherin would have known it. Certainly,
as with all tyrannical governments, a very few, maybe 50,
at the very top get stinking rich while the middle class
evaporates and everyone else falls into oppressive 
poverty. The best of Voldemort supporters saw themselves
amoung those top 50 or so. 

Notice the evidence, when Harry goes to Diagon Alley, shops
are closed and boarded up. What new businesses that have 
opened are clearly dark and dodgy places. Does Voldemort
really think the rest of the world is going to continue
trading with him? Does he really think he can fix the 
wizard world by removing a substantial portion of its 
population, the muggle-borns? Does he really think he can
continue cooperative trade between muggles and wizards? 

So, where was the one Slytherin, who for his own Slytherny
reasons opposed Voldemort? I especially needed to see this
one person come from the students.

JKR in her own mind may think she covered this in the books,
but in my mind, on this one point, I think she dropped the
ball.

Steve/bboyminn