From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 00:47:06 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:47:06 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Well folks, it is beginning to look like Horcruxes are the key to the > seventh book, very unfortunately. Personally, I strongly suspect > that the "Deathly Hallows" of the title are none other than the > Horcruxes themselves, which leads to all sorts of unfortunate > corollaries. > > The most unfortunate is that I think we will have to suffer through > the hunting and destruction of all four of them -- each and every one > in wearisome detail. I don't think we are going to have relief from > coincidences or "off-screen" developments. I don't think two or more > of the horcruxes are going to be hidden in the same spot. I don't > think the horcruxes are going to turn out to be unimportant after > all. And I don't think anyone off-screen, be it Snape, Regulus, > Wormtail, or God in a Clown Suit, is going to destroy any of them. I > think the heart of the book is going to be four mini-quests after > four seperate "hallows," followed by a major confrontation at the end. > > Now this leads to some opportunities. Ron/Hermione could be > developed in the course of the quests. Also perhaps one of the > Hallows is hidden at Durmstrang, which could provide an appearance by > Victor Krum. But much else we have been promised or kind-of > promised, including a Weasley wedding and an Umbridge come-uppance, > or that we desire, such as an end to Percy's arc, will have to be > sandwiched among, around, and between McGuffin chases. > > Sigh. Thus we reach the end to find ourselves immersed in a video > game -- or a rather familiar retelling of a plot device derived from > Koschei and utilized in dozens of movies, role-playing games, and > novels ever since. As Alla, I believe it was, said, the worst thing > about it is that it's all so ordinary -- and ordinary at a time when > much more interesting and pressing issues are hanging. > > > Lupinlore, who fully expects a horcrux game for PS3 to hit the market > very quickly Jenni from Alabama responds: I agree, the 7th book is going to be a bit mundane in that we'll be expecting everything. No matter what happens, there'll really be no surprises. Am I the only one that will be tempted (when the final book is released) to just skip to the end and find out if JKR kills off Harry or not? The more I think about it, the more disappointed I get. All the other books were very interesting and always left you guessing what would happen next - you had theories about what would happen in the next book but never knew for sure. Sometimes it was what you expected, other times it shocked you - which is what I like. But in the HBP, Harry told us EXACTLY what he was going to do. We know what to expect, and IMO it takes all the fun out of it. Jenni from Alabama From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 00:51:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:51:42 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163341 lupinlore wrote: > > Well folks, it is beginning to look like Horcruxes are the key to the seventh book, very unfortunately. Personally, I strongly suspect > that the "Deathly Hallows" of the title are none other than the > Horcruxes themselves, which leads to all sorts of unfortunate > corollaries. > > The most unfortunate is that I think we will have to suffer through > the hunting and destruction of all four of them -- each and every one in wearisome detail. I don't think we are going to have relief from coincidences or "off-screen" developments. I don't think two or more of the horcruxes are going to be hidden in the same spot. I don't think the horcruxes are going to turn out to be unimportant after all. And I don't think anyone off-screen, be it Snape, Regulus, > Wormtail, or God in a Clown Suit, is going to destroy any of them. I > think the heart of the book is going to be four mini-quests after four seperate "hallows," followed by a major confrontation at the end. > > Now this leads to some opportunities. Ron/Hermione could be > developed in the course of the quests. Also perhaps one of the > Hallows is hidden at Durmstrang, which could provide an appearance by Victor Krum. But much else we have been promised or kind-of > promised, including a Weasley wedding and an Umbridge come-uppance, > or that we desire, such as an end to Percy's arc, will have to be > sandwiched among, around, and between McGuffin chases. Carol responds: Oho! Finally, a point that Lupinlore and I agree on--the Horcruxes are surely the least interesting of the questions and issues that need to be resolved in DH. But I wouldn't leap so quickly to the conclusion that the Horcruxes are the unhallowed "Hallows." It still sounds like a placename to me, and I think "The Hogwarts Hallows" of a rejected title indicates that it's the burial place or places of the Four Founders (or three, if Slytherin isn't there). And I see no reason why Harry would not need help from others, not only Hermione and Ron but Lupin, Bill Weasley, and, yes, Severus Snape. I don't think that JKR is going to let all those beautiful subplots die by turning DH into a McGuffin hunt (and, though I hate to say it, the Horcruxes are not true McGuffins as their destruction really is necessary to the defeat of Voldemort. They're not *just* plot devices that the characters think are important; they do serve an ultimate purpose. Consider GoF, in which the TWT tasks served several plot purposes but nevertheless set up an unavoidable three-part structure for the novel. JKR managed to bring in a great many other important elements, from the Death Eaters and the Unforgiveable Curses to the Pensieve and Snape's past as a DE and spy for Dumbledore. (BTW, she also informed us for the first time that Dementors are blind. I don't think we knew that in PoA. Hermione certainly didn't.) So take comfort; she can still tell a unified story, tying together many seemingly diverse elements, despite the accursed Horcruxes (which, I, too, wish had never been introduced). Also, while I do see the Tarot/Founders connection, and consequently am leaning toward the Ravenclaw Horcrux as being the wand rather than the tiara (maybe the tiara is a red herring? Why mention not one but two tiaras rather pointedly if they're not going to play some role?), but we still have Nagini, who doesn't fit the pattern but will have to be killed whether or not she's a Horcrux (and I do think she is, but I won't go back there again). And that, I think, is where the Sword of Gryffindor will come into play. DD has said that it isn't a Hocrux and I believe him, but I do think it's a powerful magical object that will be used to kill Nagini as it was used to kill the Basilisk. It isn't encrusted with blood-red rubies for nothing. It has powers we haven't yet seen, tied in with Fawkes, I'm sure of it. And it's the sole remaining relic of Godric Gryffindor, which ties in with the relics of the three other Founders that were turned into Horcruxes (two for sure, one only probably), but it is not itself a Horcrux. Anyway, I hold a more optimistic view than you do of the plot of the story. I have a feeling that it won't feel artificial and prefabricated. And we do know of one more puzzle piece besides Snape, Umbridge, and RAB that JKR is bringing into play--house-elves, which she mentioned in an update to her website. And while I'm not fond of house-elves and dislike SPEW rather passionately, that bit of information should give you hope that the loose ends from OoP will be resolved after all. And I do hope that a visit to Durmstrang is on the agenda, though with Krum no longer a student and Karkaroff a carcass, I don't know how that can be arranged. Carol, who expects to learn more about Mundungus, Aberforth, and the Order's activities in general, and to see more of Mrs. Figg, Rufus Scrimgeour, Percy Weasley, and Viktor Krum, just to name a few people other than the regulars From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Jan 1 00:59:54 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:59:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163342 Jenni from Alabama I agree, the 7th book is going to be a bit mundane in that we'll be expecting everything. No matter what happens, there'll really be no surprises. Sherry now: Oh, I haven't given up on JKR yet. She has managed to surprise me in every book, even when I thought I had it all figured out. For instance, in POA, I guessed very early on that Sirius was not out to kill Harry, but I never guessed about Scabbers being Peter and the whole marauders back story. In GOF, I figured out that Moody was the bad guy, but I didn't guess about Barty crouch Jr. In HBP, I expected, or somewhat expected Dumbledore to die, but I never dreamed it would happen as it did. I am confident that even though we all know Harry has to go get horcruxes--and I don't like horcruxes at all and am not looking forward to all that--I believe she will definitely have a few surprises in store for us. Jenni from Alabama Am I the only one that will be tempted (when the final book is released) to just skip to the end and find out if JKR kills off Harry or not? Sherry now: Yes, I've even got a sort of deal with Geoff from this group--if he remembers--to have someone from the UK tell me in advance if Harry lives or dies. After all, I read the audio books, so it's not so easy to flip to the end to find out what happens. I do quite seriously want to know that much, if Harry lives or dies. I can read the book to discover the rest, but I want to know about Harry's fate in advance. Sherry From scarah at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 00:45:39 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:45:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612311645u3b90731es3af773f31e39f2e4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163343 lupinlore: > The most unfortunate is that I think we will have to suffer through > the hunting and destruction of all four of them -- each and every one > in wearisome detail. I don't think we are going to have relief from > coincidences or "off-screen" developments. Sarah devil's advocate once again: I like MacGuffins and I like Horcruxes. :) There was a miniseries on Sci-Fi Channel recently about this motel room where all the occupant's belongings (comb, pen, razor, etc.) had gotten turned into magical objects with different powers. Awesome! I don't think the name of the book changes much. The path has been pretty clear since HBP. It's a lot to wrap up but I don't consider it a waste of time any more than say, the Triwizard Tournament Where Barty Couldn't Just Turn Harry's Toothbrush Into a Portkey For Reasons Never Explained. I think it can be pulled off. I guess my question for those who are disappointed is, what was the expectation? Is there a formula for the last book that you would have been happier with? More of a war story, maybe? Sarah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 01:19:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:19:12 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163344 > > Alla: > > > > Well, OK, you do not blame him for that, but you still think that > > his behaviour is wrong, yes? I mean **not constructive** is close > > enough to **wrong** in meaning, yes? > > Pippin: > Er, no. **Not constructive** means it's not helping. Alla: Oh, thanks. > > Alla: > > > > Huh? Worth dying for? No it is not, but certainly worth IMO fighting > > to change the system and if it was a different story certainly worth > > trying to make sure that Snape changes his methods or say good bye > > to Hogwarts. > > Pippin: > Well, that's it, you want a different story, because in this story, if > DDM!Snape said goodbye to Hogwarts he'd be dead along with > a lot of other people. In this story, some of the people who are putting > their lives on the line to oppose a genocidal murderer are, > unfortunately, guilty of discrimination themselves on a > lesser scale and not at all prepared to see the error of their > ways. Life's not simple. Alla: I think I have said it enough times, but I guess I should say it again. No, I do not want a different story, I am perfectly aware of necessity of Snape being in the story and accordingly in Hogwarts, story line wise. The fact that JKR is bulding up Snape and Harry conflict for dramatic reasons is fine by me, I am looking forward to the resolution of that conflict as much as anybody else, but when I look at their conflict as if they were **real**, then I absolutely do not care if Dumbledore needs Snape in Hogwarts for the reasons necessary to fight Voldemort, if that means that Snape is allowed to abuse his students on the regular basis ( IMO of course). I believe that Dumbledore Headmaster and Dumbledore as Head of the Order of Phoenix should not be allowed to make those decisions, his hats conflict too much, if that makes sense. So, no, Pippin I do not want different story, but I do want to criticise the characters for the decisions made in this one. Oh, and of course *people putting their lifes on the line* sounds ironic to me, since I do believe that Snape murdered Dumbledore on the Tower, that is why in retrospect it is ironic to me, if Dumbledore indeed allowed Snape to stay because of the war needs and this is how it all played out. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 01:43:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:43:20 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: <00a801c72d2c$8cffe520$5766400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163345 > Lupinlore: > > And yet, as Alla points out, Harry's prospects would have been ruined > > save for the heavy-handed plot manipulations mentioned above. > > Magpie: > Well....as much as I agree that an unfair teacher can have much farther > results than just not liking class, I don't know that we can really talk > about Snape's ruining Harry's career through his unfairness. It's more like > Snape's ruining the career of any student not getting an O in Potions, > because its his higher expectations for NEWT classes that would have kept > Harry out (which seems to be okay by Dumbledore, just as McGonagall is > allowed to only accept E students and above etc.) > Alla: Well, of course we cannot say for sure. I was responding to the argument that what Snape does in the much talked about incident does not really matter, since everyday grades do not matter for fifth years. That Harry's career would not be ruined anyways, no matter what Snape does to him during fifth year. Of course we cannot say for sure that Harry would have gotten O with different teacher, but I do not buy that we can say the opposite for sure as well. So, I was basically just pointing the possibility that maybe, just maybe Snape unfairness stopped Harry from performing his full potential, certainly not a sure thing, just a possibility. But if it is true, then the assertion that Snape unfairness could have ruined Harry's career IMO stands. I snipped the piece about Slughorn favoritism, which of course took place there, no question about it. Was it fair per se? Of course not, it was not, although Slughorn did not know that Harry used Prince book, so I believed that academically he thought he was pretty fair. BUT absolutely there is no question in my mind that Slughorn was favoring Harry as Boy who lived as well. As I said, per se it is not fair, but within the story, as nice slap in Snape face, I believe it is just fine. I mean, Slughorn even plays on Snape line in the first lesson, no? Snape took points for Harry's "cheek", Slughorn gives Harry's points for his "cheek". I loved it. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 1 01:52:31 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 01:52:31 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163346 Pippin: > Harry knows there's something wrong with the system, and he > knows that fuming about Snape isn't going to change it. Frankly > I'm not sure that he'd want to change it, since he laps up > teacher favoritism whenever he's "lucky" enough to get it. Jen: If anything I'd say favoritism of whatever flavor brings out the worst in Harry, not that he laps it up. He has no problem with teachers like McGonagall, Flitwick or Sprout who try to treat students with some modicum of fairness and grade according to performance. He accepts what he gets and moves forward. If Harry liked favor so much he'd try to change the way he operates with Snape and Umbridge, the two teachers who openly dislike him and treat him unfairly. Likewise, he'd take more advantage of the situation with Slughorn by going to every Slug Club meeting to further his good grades and for his future prospects and suck up every opportunity rather than keeping Slughorn mostly at arm's length until Dumbledore sets him the task of the memory. I don't think it's Slughorn's praise he cares about, it's the secondary gain like watching Hermione and Draco fume in Potions for once at the 'unfairness' of the situation, and winning the Felix, and finding he's halfway decent at Potions with the Prince's directions. Not a great potion-maker, but not an 'abysmal' one, either. None of those motives are particularly good, they just seem like the motives of a typical teenager reacting to adult unfairness on both ends of the spectrum. Pippin: > You compare Snape to an anti-Semite. Jen: I didn't read Alla te be saying this at all, she was talking about unfair grading and pointing out the cause in her particular situation which doesn't have anything to do with the reason why Snape acts unfairly toward Harry. (Hope I'm not misinterpreting you, Alla). > Pippin: > Well, that's it, you want a different story, because in this story, > if DDM!Snape said goodbye to Hogwarts he'd be dead along with a lot > of other people. In this story, some of the people who are putting > their lives on the line to oppose a genocidal murderer are, > unfortunately, guilty of discrimination themselves on a lesser > scale and not at all prepared to see the error of their ways. > Life's not simple. Jen: There are two levels at work here, one is the level of Harry's life as the Chosen One and one is the level that Dumbledore desperately wanted for him to the point of carrying Harry's burdens for him for a number of years: A Harry who could have some semblance of a normal life with friends and studies and Quidditch and all the things that another kid could have. Not everything Harry learns has to do with the quest to oppose the genocidal murderer. Some things are more mundane and ordinary and are the struggle of all kids to become independent adults. That's the level Harry is operating on when it comes to his teachers, and that's what Dumbledore thinks too, or he would bring these problems to light in terms of how Harry's views are interfering with his ability to defeat Voldemort. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jan 1 02:49:57 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:49:57 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in it... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163347 In a message dated 12/31/06 7:51:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, jlenox2004 at yahoo.com writes: > Am I the only one that will be tempted (when the final book is > released) to just skip to the end and find out if JKR kills off Harry > or not? > > Sandy replies: I have every intention of doing just that as I am waiting in line to pay for the book, and if I can find out sooner than that, so much the better. I knew Dumbledore was dead before I paid for HBP because I read the last chapter as I was waiting in line. I can't stand suspense and just have to know, and as long as Harry survives it won't spoil the book for me. However, if Harry does not survive, I will be faced with deciding whether or not to buy the book. I have been very disappointed and dis-satisfied with the last two books, which leaves me with little hope that the next, and last, will be much better. Like Lupinlore, I just dread the Horcrux hunt . With so much else to cover in the book I fear the Horcrux (I hate that word even) hunt will consume too much page space and leave too many questions still unanswered. As disappointing as it is, I do feel a small glimmer of hope that she may yet do right by us in the last book, based on the fact that she has not finished it yet. Tired of waiting as I am, it is my hope that the longer it takes her to finish it the better it will be with no loose ends left dangling. But, regardless of anything, I will be reading the last chapter first. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 02:46:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 02:46:07 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163348 Jen: I don't think it's > Slughorn's praise he cares about, it's the secondary gain like > watching Hermione and Draco fume in Potions for once at > the 'unfairness' of the situation, and winning the Felix, and finding > he's halfway decent at Potions with the Prince's directions. Not a > great potion-maker, but not an 'abysmal' one, either. Alla: I am afraid I cut you rather arbitrarily, sorry about that just to agree with everything I cut and to point out that Harry does not seem to respect Slughorn much IMO. It does not stop him from getting those benefits of course. I just do not think as you do that he laps up favoritism, that's all. > Pippin: > > You compare Snape to an anti-Semite. > > > Jen: I didn't read Alla te be saying this at all, she was talking > about unfair grading and pointing out the cause in her particular > situation which doesn't have anything to do with the reason why Snape > acts unfairly toward Harry. (Hope I'm not misinterpreting you, Alla). Alla: Yes, correct I was comparing the action, NOT the reasons underlying it, but to be clear in the past I certainly compared those who hold pureblood ideology to anti-semites. So, if Snape is still of that mindset, I am comparin him to anti-semit, just not in this example, more in what he thinks of Hermione ( uh, hope it is not going to be misinterpreted - IF he holds that ideology yet) > Jen: Not everything Harry learns has > to do with the quest to oppose the genocidal murderer. Some things > are more mundane and ordinary and are the struggle of all kids to > become independent adults. > > That's the level Harry is operating on when it comes to his teachers, > and that's what Dumbledore thinks too, or he would bring these > problems to light in terms of how Harry's views are interfering with > his ability to defeat Voldemort. > Alla: Precisely, otherwise there would be no ordinary school life, etc, no nothing - everything would be described in war terms. They are at war now, but I do not believe that everything should be evaluated as how it relates to war, because if they do not try to achieve the standards of peace life, if that makes sense,how would they ever get there. Snape as spy, IF he is DD!M as tolerated in Hogwarts, well, maybe, big maybe during war time. Dumbledore though tolerated him for awfully big peaceful time period as well. I am questioning this decision. JMO, Alla, who is off to some attempt of New Year celebrating ( at home) Happy New Year! From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 1 03:59:56 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 03:59:56 -0000 Subject: Halloween Release Speculation (Was:Re: Clue to Release of Book 7?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163349 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > So, it is probably going to be well into August before Harry is free > to tackle his own personal agenda. With all the luck in the world, I > cannot see him finalising the identification of and tracking down of > the remaining Horcruxes, destroying them and then finding > Voldemort and fighting him iall in the space of about two months.... > > I commented in another recent post that we all have our own pet > ideas and, if we are not cautious, can allow ourselves to manipulate > the facts to fit our theories. This is possibly one reason why the > "Deathly Hallows = Hallowe'en" hypothesis seems to have taken hold. > Personally, as I have just said, I cannot see the Hallowe'en '97 scenario > being feasible and - as someone proposed - if you stretch it to the > following year, we go the other way and seem to have a lot of time to > use up in the story line. > Ken; Time and distance may matter in magic but they are no barrier to this author. If she wanted to she could make it happen by Halloween 97 but I don't expect that she does or will. There is not a lot of time to fill to conclude the story on Halloween 98. Many of us wonder how she will manage to tie everything up in one book, much less one year. At the rate DD was finding and destroying Horcruxes Harry should still be looking for them as we speak. I don't see any reason to disallow the Halloween theory. What facts do I need to twist to make it fit? Ken From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jan 1 05:53:58 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 00:53:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Potter's Deathly Halloween In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4598A1F6.3090507@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163350 Steve wrote: > I can't say for sure about Britian, though I don't think > Halloween is very big over there, but in the USA > Halloween is not a 'banking holiday'; stores, banks, > businesses, and schools are all open. Bart: Here's the Wikipedia article (and, all things considered, I would guess that it is either fairly accurate, or would not stay highly inaccurate for as much as a full day): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween Bart From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 1 07:06:30 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 07:06:30 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in it... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163351 > jlenox2004 at ... writes: > > Am I the only one that will be tempted (when the final book is > > released) to just skip to the end and find out if JKR kills off Harry > > or not? > > > Sandy replies: > > I have every intention of doing just that as I am waiting in line to pay for > the book, and if I can find out sooner than that, so much the better. I knew > Dumbledore was dead before I paid for HBP because I read the last chapter as I > was waiting in line. I can't stand suspense and just have to know, and as long > as Harry survives it won't spoil the book for me. However, if Harry does not > survive, I will be faced with deciding whether or not to buy the book. Julie: I haven't skipped ahead in any of the books yet, though I did suspect Dumbledore would die by the end of HBP because of the rumors circulated online. I don't plan to skip ahead in Book 7, though it still may not be possible to remain in the dark about Harry's fate unless I both avoid the Internet and do not go to one of the midnight parties certain to take place at bookstores to get my copy. At those parties I'm sure many fans like you will flip to the end as soon as the book is in their hands, and given the emotional impact of Harry's fate to many of us, they won't be able to avoid huge smiles or huge groans, tears or sighs of relief, etc. So I guess I'll have to decide whether to have the book delivered via B&N or Amazon the next day and lock myself away in a quiet room until I finish it... or be spoiled on at least that major plot point. Sandy: > I have been very disappointed and dis-satisfied with the last two books, > which leaves me with little hope that the next, and last, will be much better. > Like Lupinlore, I just dread the Horcrux hunt . With so much else to cover in the > book I fear the Horcrux (I hate that word even) hunt will consume too much > page space and leave too many questions still unanswered. Julie: Oh, so many of so little faith! (Not just you, Sandy!) JKR has not failed in even one HP book to completely surprise me, and I don't expect DH to be any different. (Even though you didn't like the last two books, did you expect many or most of the plot points that occurred?) JKR has also rarely repeated herself. She dealt at length with horcruxes and detailed the hunt for the locket horcrux in HBP. While the rest of the horcruxes still have to be destroyed--by Harry or others--to defeat Voldemort, I have confidence that the hunting will take place in the background, and the mechanics of it will be dealt with quickly so that those many other questions can be answered and their emotional repercussions dealt with. Really, I do. I also think that many of the situations JKR has set us up to expect--Harry not going back to Hogwarts, Harry going on an extended hunt for each horcrux, Ginny biding her time waiting for him to return or not return to her, Snape in a position where he can gain no one's trust, etc, etc--may well not come to pass. She's certainly led us astray before (or we've led ourselves astray ;-) Julie, certain of little about Book 7 except that our predictive skills probably won't prove to be much more accurate than they were for the previous books. From sunnylove0 at aol.com Mon Jan 1 08:17:30 2007 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 03:17:30 EST Subject: Neville...something I'd really like to know Message-ID: <54b.be64cc3.32ca1d9a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163352 I remember all the theories of MemoryCharmed!Neville, a theory long since sunk, but something's there I've never seen addressed. Why does Neville even come out of this episode alive and unhurt? I would expect a sadist like Bella to use the baby as a lever over Alice and Frank. Why doesn't she? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 14:14:52 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 08:14:52 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Potter's Deathly Halloween In-Reply-To: <4598A1F6.3090507@sprynet.com> References: <4598A1F6.3090507@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40701010614r3d7de6e2y339c2136df31059e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163353 > > > Bart: > Here's the Wikipedia article (and, all things considered, I would > guess > that it is either fairly accurate, or would not stay highly inaccurate > for as much as a full day): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween montims: Well, according to this, Hallowe'en has taken off in the UK this century - I have not lived in England for a few years, so can't say if that is widespread or not, but I have never had a trick or treater come to my door in England in my life, and I was born and raised there and lived in various areas. As I've said before, certainly in the 80s it was not at all prevalent, except in the form of private parties, (where people dressed up as witches and ghouls, never as princesses or pop stars...) It is too close to Guy Fawkes, IMO, to really take hold (as mentioned by the newsreader in PS). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night - this is a celebration that has been carried on every year since 1606, so I would hope it isn't ousted by the commercialism of a 21st century Hallowe'en. In any case, to revert to the start of this thread, it is really only Catholic countries, to the best of my knowledge, who have days off for All Saints, or All Souls Day - in England in the 80s, it would have been business as usual, with people looking forward to Bonfire Night. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 1 15:25:44 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:25:44 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: <3202590612311645u3b90731es3af773f31e39f2e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163354 > Lupinlore: > The most unfortunate is that I think we will have to suffer through > the hunting and destruction of all four of them -- each and every > one in wearisome detail. I don't think we are going to have relief > from coincidences or "off-screen" developments. > Sarah devil's advocate once again: > I like MacGuffins and I like Horcruxes. :) There was a miniseries > on Sci-Fi Channel recently about this motel room where all the > occupant's belongings (comb, pen, razor, etc.) had gotten turned > into magical objects with different powers. Awesome! Jen: Hee, I'm with you on the Horcruxes. I'm thinking this process will be more like a mystery than a video-game, lots of deductive reasoning and intrigue, not to mention the character and minor plot wrap-ups Carol mentioned. Plus, I'm really curious how Harry will handle his promise to Dumbledore to only tell Hermione and Ron about the Horcruxes? I'm curious if Voldemort will discover what's going on or not, before the end I mean. The story plays better if he doesn't (talk about wearisome if he keeps moving his Horcruxes!) but then Harry will need help and he has multiple allies he can call on...the more people who know the more likely Voldemort will catch on... circular. ;) Call me easily entertained, the cave was fascinating and Voldemort seemed like a more able villain than he had up to that point so I wouldn't mind a couple of those scenes. JKR will have a chance to spring a few surprises during the process. Carol: > And we do know of one more puzzle piece besides Snape, Umbridge, > and RAB that JKR is bringing into play--house-elves, which she > mentioned in an update to her website. And while I'm not fond of > house-elves and dislike SPEW rather passionately, that bit of > information should give you hope that the loose ends from OoP will > be resolved after all. Jen: Aw, I can't find this info on the website and I have high hopes for the House Elves (not a fan of SPEW particularly, think Hermione's ego is in the way on that one .) Looked in FAQ, Rumours and Extras--could someone off-list me or include the info in a post? Thanks. Jen, never let down yet and expecting DH to be a great read. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 1 17:37:41 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 17:37:41 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163355 > Jen: There are two levels at work here, one is the level of Harry's > life as the Chosen One and one is the level that Dumbledore > desperately wanted for him to the point of carrying Harry's burdens > for him for a number of years: A Harry who could have some semblance > of a normal life with friends and studies and Quidditch and all the > things that another kid could have. Not everything Harry learns has > to do with the quest to oppose the genocidal murderer. Some things > are more mundane and ordinary and are the struggle of all kids to > become independent adults. > > That's the level Harry is operating on when it comes to his teachers, > and that's what Dumbledore thinks too, or he would bring these > problems to light in terms of how Harry's views are interfering with > his ability to defeat Voldemort. Pippin: But he *does.* Or at least that's what I see him doing with the lecture about the golden fountain. When he says we wizards have abused our fellow creatures for too long, he's not just talking about Voldemort. After all, the biggest slaveholder in Wizarding Britain is *not* Voldemort. It's *Hogwarts*. Wizarding society is built and Hogwarts was founded on exclusionist and elitist principles: how can it possibly be fair? Harry isn't wrong to seek fairness, but the reader, IMO, is allowed to see that the source of all the petty unfairness in Harry's life is not Severus Snape. Snape *was* unfair, but Snape was just echoing the fountain. He expected his students to receive his bounty with absolute attention and worshipful silence, and he was !@#$ irritated when he didn't get it. Of course he had no right, but the point is, he didn't get that expectation from Voldemort. One might even say he got it from James. Dumbledore doesn't state this in so many words, because he knows Harry will have to see it for himself. He just says that Snape can't get over his feelings about James because his wounds are too deep for the healing. Dumbledore has no power to make anyone, even Harry, see the truth. He can't, no matter how many teachers he sacks, make anyone see that the fountain is not only a lie in the sense that it doesn't reflect reality, but a lie in the sense that the ideal it represents is a false one. That will take change on the cultural level and it will never happen until people realize that the current system is broken. Dumbledore is not going to take a sledgehammer to it (though the destruction of the fountain suggests that he would like to) but he's not going to pretend that it's working. That's why, IMO, even if Dumbledore didn't need Snape's skills to fight Voldemort, he would still want Snape as a teacher. Because his students *do* need to learn, as part of their growing up, just how unfair the society they're joining allows them to be. If he insulates them from it as children, they'll go on expecting to be insulated as adults. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 18:16:00 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:16:00 -0000 Subject: Snape echoing the fountain or not? WASBroken potionvial and Harry expectations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163356 > Pippin: > But he *does.* Or at least that's what I see him doing with the lecture > about the golden fountain. When he says we wizards have abused our > fellow creatures for too long, he's not just talking about Voldemort. > After all, the biggest slaveholder in Wizarding Britain is *not* > Voldemort. It's *Hogwarts*. > > Wizarding society is built and Hogwarts was founded on exclusionist > and elitist principles: how can it possibly be fair? Harry isn't wrong to > seek fairness, but the reader, IMO, is allowed to see that the source > of all the petty unfairness in Harry's life is not Severus Snape. > > Snape *was* unfair, but Snape was just echoing the fountain. He > expected his students to receive his bounty with absolute attention and > worshipful silence, and he was !@#$ irritated when he didn't get it. Alla: I am sooooo confused. In Russian we call it "dragging the point into the discussion by its ears". Translation is not exact, but hopefully clear enough. Where do you see **any** indication that when Dumbledore talks about fountain he has Severus Snape in mind? I am wondering what fountain has to do with Snape teaching tactics, if anything at all? Dumbledore talks about slavery, where is any sign that he talks about anything else? General unfairness of wizarding society is fine and dandy to get rid of, IMO but I think to attach the fountain here is make the picture unnecessary complicated, because it makes the job of getting rid of Snape unfairness much more complicated than it is. Unless of course you are arguing that Snape is the slave owner and Harry and Neville can be seen as his slaves? Is that the analogy you are seeing? If it is, I think it is stretching the point big time. JMO, Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 19:10:00 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 19:10:00 -0000 Subject: Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163357 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" wrote: > > > > jlenox2004@ writes: > > > Am I the only one that will be tempted (when the final book is > > > released) to just skip to the end and find out if JKR kills off > > > Harry or not? > > > > Sandy replies: > > I have every intention of doing just that as I am waiting in line > > to pay for the book, and if I can find out sooner than that, so > > much the better. I knew Dumbledore was dead before I paid for > > HBP because I read the last chapter as I was waiting in line. > > > > Julie: > I haven't skipped ahead in any of the books yet, though I did > suspect Dumbledore would die by the end of HBP because of the > rumors circulated online. I don't plan to skip ahead in Book 7, Mike: Me neither. I read through the book the first time like a 2-year-old experiencing grass the for first time, in total awe of the whole scene. My first read is very uncritical, unquestioning, just trying to soak up every detail. > Julie cont.: > though it still may not be possible to remain in the dark about > Harry's fate unless I both avoid the Internet and do not go to one > of the midnight parties certain to take place at bookstores to get > my copy. At those parties I'm sure many fans like you will flip to > the end as soon as the book is in their hands, and given the > emotional impact of Harry's fate to many of us, they won't be able > to avoid huge smiles or huge groans, tears or sighs of relief, etc. > Mike: Or, you could have the enjoyment of having a couple of teenagers outside the local B&N, talking loudly, tell you that DD dies around page 600, as I had the good fortune of experiencing. I know we can't kill 'em but could we at least give them a sedative that makes them sleep until they're 21? > > Sandy: > > I have been very disappointed and dis-satisfied with the last two > > books, which leaves me with little hope that the next, and last, > > will be much better. Like Lupinlore, I just dread the Horcrux > > hunt . With so much else to cover in the book I fear the Horcrux > > (I hate that word even) hunt will consume too much page space > > and leave too many questions still unanswered. Mike: I have to concur with Sandy on this. (well... I don't *have* to, I *want* to). I felt OotP had way too much filler, JKR's protestation to the contrary. And HBP felt like half a book to me, the shipping noise that I couldn't care less about consuming the other half. But the saddest part was that so little questions were answered (and JKR *had* promised HBP would answer a lot of 'em. Were those the shipping questions she was referring to?). And where was the advancement of Harry's magical skills? He learns a few of the "Princes" spells, but what about a full years worth of DADA under the best DADA professor Harry has ever had? Did he learn *Nothing* from Snape's class during the entire year? After all, he's still using "Petrificus Totalus" as his main weapon, a spell Hermione learned in their first year. Is that the best spell the wizarding world has, a spell a 12-year-old can effectively master? Yes, I realize the storyline of the influence of the teenage Snape juxtiposed with the lack of influence of the adult Snape. Does that mean he can't learn anything? After Hermione reminds Harry how much Snape sounded like him from the previous year, I expected that Harry would at least listen in Snape's classes, maybe actually participate in the in-class exercises. Also, you'd think Harry would have learned something by osmosis, just sitting next to an attentive Hermione all year. But the boy still can't cast a nonverbal spell after a full year of practice, unless it's "Levicorpus". Pathetic lack of skill and lack of interest for the "Chosen One", IMO. This is where JKR has failed me, more than wasting my time with the other stuff. I realize that others (and JKR herself) are interested in all the shipping. Though, I am amazed that JKR seems to think she is a competent romance writer. However, this is a story about magic, and for all her plot devices (Horcruxes) and incidental magic ("Confundus", the "Felix" potion) the three main characters seemed to advance very little in their magical abilities and knowledge. (at least in HBP, or was that all "off-stage" and we are supposed to assume they learned a lot? JKR said that in an interview, but not on the page!) > Julie, certain of little about Book 7 except that our > predictive skills probably won't prove to be much more > accurate than they were for the previous books. Mike, who has noticed a *lot* more analysis on this list and very few predictions. I guess that water is too cold for most to dip their toe into. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Mon Jan 1 19:44:52 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:44:52 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1036986252.20070101114452@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163358 Lupinlore: l> ... who fully expects a horcrux game for PS3 to hit the market l> very quickly Dave: It goes without saying that the "official" Harry Potter game corresponding to the release of the 7th film will be all about hunting horcruxes while zapping Imps, Inferi, etc. Dave, who enjoyed the PS/SS game, but has found each subsequent one increasingly less imaginative, even as the graphics have gotten better... From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Mon Jan 1 19:52:35 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 14:52:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: <3202590612311645u3b90731es3af773f31e39f2e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <3202590612311645u3b90731es3af773f31e39f2e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C8FBF584B774F4-B70-AC00@FWM-D35.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163359 Sarah said: I guess my question for those who are disappointed is, what was the expectation? Is there a formula for the last book that you would have been happier with? More of a war story, maybe? Oryomai (me!!!): Well...yes. I'm very afraid that DH (I still want to refer to it as Book Seven...) will turn into just finding Horcruxes. Harry isn't very...shall we say...good at multi-tasking? Once he gets an idea in his head, he goes with it -- we saw this during OoP when he HAD to rush to find Sirius and couldn't be persuaded to calm down for anything. I'm afraid he'll be running after Horcruxes and we'll just be following him. I would much rather the story be a war. That's what we're all waiting for. These books, for me, are a battle between good and evil. I think it would be an anti-climactic ending for there not to be a battle. I want OoP style battle! I want to see the characters we've watched grow up and develop their magic show what they can do. I think a battle would be the perfect place to show Harry that he's not alone. Even after all the time Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville, and Luna have helped him, he still thinks it's just him. He keeps telling Ron and Hermione, who have (for the most part) stood by him, that it's up to him to do this. The Boy Who Lived has a bit of a martyr complex as well. Oryomai Who is fabulously happy to be back after a long college-related absence and is celebrating the New Year by pretending she doesn't have any work to do! ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 20:29:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:29:07 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163360 > Jen: Hee, I'm with you on the Horcruxes. I'm thinking this process > will be more like a mystery than a video-game, lots of deductive > reasoning and intrigue, not to mention the character and minor plot > wrap-ups Carol mentioned. > > Plus, I'm really curious how Harry will handle his promise to > Dumbledore to only tell Hermione and Ron about the Horcruxes? I'm > curious if Voldemort will discover what's going on or not, before the > end I mean. The story plays better if he doesn't (talk about > wearisome if he keeps moving his Horcruxes!) but then Harry will need > help and he has multiple allies he can call on...the more people who > know the more likely Voldemort will catch on... circular. ;) > > Call me easily entertained, the cave was fascinating and Voldemort > seemed like a more able villain than he had up to that point so I > wouldn't mind a couple of those scenes. JKR will have a chance to > spring a few surprises during the process. > Alla: Well, I wrote in the past that Horcruxes certainly were "that's it?" moment for me. I mean, I expected Voldemort's quest for immportality to have more elegant solution than for him to split his soul and stick it into objects a la Katchey. BUT that does not make me necessarily hate them, if that makes sense. All it did is strengthened my thought that magic in JKR's books is just a plot device that helps her to talk about the topics that really have nothing to do with magic. That is why I have no problem per se with Harry entering book 7 nowhere near being prepared for final battle magically, since I have a feeling that his victory will have very little to do with magic per se. I mean, I think JKR made it believable enough in her mind that Harry is talented in DADA, I don't think that she thinks that Harry needs to be extremely profficient in it to win at the end. Same with Horcruxes. I may like or not like the Horcruxes hunt regarldess of whether it will occupy major part of the book 7 or not. All depends on how it will be written. If it will be just a plot device to use to talk about all those character issues, to resolve loose ends, etc, I am pretty sure I will like it. If it will be indeed tedious, detailed review of destroying every one of those thingies, I may be annoyed, yes. I mean, I will certainly be happy with as less horcruxes as possible, but funnily they did not ruin my enjoyment of book 6 ( except as in being too " that's it?"), so I am fairly optimistic as well. Alla, who remembers JKR " I don't believe in magic" answer. From chellblanc at aol.com Mon Jan 1 18:39:16 2007 From: chellblanc at aol.com (chellblanc) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:39:16 -0000 Subject: Legilimency/Occlumens discussion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163361 Jen wrote: > The bathroom scene is the other opportunity to understand > how Legilimency feels to the person experiencing the process: > "The bathroom seemed to shimmer before his eyes; he struggled > to block out all thought, but try as he might, the Half-Blood > Prince's copy of 'Advanced Potion-Making' swam hazily to the > forefront of his mind... > >Harry sees the copy of the book in his mind's eye and then 'he > was staring at Snape again, in the midst of the wrecked, soaked > bathroom', so for a moment Harry is not in the bathroom, he > loses awareness of where he is and then his surroundings come > into focus again. chellblanc: Hello, I am new to the group and certainly do not know as much as everyone here seems to but I wanted to add a comment/question to this discussion... Are we sure that it is the legilimency that makes the surroundings disappear and not the act of trying to block it? When its stated that the copy "swam hazily to the forefront of his mind..." couldn't it be just that the harder you try not to think about something, the more likely you will think about it? Visions of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man come to mind - just a thought. (please excuse the amateur snipping) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 21:09:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:09:33 -0000 Subject: Neville...something I'd really like to know In-Reply-To: <54b.be64cc3.32ca1d9a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163362 --- sunnylove0 at ... wrote: > > I remember all the theories of MemoryCharmed!Neville, > a theory long since sunk, but something's there I've > never seen addressed. > > Why does Neville even come out of this episode alive > and unhurt? > bboyminn: By "THIS" I assume you are referring to the night Neville's parents were attacked. > sunnylove: > > I would expect a sadist like Bella to use the baby as > a lever over Alice and Frank. Why doesn't she? bboyminn: How do you know she (Bella) didn't? Perhaps the 'memory' effects we are seeing in Neville are the effects of the trama he suffered that night at the hands of Bellatrix. Perhaps she tortured Frank, then Alice, and getting nothing turned to torturing Neville, and it was that final act that drove Frank and Alice into insanity. They, after all, or at least we assume, did not know the were-abouts of Voldemort, so they could not give the information that was being requested. For the moment we can assume there was a reason why they couldn't lie their way out; perhaps, legilimency. So, all they could do was stand by while Neville was tortured. I can't say that this DID happen, but I don't think you can say it DID NOT. I think more likely Neville was tramatized by the torture of his parents, and that is what is affecting him. It could be the trama itself, or it could be something someone did to help alleviate his trama. Or, it could be that he was actually tortured himself, and that is the source of the trama. Perhaps we'll find out before the end of the story exactly what happened that night. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From davep747 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 1 20:43:20 2007 From: davep747 at yahoo.co.uk (davep747) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:43:20 -0000 Subject: Halloween Release Speculation (Was:Re: Clue to Release of Book 7?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163363 Julie: > BTW, Halloween falls on a Wednesday next year. That's not > usually a day one would expect the final book to be released, > since the previous ones have taken advantage of the weekend > by releasing on Saturday. But I really don't see a problem, > because 1. Harry Potter is such a phenomenon that I can't see > the release day--be it a weekday or weekend day--having one > iota of effect on the sales numbers. And 2. Halloween is a > fairly big holiday in the U.S. now (not sure about England > or Australia) and a lot of schools give the kids that day > or the following day off, to avoid the whole crazy dressing > up/sugar high insanity. Still, even without #2, I can see > most parents more than willing to let their kids stay up > late on this one special weeknight that will never come > again. Can't you? As to the date of release, no one is sure. As for the Day. It will have to be a Saturday. I live in Pennsylvania in the USA and Bath in the UK. I know that Pennsylvania does not allow any days off for Halloween. Most schools do not even have things related to Halloween in them any more. It was decided for the HBP that the release day would be Saturday as no NOT interupt school in any way. 12:01am Saturday or later. Kids skipped school in the past to get the books. ALso in the USA there are thousands of HP parties when a new book comes out. No way that will happen if the day is not a Saturday. Dave From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 22:26:58 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 22:26:58 -0000 Subject: Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163364 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Mike: > And where was the advancement of Harry's magical skills [in HBP]? He learns a > few of the "Princes" spells, but what about a full years worth of > DADA under the best DADA professor Harry has ever had? Did he learn > *Nothing* from Snape's class during the entire year? > > Yes, I realize the storyline of the influence of the teenage Snape > juxtiposed with the lack of influence of the adult Snape. Does that > mean he can't learn anything? After Hermione reminds Harry how much > Snape sounded like him from the previous year, I expected that Harry > would at least listen in Snape's classes, maybe actually participate > in the in-class exercises. Annemehr: Mike, I agree with these points of yours regarding Harry's failure to learn from Professor Snape, and a seeming failure to apply himself to his studies altogether. I really felt that Harry showed a similar lack of growth, and even regression, in other ways in HBP. Your post reminded me of some things I wrote to a friend last spring, some of which I'll reproduce here: ********************************************************************* "My" Harry (the one through GoF) seems to be permanently gone [...]. Defining what "my Harry" once was, is the difficult part -- I was never quite able to put it into words. It was something about his goodness (yes, and with flaws to be sure, but still) stubbornly refusing to collapse in the face of this generalised evil (very generalised, since we were given no details, but very palpable in its effects on Harry's life). [...] OoP worked well for me, because I thought it was going to be the catalyst for a large and necessarily abrupt increase in maturity. HBP was a disappointment then, because as far as I can see, the only thing Harry "learned" was not to shout at Dumbledore. And that resolve he told DD about, how Sirius would want him to go on and not crack up, well fine, but that's how he always was anyway. ******************************************************************** To elaborate, let's start with this snippet from the 2004 World Book Day chat ( http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm ): --Field: Regarding Harrys subconscious feelings, how has it changed from book 1 to book 5? --JK Rowling replies -> Well he's obviously been through a lot since book one and book five was the book when he cracked up a little. In book six, the wizarding world is really at war again and he has to master his own feelings to make himself useful. -- Again, almost the only time I see even trying to master his feelings in HBP is when he concsiously refrains from shouting at Dumbledore (for example, in ch. 25, in DD's office just after hearing that Snape had been the eavesdropper to the first prophecy -- and with mixed success, at that). The only other time I can recall is when Harry, in the Weasleys' broom shed, tells DD, about the loss of Sirius, "I realized I can't shut myself away or -- or crack up, Sirius wouldn't have wanted that, would he?" [ch. 4, p.77US] And as I said in my email above, Harry was always like that anyway -- because this passage reminded me of the times in PoA, when Harry was trying to learn the Patronus charm. Then, Harry realized he half wanted to keep hearing his parents' voices, but: "They're dead," he told himself sternly. "They're dead and listening to echoes of them won't bring them back. You'd better get a grip on yourself if you want that Quidditch Cup." [PoA, ch. 12, p. 243US] Harry might think he needs to squelch his feelings to reach his goals, but I'm not sure that's the same thing as "mastering" them in a constructive way. Other things I noticed, while rereading the series, is that there really seemed to be many more examples of Harry feeling empathy for people through GoF, which (though maybe understandably more rare in OoP) I felt a real lack of in HBP. On the other hand, his same old flaws and foibles continue unabated. Harry really doesn't seem ready to be the hero, yet, does he? A final piece of that old email of mine: ***************************************************************** I fear that in bk7, Harry will either remain as he is and accomplish whatever-it-is through mere good luck or by being managed, or else he will be forced to face certain facts by finally being unable to deny them - an epiphany by force. I was hoping he'd grow from within himself -- a more organic, and deeper, maturity. At least, I wished for a mixture. ***************************************************************** I used to find Harry's character endearing and even inspiring, and I miss that in book 6. This is not to say that I *expect* to be disappointed in DH (no matter that I grumble a lot in this post...heh). I actually believe we *don't* know what JKR will be up to in the final book. I'm hoping some of what I wished to see in HBP, JKR is withholding for DH -- and that she *will* make it work. After all, she has toiled through seven volumes toward the denoument of a work she said she believed in from the beginning. So, yeah. I'm all ears...er, eyes...Jo -- bring it on! Annemehr who most likely will be skulking into the local supermarket or Walmart in the wee hours of Release Day, trying to avoid spoilers From scarah at gmail.com Mon Jan 1 22:40:21 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 14:40:21 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701011440n5dd88bc7v8ac32f1a34fc5e1b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163365 Mike: I have to concur with Sandy on this. (well... I don't *have* to, I *want* to). I felt OotP had way too much filler, JKR's protestation to the contrary. And HBP felt like half a book to me, the shipping noise that I couldn't care less about consuming the other half. But the saddest part was that so little questions were answered (and JKR *had* promised HBP would answer a lot of 'em. Were those the shipping questions she was referring to?). Sarah: I agree with this, mostly. I didn't like OotP as much, but I loved all of HBP *except* the romance. I would be happy if there was no romance at all. It kind of is half a book, but I guess some cliffhangers were to be expected in the second-to-the-last. I thought it did answer some interesting, non-shipping-related questions, though. A lot of us wanted to know about Tom's past, and I know some people didn't like what we got but that wasn't from a dearth of information. We know how Tom makes himself immortal, which people also complain about, but we do *know.* We know how the MoM caucuses with the mundane Ministry, and where Snape lives (I guess it's not a Manor, lol). Mike: Mike, who has noticed a *lot* more analysis on this list and very few predictions. I guess that water is too cold for most to dip their toe into. Sarah: I think it might be more the opposite. We're each totally convinced we know exactly what's going to happen. :P Sarah From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 1 23:21:17 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:21:17 -0000 Subject: Looking at the last page.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163366 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > Jenni from Alabama > Am I the only one that will be tempted (when the final book is > released) to just skip to the end and find out if JKR kills off Harry or > not? > Sherry: > Yes, I've even got a sort of deal with Geoff from this group--if he > remembers--to have someone from the UK tell me in advance if Harry lives or > dies. After all, I read the audio books, so it's not so easy to flip to the > end to find out what happens. I do quite seriously want to know that much, > if Harry lives or dies. I can read the book to discover the rest, but I > want to know about Harry's fate in advance. Geoff: First, to Jenni, no you won't. My family is always in hysterics because I always have to know the ending of a book or film before I'm comfortable. A psychologist would probably have a field day with me! So I shall be sneaking a quick look at the last page before settling down to find out how JKR has constructed a route from page 1 to that page.... Sherry, thanks for reminding me. I'm not sure whether the UK books are released before the US versions athough there is a time difference.We'll have to liaise nearer the time - whenever that is "-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 23:31:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:31:57 -0000 Subject: Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163368 Mike wrote: > > And where was the advancement of Harry's magical skills [in HBP]? He learns a few of the "Princes" spells, but what about a full years worth of DADA under the best DADA professor Harry has ever had? Did he learn *Nothing* from Snape's class during the entire year? Annemehr responded: > Mike, I agree with these points of yours regarding Harry's failure to learn from Professor Snape, and a seeming failure to apply himself to his studies altogether. > > I really felt that Harry showed a similar lack of growth, and even > regression, in other ways in HBP. > > HBP was a disappointment then, because as far as I can see, the only > thing Harry "learned" was not to shout at Dumbledore. And that > resolve he told DD about, how Sirius would want him to go on and not > crack up, well fine, but that's how he always was anyway. > Harry really doesn't seem ready to be the hero, yet, does he? > Carol responds: I agree with both of you although I hope that Harry learned some of what Snape taught him and that those lessons will come back to him when he needs them, without Snape's presence in his daily life to distract him. While Harry may not learn to "close his mouth," surely he'll learn to "shut his mouth"--that is, to cast nonverbal spells, particularly defensive ones. Maybe he and Ron (who also needs to learn that skill, apparently) will practice them with Hermione). And I also think that Snape's alternative method for dealing with Dementors will come into play somewhere, if not via Harry then via Ron, Neville, or Hermione, none of whom has ever successfully cast an Expecto Patronum in the face of a real Dementor. (Hermione is the only one of the three who's even faced a Dementor up close, in PoA, and she immediately fainted.) To be fair, Harry did learn to Apparate in HBP, which will certainly help him, and the old defensive spells (Expelliarmus, Stupefy, and Petrificus Totalus) seem as good as any others *defensively*, and I don't think that JKR wants her young heroes using *offensive* spells, most of which seem Dark and cruel or deadly. (Snape's surprise at Harry's knowing Dark spells and his disapproval of Harry's attempting to use an Unforgiveable reflect Dumbledore's and JKR's view on the subject, IMO. At any rate, they definitely reflect mine!) I don't think new spells are the answer to Harry's problems, nor do I think he'll need to disarm the Horcruxes himself. (Surely Bill's curse breaker skills are in the book for a reason, and he'll have other help, too, I'm sure, right up to the last moment, as he always does. And Snape has a key role to play somewhere!) Also, Harry's luck and instincts will kick in to help him as they always do in a crisis, and perhaps he'll learn from past mistakes and avoid stepping into Voldie's traps. As for Harry's ability to curb his emotions, I did notice much less shouting and bossing of his friends in this book and more consideration for their feelings. He also attempted to curb his jealousy of Dean and his attraction to Ginny--and did a better job on both fronts that Ron or Hermione. He was less successful in curbing his obsession with Draco and, particularly, his hatred of Snape, on whom he piled every possible resentment and whom he now feels justified in hating. That, I think, is the key lesson he'll learn in DH, much more important in the long run than new spells or finding Horcruxes--avoiding the temptation to blame others for his own failings (blaming Snape for Sirius Black's death, for example) and the temptation to seek revenge for its own sake. Maybe he'll learn to stop leaping to conclusions and to consider the possibility (a lesson that Hermione also needs to learn) that he might be wrong, that grownups might actually be wiser than he is, that experience in living does lead to wisdom in at least some people, wizards or Muggles. To the extent that this series is a Bildungsroman, JKR can't have him learn the most important lessons in the penultimate book. They have to be saved for the last book. He also needs to realize, as JKR herself has said, how much he already know, and put it all together--much as we, the readers, have been trying to do, but with more success (I hope!). Annemehr: > I actually believe we *don't* know what JKR will be up to in the > final book. I'm hoping some of what I wished to see in HBP, JKR is > withholding for DH -- and that she *will* make it work. After all, > she has toiled through seven volumes toward the denoument of a work > she said she believed in from the beginning. Carol responds: Exactly. HBP dealt with Snape in several roles (Double-agent!Snape, DADA teacher!Snape, Healer!Snape, and the HBP), with Horcruxes and the history of Tom Riddle, and (shudder) with teenage hormones. School lessons, one of the most interesting aspects of the earlier books (for me) got shortchanged. Fortunately, IMO, so did Quidditch. We're now set up, with Harry's hatred for Snape at fever pitch, for a reversal in Book 7. We're also set up for the Horcruxes and the final battle. But there will be more to come, some of it unanticipated by us readers, and part of that "more" will surely be the final stages of Harry's growing up, not acquiring the wisdom of a Dumbledore, which only long experience with living can give, but finally reaching maturity and manhood--not by reaching his seventeenth birthday but by fulfilling the role chosen for him by fate, Voldemort, and his own expectations. > Annemehr > who most likely will be skulking into the local supermarket or > Walmart in the wee hours of Release Day, trying to avoid spoilers > Carol, who will resist all temptation to read the last chapter first or even to look at the last page of the table of contents for fear that the titles may give too much away but may sneak a peak at the first two pages of the ToC to see if Snape's name is mentioned From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 1 23:36:15 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:36:15 -0000 Subject: The Potter's Deathly Halloween In-Reply-To: <4598A1F6.3090507@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163369 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Steve wrote: > > I can't say for sure about Britian, though I don't think > > Halloween is very big over there, but in the USA > > Halloween is not a 'banking holiday'; stores, banks, > > businesses, and schools are all open. > Bart: > Here's the Wikipedia article (and, all things considered, I would guess > that it is either fairly accurate, or would not stay highly inaccurate > for as much as a full day): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween Geoff: Speaking from my own viewpoint, I don't think Wikipedia has got it quite right in respect of the UK. My credentials are that I am English; I grew up in the North of England, moved to South London when I was 9 and, after living 45 years there, moved to the West Country 12 years ago, so I have been able to look at Hallowe'en in the UK from a first-hand situation. I had no contact with Hallowe'en celebrations at all as a young person; I had heard of apple-bobbing but nothing more. Wikipedia is right in that the date has achieved a higher profile in the last 15-20 years, mainly due to US influence, but there is pressure from some schools and also churches that the way in which it is celebrated does not present acceptable models for youngsters, a view with which I agree with up to a point. It is not a public holiday and there are no public activities such a parties or displays; possibly because it is very near to Guy Fawkes Night (5th November). So it remains a small scale celebration with perhaps private parties, "trick and treat" groups, although these are rapidly falling into disfavour. It is more common now for shops to stock pumpkins near the date and for fancy dress items to be seen in shop wndows. But or example, far more people would have turned out in just London alone last night for the New Year than for anything to do with Hallowe'en up and down the country. From redeyedwings at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 00:00:21 2007 From: redeyedwings at yahoo.com (redeyedwings) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:00:21 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows -- first stop beyond the veil? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163370 Hey all, I've been perusing the postings regarding the meaning of the new title, and although I don't have my books nearby for reference, I'd like to take a shot at something JKR's been (I think) planning for a while. Somebody wrote that perhaps the title could refer to Harry going 'beyond the veil' and possibly communicating with Sirius and maybe others in the land of the dead. That, combined with many interpretations of the title as referring to some sort of 'hallowed ground' (ie -- a place), leads me to suspect that JKR is alluding to the mythical "underworld" -- not heaven or hell exactly, just the first stop on the long journey of the soul. The road to judgement, perhaps, or the gates to hades, or to eternal rewards in heaven, or whatever vision she has of our final destination. In fact, and here is where I wish I had the books, doesn't Nearly Headless Nick make reference to Sirius and how 'he would have gone on', unlike Nick himself did? Gone 'ON' implies that there is a stop for the spirit after death, but before the final resting place of the soul. A place to make choices, to remain in limbo until alit's all over with. A place to wait for one more chance to communicate with the living without resigning oneself to ghostdom? Could this place be a hallowed ground where dead spirits await conclusion of their affairs in the mortal world before retiring to eternity? A place to linger before choosing to walk once more as a pale ghost or continue on to "the next great adventure"? A sacred, Hallowed place where you're not quite dead, not quite alive, but definitely Deathly? Perhaps that's the point of the veil -- not a window into the world of the dead, but a window into the Deathly Hallows, a sacred place where the recently departed linger before the long final journey... I, for one, definitely think we're headed back to the ministry. Just throwing it out there for everyone else... Jordan From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 2 00:05:36 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:05:36 -0000 Subject: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163371 When the casher at the bookstore takes my money at 1201 AM and I receive the last Harry Potter book that well ever be written I will not jump to the very last page; I may be dumb but I'm not that dumb. But I do need some advice, should I read the table of contents in the very front of the book that lists the chapter titles? I have a horrible hunch, I think the second to last chapter, the one just before the one called "Epilog", will be called "The man who died". I think maybe I should just close my eyes when I turn over the first few pages of the book and start with reading chapter 1. I could be wrong,your comments would be appreciated. Eggplsnt From sunnylove0 at aol.com Tue Jan 2 00:18:15 2007 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 19:18:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville...something I'd really like to know Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163372 In a message dated 1/1/2007 2:20:49 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: I can't say that this DID happen, but I don't think you can say it DID NOT. I think more likely Neville was tramatized by the torture of his parents, and that is what is affecting him. It could be the trama itself, or it could be something someone did to help alleviate his trama. Or, it could be that he was actually tortured himself, and that is the source of the trama. Perhaps we'll find out before the end of the story exactly what happened that night. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn Then why was it not mentioned in the charges at the Pensieve Four's trial? I can't imagine Barty Crouch Sr failing to mention Neville being tortured....he wants to lock the Lestranges up and throw away the key. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gold_starrs1 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 1 23:56:06 2007 From: gold_starrs1 at yahoo.com (gold_starrs1) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:56:06 -0000 Subject: Question about First year book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163373 Why is the troll called a Mountain troll do they live there? OR is that what they just call them. Also what is the blue fire used for? gold_starrs1 From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jan 2 01:10:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 20:10:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4599B11A.9060703@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163374 eggplant107 wrote: > When the casher at the bookstore takes my money at 1201 AM and I > receive the last Harry Potter book that well ever be written I will > not jump to the very last page; I may be dumb but I'm not that dumb. > But I do need some advice, should I read the table of contents in the > very front of the book that lists the chapter titles? I have a > horrible hunch, I think the second to last chapter, the one just > before the one called "Epilog", will be called "The man who died". I > think maybe I should just close my eyes when I turn over the first few > pages of the book and start with reading chapter 1. I could be > wrong,your comments would be appreciated. Bart: One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons was a depiction of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Sherlock Holmes is examining a gift wrapped package with his magnifying glass. The caption is, "Confound it, Holmes! Just open it up and be surprised like everybody else!" My recommendation: Just read it and be surprised like everybody else. Except, of course, for the last word. Bart From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 02:22:17 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 02:22:17 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163375 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > Oho! Finally, a point that Lupinlore and I agree on--the Horcruxes are > surely the least interesting of the questions and issues that need to > be resolved in DH. But I wouldn't leap so quickly to the conclusion > that the Horcruxes are the unhallowed "Hallows." It still sounds like > a placename to me, and I think "The Hogwarts Hallows" of a rejected > title indicates that it's the burial place or places of the Four > Founders (or three, if Slytherin isn't there). Yes, miracles do still happen in this weary world. Unfortunately, the rejected title "The Hogwarts Hallows" seems just more evidence that the Hallows are in fact the Horcruxes. It has too many echoes of the "Hallows of Britain" which the fans of Arthurania often talk of. But if the Hallows are not the Horcruxes (and I would be as glad as anyone if they are not, in fact, the same thing), that adds yet ANOTHER important plot point that has to be worked in amidst the horcrux hunt. I don't think that JKR > is going to let all those beautiful subplots die by turning DH into a > McGuffin hunt (and, though I hate to say it, the Horcruxes are not > true McGuffins as their destruction really is necessary to the defeat > of Voldemort. They're not *just* plot devices that the characters > think are important; they do serve an ultimate purpose. Well, she certainly let many other beautiful subplots die in the transition to HBP (the DA, anyone? How about Luna?). If the horcruxes are not McGuffins, let us compromise and call them annoyances. And we do know of one more puzzle piece besides Snape, > Umbridge, and RAB that JKR is bringing into play--house-elves, which > she mentioned in an update to her website. And while I'm not fond of > house-elves and dislike SPEW rather passionately, that bit of > information should give you hope that the loose ends from OoP will be > resolved after all. Well, that would be interesting, but would take quite some doing to work in. We will see before too long. Lupinlore, who awaits the destruction of the horcruxes and has already bought gas for the wood chipper in case a humble and sincere apology from child-abusing Snapey-poo is not in the offing From megan_phntmgrl at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 2 02:36:39 2007 From: megan_phntmgrl at sbcglobal.net (Megan Lerseth) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 18:36:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Backlash? Message-ID: <618012.38228.qm@web80814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163376 Something I have always wondered about in the HP books is the lack of backlash from the mixed-blood wizard community regarding the persecution that the Death Eaters and their sympathizers level at them. A lot of this comes from the fact that I live in a town full of violence and racial tension, but it still seems an odd omission. For example, think of John Brown, who lived in the United States just prior to the Civil War era. A severely religious man, Brown was disgusted by the way many of his fellow white men treated the black population and thought slavery an abominable offense in the eyes of God. He believed that the tolerance suggested by most abolitionists would not get the job done, so he and his sons saddled up and went on sprees in which they killed slaveowners, overseers, and just about anyone who got in their way. Brown was eventually captured and hanged, but was regarded by the anti-slavery movement as a noble but flawed martyr. What I'm trying to say here is that even the most noble causes will have their extremists. I don't understand why there are no insults in the books characterizing all pure-bloods as inbred freaks, or diversity-minded vigilantes going and Avada Kedavra-ing pureblood families in the dead of night. That's what happens in the real world, and I think it would be interesting to see Harry and the other heroes have to deal with people on "their" side using Dark tactics against the Death Eaters. Megan From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jan 2 03:59:09 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:59:09 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163377 > Mike, who has noticed a *lot* more analysis on this list and very few > predictions. I guess that water is too cold for most to dip their toe > into. Jen: Predictions? Did someone say predictions? *Jen adjusts her crystal ball so the glare of the computer won't interfere with her awe- inspiring Seer abilities and grabs a bottle of sherry for good measure.* In the first category are the "I would actually bet money on these" predictions: 1) Peter will help Harry somehow with his silver hand but it might not be on purpose. He's going to end up in Azkaban where he's belonged all along. 2) Hagrid will die a noble death in service to Harry and no, there's no hope we will be spared the Grawp grief scene. 3) No Weasleys will die during the writing of this book although one or two may be harmed. 4) The 'gleam of triumph' will prove to be something about Harry's blood that will come back to haunt Voldemort in the Locked Room. 5) Lord Voldemort's demise will be "Voldemort in the Locked Room with Love" (hehe, that's from the Clue game if anyone plays). 6) Harry will survive the locked room with his untarnished soul and the rest of him intact. In the category of "I hope these won't happen but JKR didn't consult me" predictions are: 1) Harry has a Voldemort soul-piece inside of him by some strange twist of magical fate that occurred at Godric's Hollow. (Heck, every other occurrence at Godric's Hollow was a never-before-seen phenomenon, so why not this one?). Overlooking this possibility will prove to be Dumbledore's greatest emotional mistake to date. Hopeful alternative: Harry Horcrux will prove to be a red herring storyline similar to the one in OOTP when Harry thought he was the weapon. 2) Snape and Lily had a connection. I'm hoping for the potions buddy connection over a Snape infatuation and a Snape infatuation over an actual love affair. If there was a love affair, my last line of defense is the hope that JKR won't actually *describe* their romance. Now for the category of "Very few people buy these but I like 'em anyway": 1) Voldemort will lure Harry with the temptation of hurting and/or murdering Snape (I don't know how, the the evil overlord will work out the details.) Harry will be *this* close to giving in to his feelings of hatred and revenge when at the crucial last moment he will remember that his 'ability to love...is the only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's' and he will stop himself. 2) Trelawney was spirited away from Hogwarts before the Order sealed the Vanishing Cabinent and Voldemort will finally learn the full conents of the prophecy after he extracts it by some obscure magical means. Not that it will help him because he'll think Harry's power is magical and not something piddly like love. Oh well, too bad for him. 3) Dumbledore is Gryffindor's Heir and Godric's Hollow is his ancestral home and that's why the Potters hid there. This information will be symbolically important for Harry for understanding Dumbledore as well as important for the Grindelwald/Founders' backstory. Harry will learn about all this via Aberforth. Here's my own unique category: "Jen has little to no canon support for these but wants Dobby to be important": 1) Dobby will know something crucial about Snape which will help prove his loyalty, one of those secrets he was reportedly keeping for Dumbledore. 2) Dobby's hand-made Snitch socks will help Harry at some pivotal moment and he will be oh-so-surprised Harry didn't realize they had magical powers! Finally, in the category of "Well, they are part of the story so I have to throw them in somewhere to wrap this up" predictions: 1) Lupin will go with Harry to Godric's Hollow and that will help him put the past behind him and move forward as the last surviving Marauder. 2) Grawp, Krum, Fleur, Madame Maxime, Bill...pretty much anyone left will help Harry over the course of the Horcrux hunt and/or the grand finale. And I predict JKR will make their roles sound much more interesting than I do. 3) Percy will come back to the right side by some circumstance of, erm,...he rethinks his priorities because, er....oh, I don't even care, he just will . 4) Dementors, Dementors....something should happen to these guys but I have no predictions. Anyone else? Jen, wishing everyone a Happy New Year! From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jan 2 04:15:29 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 23:15:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session References: Message-ID: <00ef01c72e24$a3e6f0f0$5180400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163378 Lupinlore: > Well, she certainly let many other beautiful subplots die in the > transition to HBP (the DA, anyone? How about Luna?). If the > horcruxes are not McGuffins, let us compromise and call them > annoyances. Magpie: I don't know about anything she might drop or not drop but the DA and Luna are not ongoing subplots dropped or otherwise that I can see. The DA was an element of the plot of OotP and Luna was a character with a part in OotP and a part in HBP--she's not the first character to have a larger part in some books than others (though I don't think her part was all that much smaller in HBP). There's nothing to resolve with the DA since, as Harry himself said, the need for it disappeared along with Umbridge. JKR might have used it in HBP beyond the references to it that we got, but there weren't any dangling threads. SPEW was a plot element that was more obviously dropped, what with Hermione spending two books hammering on House-elves as a problem and then seeming to forget all about it when Harry himself actually owns one, though even there it's not exactly an unanswered question. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 04:59:44 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 04:59:44 -0000 Subject: Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > Mike previously: > > > And where was the advancement of Harry's magical skills [in > > > HBP]? He learns a few of the "Princes" spells, but what about a > > > full years worth of DADA under the best DADA professor Harry > > > has ever had? Did he learn *Nothing* from Snape's class during > > > the entire year? > > > Annemehr responded: > > Mike, I agree with these points of yours regarding Harry's failure > > to learn from Professor Snape, and a seeming failure to apply > > himself to his studies altogether. > > > > I really felt that Harry showed a similar lack of growth, and even > > regression, in other ways in HBP. Mike now: Thank you Annemehr, these were the sentiments I was trying to express. Harry's failure to apply himself in years 1-5 can be explained away as typical juvenile male behavior. And other than being forced to learn new spells (the Dementors in PoA and his participation in the TWT in GoF), he doesn't really apply himself in the first five years. (Yeah, I know he taught the DA. But what new spells did Harry learn?) That is the character Harry. That's how he is written. I can accept that. But after he finds out he is the "Chosen One" at the end of OotP, how can he be shown as the still uninterested youth of his first five years? There is more of the "hormonal-Harry" in HBP than the guy destined-to-bring-down-Voldemort-who-better-start-getting-prepared- Harry. If that isn't regression it is at the least an appalling lack of progression. Where's the urgency? Where's the resolve that he seemed to have in the Weasley's broomshed? Harry is more interested in Quidditch and how his Captaincy will be viewed in retrospect than whether he can cast a defensive spell non-verbally. Huh? This is the priority our hero has set for himself? IOW, what Annemehr said: > > Annemehr continued: > > Harry really doesn't seem ready to be the hero, yet, does he? > > > Carol responds: > > I agree with both of you although I hope that Harry learned some of > what Snape taught him and that those lessons will come back to him > when he needs them, without Snape's presence in his daily life to > distract him. While Harry may not learn to "close his [mind]", > surely he'll learn to "shut his mouth" --that is, to cast nonverbal > spells, particularly defensive ones. Mike interjects: But when? Isn't this year (6th) the year to be learning to cast non- verbals? Which one does he show any ability for, after this year? None that I see, at least none that he should have been learning in DADA class. Shouldn't he be able to cast some of them non-verbally by the end of the year? How about that "Petrificus Totalus" that Hermione learned to cast verbally in year one? Shouldn't Harry be able to cast that one non-verbally by now? > Carol continues: > Maybe he and Ron (who also needs to learn that skill, apparently) > will practice them with Hermione). Mike, unable to help himself, interjects again: Our hero can't muster enough self-discipline to learn some of these skills himself, without Hermione's help. I'm not disagreeing with you Carol. On the contrary, I think you're spot on with what needs/will happen. And that's the problem. It's not really believable as far as the story has progressed. I think I'm channelling Lupinlore now. ;-) > Carol continues: > And I also think that Snape's alternative method for dealing with > Dementors will come into play somewhere, if not via Harry then via > Ron, Neville, or Hermione, none of whom has ever successfully > cast an Expecto Patronum in the face of a real Dementor. Mike: I think Snape's alternate method has something to do with Occlumency, if not the skill itself. So, it will have to be someone besides Harry, won't it? > Carol continues: > To be fair, Harry did learn to Apparate in HBP, which will certainly > help him, Mike: So did most every other sixth year by now. Help him, yeah it already has, but not exactly advancing him towards defeating Voldemort, does it? > Carol continues: > and the old defensive spells (Expelliarmus, Stupefy, and > Petrificus Totalus) seem as good as any others *defensively*, and > I don't think that JKR wants her young heroes using *offensive* > spells, most of which seem Dark and cruel or deadly. Mike: Yes, the **old** spells, my point exactly. Nothing new. Nothing more powerful. Is this all the WW has to offer? Spells a 12-year-old can master? And have you ever heard the phrase *the best defense is a good offense*? > Carol continues: > I don't think new spells are the answer to Harry's problems, nor > do I think he'll need to disarm the Horcruxes himself. (Surely > Bill's curse breaker skills are in the book for a reason, and > he'll have other help, too, I'm sure, right up to the last moment, > as he always does.) Mike: You may be right on both these points. It still doesn't answer why Harry doesn't bother to learn new spells. And you do obliquely point out that Dumbledore fails to inform Harry how to disarm Horcruxes. Could some of Snape's lessons possibly be on disarming curses? You know, those lessons that Harry learned nothing from. > Carol continues: > To the extent that this series is a Bildungsroman, JKR can't have > him learn the most important lessons in the penultimate book. They > have to be saved for the last book. He also needs to realize, as > JKR herself has said, how much he already knows, and put it all > together--much as we, the readers, have been trying to do, but with > more success (I hope!). Mike: I don't need him to learn the most important lessons by now. But I do think that JKR should have shown him to be a little better prepared. Or lacking that, with a little (alot) more purposeful drive to prepare than she has shown Harry to have so far. (BTW, what's a Bildungsroman?) > > Annemehr: > > I actually believe we *don't* know what JKR will be up to in the > > final book. I'm hoping some of what I wished to see in HBP, JKR is > > withholding for DH -- and that she *will* make it work. After all, > > she has toiled through seven volumes toward the denoument of a > > work she said she believed in from the beginning. > > Carol responds: > Exactly. HBP dealt with Snape in several roles (Double-agent!Snape, > DADA teacher!Snape, Healer!Snape, and the HBP), with Horcruxes and > the history of Tom Riddle, and (shudder) with teenage hormones. Mike: By that shudder, I'm assuming you agree with Annemehr and myself on this point. > Carol continues: > School lessons, one of the most interesting aspects of the earlier > books (for me) got shortchanged. Fortunately, IMO, so did > Quidditch. Mike: I liked them both, though I know JKR hated the Quidditch. What can I say, I'm a jock, I like the sporty stuff. :P > > Annemehr > > who most likely will be skulking into the local supermarket or > > Walmart in the wee hours of Release Day, trying to avoid spoilers > Carol, who will resist all temptation to read the last chapter first > or even to look at the last page of the table of contents for fear > that the titles may give too much away but may sneak a peak at the > first two pages of the ToC to see if Snape's name is mentioned Mike, who is going to brave B&N again but may have to get an iPod and turn the volume way, way up, given what happened the last time at his local B&N. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 05:11:13 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:11:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in it... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0701012111r55ae1ea9v5dc922a78a545247@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163380 I've read the last two pages (and only the last two pages---no more and no less) of all of the books before reading the entire book. That has the advantage of letting me know what the very end is, and still keeps me in the dark about really major events: the basilisk, The Triwizard Tournament, The fight in the MOM and exactly how it was that DD died, for instance.) I generally tend to enjoy the telling of a story, even when I know the outcome. (this drives my friends nuts: they see movies before I do and I beg them for the details until they cave). Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 2 05:15:13 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 05:15:13 -0000 Subject: Backlash? In-Reply-To: <618012.38228.qm@web80814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163381 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Megan Lerseth wrote: > > Something I have always wondered about in the HP books is the lack of backlash from the mixed-blood wizard community regarding the persecution that the Death Eaters and their sympathizers level at them. A lot of this comes from the fact that I live in a town full of violence and racial tension, but it still seems an odd omission. > > For example, think of John Brown, who lived in the United States just prior to the Civil War era. A severely religious man, Brown was disgusted by the way many of his fellow white men treated the black population and thought slavery an abominable offense in the eyes of God. He believed that the tolerance suggested by most abolitionists would not get the job done, so he and his sons saddled up and went on sprees in which they killed slaveowners, overseers, and just about anyone who got in their way. Brown was eventually captured and hanged, but was regarded by the anti-slavery movement as a noble but flawed martyr. > > What I'm trying to say here is that even the most noble causes will have their extremists. I don't understand why there are no insults in the books characterizing all pure-bloods as inbred freaks, or diversity-minded vigilantes going and Avada Kedavra-ing pureblood families in the dead of night. That's what happens in the real world, and I think it would be interesting to see Harry and the other heroes have to deal with people on "their" side using Dark tactics against the Death Eaters. > Ken: How often do things like that happen in the real world? John Brown was captured and hanged but he made trouble in Kansas for a long time and it wasn't until he and the boys raided a US government armory in Harpers Ferry and started an inserrection against the government that anyone except slave owners tried to stop him. The US was already involved in a low level civil war at that point and the good guys (if John Brown can be said to be good) seldom use violence outside of a civil war. If I recall correctly it was only the Communists who tried to stop the Nazis in Germany other than the German government. They were no match for the Nazis as street fighters. I don't know how it is where you live but decent people in Chicago do not break into the homes of gang members and drug dealers at night and murder them in their beds. The Klu Klux Klan rampaged for decades in this country and no decent people took up arms against them. Precious few bothered to raise their voices against them. I'm not sure decent people should do the former but it is a national disgrace that so few did the latter for so long. There are some anit-abortionists who are violent. They are not viewed as heros on either side of that argument and their existance illustrates the danger of decent people who try to enforce their values violently. They become the thing they decry, they are worse than the problem they try to solve. There were John Browns on both sides of the slavery issue, without them it is possible the slavery issue could have been dealt with in Congress and perhaps Nathan Bedford Forest would not have founded the KKK in reaction to losing a war if the war had not been fought. We could even dream that African American equality would have happened decades earlier. I don't think the HP books would be enhanced if there was a violent anti-DE movement among the wizarding world civilians. It would be heartening if they were more vocal though and if the "government" were more active against the DE. Maybe the non reaction is intentional and Rowling will speak to it in DH, maybe not. She could be trying to portray a situation similar to the rise of the Nazis or the heyday of the Klan after all. Ken From scarah at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 05:18:55 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 21:18:55 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701012118h1b4acd3fh44c98d7d8a820910@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163382 I'll hop on this train but I can't guarantee anyone's gonna like it, heh. Jen: > 1) Peter will help Harry somehow with his silver hand but it might not > be on purpose. He's going to end up in Azkaban where he's belonged all > along. Sarah: Azkaban (which doesn't seem too potent anymore, I can't imagine why Lucius is still stuck there), dead, something along those lines. Agree with the first sentence. Jen: > 2) Hagrid will die a noble death in service to Harry and no, there's > no hope we will be spared the Grawp grief scene. Sarah: Hagrid is definitely toast. I hadn't given any thought to Griefy Grawp, but thanks a lot for the image. :) Jen: > 3) No Weasleys will die during the writing of this book although one > or two may be harmed. Sarah: I'd disagree here, but the problem is I can't specify who or how many. I will go out on a limb and say that at least Ginny and Bill probably make it. I don't know if it looks good for Ron, though. Jen: > 4) The 'gleam of triumph' will prove to be something about Harry's > blood that will come back to haunt Voldemort in the Locked Room. Sarah: Definitely something with the blood. Jen: > 5) Lord Voldemort's demise will be "Voldemort in the Locked Room with > Love" (hehe, that's from the Clue game if anyone plays). Sarah: Agree with the first two Clue cards. I know Dumbledore said that it was really just love and all, but I'm hoping beyond hope it can be something just slightly more interesting and less of a no-brainer. "Sacrifice/courage in the face of death" would be a good one, as would "Soul." As far as I can see, those are really the things Voldemort doesn't have and Harry possesses in such great quantities, not love. Jen: > 6) Harry will survive the locked room with his untarnished soul and > the rest of him intact. Sarah: And here we have a parting of the ways. :) Jen: > 1) Harry has a Voldemort soul-piece inside of him by some strange twist > of magical fate that occurred at Godric's Hollow. (Heck, every other > occurrence at Godric's Hollow was a never-before-seen phenomenon, so > why not this one?). Overlooking this possibility will prove to be > Dumbledore's greatest emotional mistake to date. Sarah: Arguments against this are basically semantical to me at this point. There are books and books of canon that Harry's forehead is related to Voldemort. This induces powers, dreams, visions, emotions, tactile feelings. Dumbledore in book two says that Voldemort put "a bit of himself" in there. If it's not a soul slice, it's as good as one. And I think it has to come out. Jen: > Hopeful alternative: Harry Horcrux will prove to be a red herring > storyline similar to the one in OOTP when Harry thought he was the > weapon. Sarah: Well, the prophecy was the MacGuff-- I mean, item everyone was worried about, but only for information about Harry, so to me that's not a herring. Harry is and was the weapon. Jen: > 2) Snape and Lily had a connection. I'm hoping for the potions buddy > connection over a Snape infatuation and a Snape infatuation over an > actual love affair. If there was a love affair, my last line of > defense is the hope that JKR won't actually *describe* their romance. Sarah: We are ITA here, and I'll go one step further. My favorite idea is that the "connection" is, Snape stole Lily's potions chops by writing down what she did in class in his book. This mitigates Harry's "cheating" a little, because the potions stuff is Lily's anyway. And it lets the connection be not reciprocal. Because a romance is TEW EWW, so to speak. [snip Jen's far out category to add some of my own] 1. Nagini: totally not a Horcrux. 2. Not much interesting at Godric's Hollow, at least in terms of treasure/relics. 3. SPEW will rise again, much to everyone's boredom/annoyance. House-elves probably all decide they want to be freed, due to objectionable headmaster/mistress. 4. Prophecy is really about three people 5. Harry dies, Voldemort dies. The other person in the prophecy makes it. *zips up flameproof jumpsuit* 6. The "final battle" or whatever we're calling it, is probably not at Hogwarts. It may well be in the DoM as Jen posted, or of a bit larger scope, across various venues in London. 7. Snape will be more helpful to the good guys than the bad, but has a self-centered technical reason for doing so. Sarah. Who knows lots of people have their reasons for swearing up and down that Harry will never die, but still thinks you gotta break eggs to make an omelette. :) From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Tue Jan 2 06:44:50 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 01:44:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in it... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163383 > Julie: > Oh, so many of so little faith! (Not just you, Sandy!) JKR has > not failed in even one HP book to completely surprise me, and > I don't expect DH to be any different. (Even though you didn't > like the last two books, did you expect many or most of the > plot points that occurred?) Sandy: I admit that you have me on this one. No, I did not, up to and including Dumbledore's death. I don't normally read this gemre of books so I was not aware that the mentor is expected to die so the hero goes it alone. As far as my dis-satisfaction with the last two books goes: With OoP it is all about Umbridge. I don't care if she is necessary to the plot or not; I can't stand the woman, so much so that reading the parts that involved her caused my stomach to knot up and my teeth to grit. IOW, I have a very physical reaction to the story, and it is not pleasant. A big part of the problem, for me, is that I am related to someone who is very much like Umbridge and who, for 4 1/2 years, made my life absolute hell. So reading OoP is like deja-vu for me. I have read the book twice and it stressed me out equally both times and I just don't know if I can put myself through that again. As for HBP; I considered it a total let-down. In all of the pre-publication interviews JKR went on about how it was going to answer so many of our questions. As far as I'm concerned, the only question she answered, and we didn't actually ask it (JKR posted on her website that she was so surprised that no one had asked), was why Voldemort survived when the AK backfired on him, and she did so by introducing us to those hateful Horcruxes. I have three other beefs with the book. There is a full fledged war going on, but you get no sense of it at all, at least not until the very end. Oh, and the trip to Diagon Alley. I got so excited upon reading that DD was paying a visit to Privet Drive: oh boy, the Dursleys are really going to get it now, but no, all they got was a small reprimand and annoyed by the wine glasses. I was looking forward to a real showdown; to DD really putting them in their place. Then there were the seemingly endless pages devoted to the Ron-Lavender crap that could have been so much better used. I have to wonder if the juvenile readers even enjoyed that. But, as per the Leaky/Mugglenet interview, JKR was quite pleased with herself over the romance in the book. Earth to JKR; You have more important issues to address and it ain't your strong suit. I also didn't enjoy the Slug Club. It was boring. Julie again: JKR has also rarely repeated > > herself. She dealt at length with horcruxes and detailed the > hunt for the locket horcrux in HBP. While the rest of the > horcruxes still have to be destroyed--by Harry or others--to > defeat Voldemort, I have confidence that the hunting will > take place in the background, and the mechanics of it will > be dealt with quickly so that those many other questions > can be answered and their emotional repercussions dealt with. > Really, I do. Sandy: You are right about her rarely repeating herself, and I hope you are right about the rest. Julie again: I also think that many of the situations JKR > > has set us up to expect--Harry not going back to Hogwarts, > Harry going on an extended hunt for each horcrux, Ginny > biding her time waiting for him to return or not return > to her, Snape in a position where he can gain no one's > trust, etc, etc--may well not come to pass. She's certainly > led us astray before (or we've led ourselves astray ;-) > > Sandy: On two of these points I am in agreement with you. I am one of the few who believes that Harry *will* go back to Hogwarts, and I don't for a minute believe that Ginny is going to docilely sit by and back waiting to see what becomes of Harry. As for the other two points, I can only hope you are right. As I said, disappointed as I am that she is still not finished writing book 7, I am choosing to be encouraged by it, hoping that she is taking the time to make sure she has answered all the key questions and brought the story to a satisfactory conclusion. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amis917 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 2 07:00:44 2007 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (Amie) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 07:00:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was:Satisfaction of the story to date) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163384 Harry's Characterization (was: Re: Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) Mike commented: Harry's failure to apply himself in years 1-5 can be explained away as typical juvenile male behavior. And other than being forced to learn new spells (the Dementors in PoA and his participation in the TWT in GoF), he doesn't really apply himself in the first five years. (Yeah, I know he taught the DA. But what new spells did Harry learn?) That is the character Harry. That's how he is written. I can accept that. But after he finds out he is the "Chosen One" at the end of OotP, how can he be shown as the still uninterested youth of his first five years? There is more of the "hormonal-Harry" in HBP than the guy destined-to-bring-down-Voldemort-who-better-start-getting- prepared-Harry. If that isn't regression it is at the least an appalling lack of progression. Where's the urgency? Where's the resolve that he seemed to have in the Weasley's broomshed? Harry is more interested in Quidditch and how his Captaincy will be viewed in retrospect than whether he can cast a defensive spell non-verbally. Huh? This is the priority our hero has set for himself? IOW, what Amie now: I agree that his behavior in the first 5 books is typical juvenile behavior. This also makes Harry's behavior in HBP believable as well. I think his commitment to Quidditch and short-sitedness on nonverbal spells is typical of Harry's previous behavior. If he had suddenly become completely and 150% committed wouldn't we be having the reverse discussion now? In my view, Harry was attempting to have as normal a life as he could under the circumstances. Sure he should have taken his studies more seriously, but shouldn't everyone? I know he has to save the world and all, but wouldn't that become quite a bit to take without anything else. I'm trying to imagine a story in which Harry had become so committed to learning things and was suddenly a perfect student. I'm finding it quite hard to do with the characterization we have so far. Carol continues: Maybe he and Ron (who also needs to learn that skill, apparently) will practice them with Hermione. Mike, unable to help himself, interjects again: Our hero can't muster enough self-discipline to learn some of these skills himself, without Hermione's help. I'm not disagreeing with you Carol. On the contrary, I think you're spot on with what needs/will happen. And that's the problem. It's not really believable as far as the story has progressed. I think I'm channelling Lupinlore now. ;-) Amie now: Why isn't it believable? As you said above, he hasn't done anything alone before now. I think that this idea that you can't go it alone is one of JRK's main themes. We need everyone, even those people who we see as our opposites - all of that business of house unity, working with the elves, etc. Even Dumbledore didn't think he could wage this war alone, he formed the Order to help in the fight. There's no way that Harry's going to be able to go this alone. I, personally, think it would be quite a boring story if he did. I guess I'm someone who doesn't see Harry as the "end-all-hero". He needs the people around him. He's no Superman more of an X-Men. Yea he has the powers, but what good can he do without the team? Maybe not the comparison, but somewhere in my head it makes sense. Carol continues: To the extent that this series is a Bildungsroman, JKR can't have him learn the most important lessons in the penultimate book. They have to be saved for the last book. He also needs to realize, as JKR herself has said, how much he already knows, and put it all together- -much as we, the readers, have been trying to do, but with more success (I hope!). Mike: I don't need him to learn the most important lessons by now. But I do think that JKR should have shown him to be a little better prepared. Or lacking that, with a little (alot) more purposeful drive to prepare than she has shown Harry to have so far. (BTW, what's a Bildungsroman?) Amie now: (bil?dungs?ro?man or Bil?dungs?ro?man (bl'dngz-r?-m?n', - dngks-) n. - A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.) I have to say I agree with Carol. Harry may be the "hero" of the book, but he's not adult. As a reader, I wouldn't expect Harry to have this unyielding commitment to the cause. While some may prefer to have their hero be all-knowing and full of purposeful drive, I think this flaw in Harry makes him a more believable, and interesting, character. I don't really see it as a flaw though, just more of adolescent behavior. This is supposed to be a story for adolescents after all, so they're likely to identify with this part of Harry's character. Amie ? Who looked up Bildungsroman at answers.com because I could remember learning it in a class, but had since forgotten. From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Tue Jan 2 08:47:32 2007 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (SnapesSlytherin at aol.com) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 03:47:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Backlash? In-Reply-To: <618012.38228.qm@web80814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <618012.38228.qm@web80814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C8FC61C7384F51-16C8-89CA@FWM-D26.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163385 Megan: Something I have always wondered about in the HP books is the lack of backlash from the mixed-blood wizard community regarding the persecution that the Death Eaters and their sympathizers level at them. A lot of this comes from the fact that I live in a town full of violence and racial tension, but it still seems an odd omission. What I'm trying to say here is that even the most noble causes will have their extremists. I don't understand why there are no insults in the books characterizing all pure-bloods as inbred freaks, or diversity-minded vigilantes going and Avada Kedavra-ing pureblood families in the dead of night. That's what happens in the real world, and I think it would be interesting to see Harry and the other heroes have to deal with people on "their" side using Dark tactics against the Death Eaters. Oryomai (me): Can they afford to be open? The set up of Voldy and his DEs is that anyone who defies him is immediately killed (attempts to kill in the case of the Potters and apparently Longbottoms). This is a choice between what is right and what is easy in a way. It would be right for everyone who disagreed with Voldy to stand up and say so. It's easier (kinda, sorta...) to fight him underground. You have a chance of surviving that way. Even if some things are so eternally true they're worth dying for, who would be left to fight if we all did? Oryomai Who is VP of the Gay-Straight Alliance at her college and has to stand down so things can get done (even if she thinks it's wrong). ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From LynnKQuinn at aol.com Tue Jan 2 06:25:15 2007 From: LynnKQuinn at aol.com (LynnKQuinn at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 01:25:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Looking at the last page. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163386 In a message dated 1/1/2007 8:15:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, bartl at sprynet.com writes: eggplant107 wrote: > When the casher at the bookstore takes my money at 1201 AM and I > receive the last Harry Potter book that well ever be written I will > not jump to the very last page; I may be dumb but I'm not that > dumb. But I do need some advice, should I read the table of > contents in the very front of the book that lists the chapter > titles? I have a horrible hunch, I think the second to last > chapter, the one just before the one called "Epilog", will be > called "The man who died". I think maybe I should just close my > eyes when I turn over the first few pages of the book and start > with reading chapter 1. I could be wrong,your comments would be > appreciated. Bart: One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons was a depiction of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Sherlock Holmes is examining a gift wrapped package with his magnifying glass. The caption is, "Confound it, Holmes! Just open it up and be surprised like everybody else!" My recommendation: Just read it and be surprised like everybody else. Except, of course, for the last word. Lynn: I am shocked. I will try to slow down and absorb every word as slowly as possible and accept it as its been written. I will get babysitters. Then I will enjoy my final 1st time reading of a Harry Potter story, I will not try to guess ahead. ADMIN NOTE: Please remember to include a discussion of the contents of the books as well as how you plan to read them or this thread will need to be moved to OTChatter. Here's a link for anyone wanting to post only on the latter question: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/messages From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 2 15:12:09 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:12:09 -0000 Subject: Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163387 Mike: > > And where was the advancement of Harry's magical skills [in > > HBP]? He learns a few of the "Princes" spells, but what about a > > full years worth of DADA under the best DADA professor Harry has > > ever had? Did he learn *Nothing* from Snape's class during the > > entire year? Annemehr: > Mike, I agree with these points of yours regarding Harry's failure > to learn from Professor Snape, and a seeming failure to apply > himself to his studies altogether. > > I really felt that Harry showed a similar lack of growth, and even > regression, in other ways in HBP. Your post reminded me of some > things I wrote to a friend last spring, some of which I'll > reproduce here: > ********************************************************************* > OoP worked well for me, because I thought it was going to be the > catalyst for a large and necessarily abrupt increase in maturity. > > HBP was a disappointment then, because as far as I can see, the > only thing Harry "learned" was not to shout at Dumbledore. And > that resolve he told DD about, how Sirius would want him to go on > and not crack up, well fine, but that's how he always was anyway. > ******************************************************************** SSSusan: I've left a lot in here because I want to acknowledge that what I'm going to point to may have very little relevance to the things Annemehr is speaking to, heh. So if my comments seem not to bear on these remarks in a useful way, my apologies. I don't disagree with what Mike has stated and to which Annemehr agreed: that we didn't see dramatic improvement or advancement in Harry's DADA skills, especially since (alas) we didn't get to see Snape's DADA lessons and since (alack) Dumbledore's Army was not kept together. I *wonder* if we weren't "supposed" to assume an improvement/advancement because of all those spells of the Prince's that we see Harry toying with and successfully utilizing, even the Sectumsempra which he used to "great" effect, albeit to much more effect than he intended, with Draco. OTOH, as has been pointed out, even at the end of the year, when he & Snape are having their little exchange across the grounds, Harry shows that he's not mastered nonverbal spells [NVS] and that he still resorts to a repertoire of spells he had access to many years prior. Is this yet more evidence that Harry just can't/won't learn *from Snape*? Has he not mastered NVS because Snape demanded that he do so? Or is he truly just not as competent at this stuff as we'd hope and expect Our Hero to be? (Dang! I mean, he's only a year away from IT!) Where is the kid who could conjure a corporeal patronus WAY before anyone expected it? Where is the kid who could make his wand illuminate while not touching it? Anyway, it's interesting to contemplate this apparent lack of improvement, lack of advancement, lack of shoring up his defenses in HBP, unless one considers that the things he learned from the HBP's book were that advancement. What I *did* notice, and what I suspect may not at all pertain to what Annemehr was saying, was a change in one PART of Harry's maturity... and it surprised me. It was his willingness, perhaps even his desire, to stand up to adults. Yes, he spouted off at Dolores Umbridge in OotP and got stuck carving his own hand for it, but I saw that as more uncontrolled anger. (Hell, McGonagall had warned him he must consider the big picture, consider consequences, and keep his mouth SHUT, so that was decidedly not maturity that he couldn't manage to do so... imho, of course.) No, what I saw in HBP which I wasn't prepared for was more of a SmartAss!Harry, a Harry who didn't seem to think of himself as just a kid talking to adults. I'm thinking, in particular, about two scenes. The first is his exchange with Draco in Madam Malkin's shop, which turned into some very pointed and, one might argue, threatening words aimed at Narcissa Malfoy. Now, I'm not saying it was wrong of Harry; Narcissa baited him in typical Malfoy style. But what was surprising was that Harry actually stood up to her and dished it right back. ********************************************** "Put those away," [Narcissa] said coldly to Harry and Ron. "If you attack my son again, I shall ensure that it is the last thing you ever do." "Really?" said Harry, taking a step forward and gazing into the smoothly arrogant face that, for all its pallor, still resembled her sister's. He was as tall as she was now. "Going to get a few Death Eater pals to do us in, are you?" Madam Malkin squealed and clutched at her heart. "Really, you shouldn't accuse -- dangerous thing to say -- wands away, please!" But Harry did not lower his wand. Narcissa Malfoy smiled unpleasantly. "I see that being Dumbledore's favorite has given you a false sense of security, Harry Potter. But Dumbledore won't always be there to protect you." Harry looked mockingly all around the shop. "Wow... look at that... he's not here now! So why not have a go? They might be able to find you a double cell in Azkaban with your loser of a husband!" [US hardback, p. 113] *************************************************** SSSusan again: Wow. Now, we could argue the relative wisdom or stupidity of this exchange, but once I got beyond my surprise ("This is OUR HARRY talking??"), I was quite impressed with what seemed like a leap in his courage and determination to do and say what he felt to be necessary, to not sit by quietly and take threats. It's also a rather eery set-up for the time when DD would truly no longer be around. The other incident I think of is in the first DADA class with Snape: **************************************************** [Snape] turned his wand on Harry so fast that Harry reacted instinctively; all thought of nonverbal spells forgotten, he yelled "Protego!" His Shield Charm was so strong Snape was knocked off-balance and hit a desk. The whole class had looked around and now watched as Snape righted himself, scowling. "Do you remember me telling you we are practicing *nonverbal* spells, Potter?" "Yes," said Harry stiffly. "Yes, *sir.*" "There's no need to call me 'sir,' Professor." [US hardback, p. 180] ****************************************************** SSSusan again: Hee. I was quite pleased with Harry's response here, but I was also quite surprised by his cojones. Again, some might argue it was stupidity, but my point here is simply that, once more, we found a Harry early in HBP who had CHANGED in terms of the way in which he was willing to interact with adults, particularly adults whom he disliked. I wasn't sure it "fit" with what I expected of Harry so soon after the events which ended OotP, but I remember thinking, "Wow, JKR must be trying to get us to believe Harry has matured in this way." What's interesting in this 2nd scene, in light of what Mike & Annemehr were discussing, is that it also shows Harry's *inability* to stick with the assignment of using NVS. Does this signal his lack of advancement in magic, especially defensive magic? He's still got the problem at the end of the year. Or does it signal Harry's problem with Snape in particular? He *did* manage to immediately call forth an *effective* defensive counter in Protego, so does that indicate something lacking in Harry or something intuitive & positive? Is he lagging behind where he should be, or does he just not do well with Snape/with Snape's orders? I just don't know. Annemehr: > Harry might think he needs to squelch his feelings to reach his > goals, but I'm not sure that's the same thing as "mastering" them > in a constructive way. SSSusan: As I think about this, the question applies to what I'm asking, too. Harry has great difficulty overcoming his feelings about Snape. Are those feelings going to prevent him from *mastering* himself? Will he learn how to overcome those feelings in a constructive way? Was the Protego charm a constructive alternative to a NVS? Or has his inability to do as Snape instructs and master NVS really put him waaaaay behind where he needs to be? I just wonder how much of his apparent lack of progress has to do with a problem within Harry and how much has to do with Harry's problem with Snape? Annemehr: > Harry really doesn't seem ready to be the hero, yet, does he? A > final piece of that old email of mine: > > ***************************************************************** > I fear that in bk7, Harry will either remain as he is and > accomplish whatever-it-is through mere good luck or by being > managed, or else he will be forced to face certain facts by > finally being unable to deny them - an epiphany by force. I was > hoping he'd grow from within himself -- a more organic, and > deeper, maturity. At least, I wished for a mixture. > ***************************************************************** SSSusan: Oh, man, do I hope it won't be the former! Please, please, not too much more luck and NO more being managed!! "Epiphany of force" is a lovely term. I'd like to hear more of the thoughts you have about that phrase, Annemehr, if you're willing. Wishing all things didn't lead back to Snape, I do have to say that I'm wondering if the I'm-assuming-inevitable incidence of Harry somehow being FORCED to see Snape's loyalty to DD and the cause might just bring upon an epiphany by force. Though, yes, it would be awfully nice if Harry were more prepared to face that epiphany because of some already-achieved internal maturing. > Annemehr > who most likely will be skulking into the local supermarket or > Walmart in the wee hours of Release Day, trying to avoid spoilers Siriusly Snapey Susan who is now dreading telling her daughter that she is going to want to skip the midnight release party so as to avoid those tell-all faces she'd be sure to encounter :-( From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 2 16:29:46 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:29:46 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! In-Reply-To: <3202590701012118h1b4acd3fh44c98d7d8a820910@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163388 Jen Reese" wrote: > Hagrid will die a noble death > in service to Harry Hagrid could die, but there are others that are far more likely to; like Percy, Snape, Wormtail, Voldemort, and sorry to say, Harry. I also predict that the people who have already died will stay dead; Dumbledore will not suddenly jump up and yell "Surprise, I was only joking!" > No Weasleys will die during the > writing of this book I think Percy will escalate from being a insensitive jerk into a full blown traitor who tries to lure Harry to his death. I think he will end up being killed by a member of his own family. If JKR doesn't do this and makes Percy see the errors of his ways she would be ignoring a very dramatic plot turn. And things like that really happen in civil wars. > The 'gleam of triumph' will prove to > be something about Harry's blood that > will come back to haunt Voldemort in > the Locked Room. Perhaps, but whatever that gleam was it is a 2 edged sword. A fraction of a second after Dumbledore looked triumphant he looked tired and defeated. My guess is he just thought of a way to kill Voldemort, but then he realized it would mean Harry's death too. > Harry Horcrux will prove to be a red herring Even if Harry is not a Horcrux there will certainly be a time when he thinks he is. > Snape and Lily had a connection. Yes I agree, and that's the real reason Snape hated James so much, he got the girl. He hated Harry because he knew he could have been his son but wasn't. > Voldemort will lure Harry with the > temptation of hurting and/or > murdering Snape Yes I think that is entirely plausible. > Harry will be *this* close to giving in > to his feelings of hatred and revenge > when at the crucial last moment he will > remember that his 'ability to love...is > the only protection that can possibly > work against the lure of power like > Voldemort's' and he will stop himself. But I'm not so sure Harry will stop himself, Harry's hatred of Snape has reached titanic proportions. In tragedy the hero needs one fatal flaw that leads to his downfall,this could be Harry's. And remember the title the last book will have, it's not "Harry Potter and the Funny Little Bunny Rabbit". Eggplant From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Tue Jan 2 16:37:36 2007 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:37:36 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: Predictions? Did someone say predictions? *Jen adjusts her > crystal ball so the glare of the computer won't interfere with her awe- > inspiring Seer abilities and grabs a bottle of sherry for good > measure.* > > In the first category are the "I would actually bet money on these" > predictions: > > 1) Peter will help Harry somehow with his silver hand but it might not > be on purpose. He's going to end up in Azkaban where he's belonged all > along. AmanitaMuscaria now: Peter will inadvertently aid Harry, but I think he'll escape scot-free, as will Umbridge (apart from the centaur damage), Lucius, and others. > > 2) Hagrid will die a noble death in service to Harry and no, there's > no hope we will be spared the Grawp grief scene. AM again - I'm counting on Grawp dying heroically, as well as Hagrid. I also see Lupin dying, I'm afraid. > > 3) No Weasleys will die during the writing of this book although one > or two may be harmed. AM - I want to see the scene where Fleur unleashes her full (well quarter) Veela fury on Voldemort's minions in defence of Bill and his clan. THAT will be something to fully convince Molly! And scare the bejesus out of everyone bar Bella, I reckon. > > 4) The 'gleam of triumph' will prove to be something about Harry's > blood that will come back to haunt Voldemort in the Locked Room. > AM - concur. > 5) Lord Voldemort's demise will be "Voldemort in the Locked Room with > Love" (hehe, that's from the Clue game if anyone plays). > > 6) Harry will survive the locked room with his untarnished soul and > the rest of him intact. > AM - I'm going for two battles. The flash bang Hogwarts one, and the tactical psychological Harry - Lord V at the MoM. The second battle will be a battle of possession, a bit like the linking wands one, but without wands. > In the category of "I hope these won't happen but JKR didn't consult > me" predictions are: > > 1) Harry has a Voldemort soul-piece inside of him by some strange twist > of magical fate that occurred at Godric's Hollow. (Heck, every other > occurrence at Godric's Hollow was a never-before-seen phenomenon, so > why not this one?). Overlooking this possibility will prove to be > Dumbledore's greatest emotional mistake to date. AM - as it's a n-b-s, I'm counting on it not behaving predictably. > > Now for the category of "Very few people buy these but I like 'em > anyway": > > 1) Voldemort will lure Harry with the temptation of hurting and/or > murdering Snape (I don't know how, the the evil overlord will work out > the details.) Harry will be *this* close to giving in to his feelings > of hatred and revenge when at the crucial last moment he will remember > that his 'ability to love...is the only protection that can possibly > work against the lure of power like Voldemort's' and he will stop > himself. > AM - I do like this. I don't think JKR will do it, but I very much like the setup. How do you see Harry getting near to hurting Snape, though? He's never come anywhere near it except just by being Harry ... > > 2) Grawp, Krum, Fleur, Madame Maxime, Bill...pretty much anyone left > will help Harry over the course of the Horcrux hunt and/or the grand > finale. And I predict JKR will make their roles sound much more > interesting than I do. > AM - yes, indeedy. I can't see Harry managing any of the stuff except for the final confrontation with Voldemort on his own. > > Jen, wishing everyone a Happy New Year! > AmanitaMuscaria is wishing everyone, including our favourite author, a busy and fruitful New Year. From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 14:23:12 2007 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:23:12 -0000 Subject: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163390 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > But I do need some advice, should I read the table of contents in the > very front of the book that lists the chapter titles? I have a > horrible hunch, I think the second to last chapter, the one just > before the one called "Epilog", will be called "The man who died". I > think maybe I should just close my eyes when I turn over the first few > pages of the book and start with reading chapter 1. I could be > wrong,your comments would be appreciated. maria8162001: I suggest not to read the table of contents. The american version or scholastic have table of contents but the british version doesn't have. My HP books are british version except for the 1st HP which I bought in the US when we spent a holiday in California and this scholastic have table of contents. But even with the first HP I never read the table of contents as I always plunged directly to the first chapter after reading the page on whom the book is dedicated to. Actually with my first HP which have a table of contents I read the table of contents last. You would have more fun with excitement and thrill reading HP without knowing the table of contents. Just a thought. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 16:55:57 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:55:57 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: <8C8FBF584B774F4-B70-AC00@FWM-D35.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163391 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, SnapesSlytherin at ... wrote: > > > Sarah said: I guess my question for those who are disappointed is, what was the > expectation? Is there a formula for the last book that you would have > been happier with? More of a war story, maybe? > > Oryomai (me!!!): Well...yes. I'm very afraid that DH (I still want to refer to it as Book Seven...) will turn into just finding Horcruxes. Harry isn't very...shall we say...good at multi-tasking? Once he gets an idea in his head, he goes with it -- we saw this during OoP when he HAD to rush to find Sirius and couldn't be persuaded to calm down for anything. I'm afraid he'll be running after Horcruxes and we'll just be following him. I would much rather the story be a war. That's what we're all waiting for. These books, for me, are a battle between good and evil. I think it would be an anti-climactic ending for there not to be a battle. I want OoP style battle! I want to see the characters we've watched grow up and develop their magic show what they can do. > I think a battle would be the perfect place to show Harry that he's not alone. Even after all the time Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville, and Luna have helped him, he still thinks it's just him. He keeps telling Ron and Hermione, who have (for the most part) stood by him, that it's up to him to do this. The Boy Who Lived has a bit of a martyr complex as well. > > Oryomai Who is fabulously happy to be back after a long college- related absence and is celebrating the New Year by pretending she doesn't have any work to do! > > Jenni from Alabama responds: I've been disappointed ever since the end of HBP when Harry tells us what he is going to do. Arrrgh! It ruined any hope for surprise in the next book. I like to be surprised and JKR has always delivered. Now, I'm afraid that the surprises are over. I'm sure they'll be some twists, but for the most part nothing really mind-blowing will happen. I could be wrong - and I hope I am. Jenni From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 17:19:04 2007 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:19:04 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163392 Jen Reese wrote: > 1) Voldemort will lure Harry with the temptation of hurting and/or > murdering Snape (I don't know how, the the evil overlord will work out > the details.) Harry will be *this* close to giving in to his feelings > of hatred and revenge when at the crucial last moment he will remember > that his 'ability to love...is the only protection that can possibly > work against the lure of power like Voldemort's' and he will stop > himself. > Now Cory: I can buy into the idea of Voldemort using Harry's hatred of Snape to lure him into a trap, and I can buy into Harry stopping himself from killing Snape (although I could also buy into him *not* stopping himself). The one part of this theory that I would have to quibble with, however, is the *reason* why Harry stops himself. The ability that Harry has and that Voldemort lacks is, as you noted, the ability to love. To me, that means the ability to *genuinely* love, not the ability to forgive someone because he "has" to in order to defeat Voldemort. To me, it would seem very disingenuous if Harry were to reach the crucial moment and then, just short of killing Snape, suddenly remember that he "has" to forgive Snape, or else he won't be able to defeat Voldemort. In those circumstances, Harry's "forgiveness" would not show his ability to love; he would have forgiven Snape for selfish reasons. If Harry forgives Snape, I think it has to be because he genuinely forgives him, not because he realizes that he "has to." And a happy new year to you as well! --Cory From mwburge1 at aol.com Tue Jan 2 16:55:58 2007 From: mwburge1 at aol.com (mryburge) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 16:55:58 -0000 Subject: Grail Hallows? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163393 First post, so please be kind... Perhaps the Deathly Hallows have some relation to the Grail Hallows from Arthurian/Grail legend. The Grail Hallows are the spear or sword of Longinus (sometimes called the Spear of Destiny), which was the sword or spear that the Roman Centurion used to pierce Christ's side on the cross; the actual Grail cup itself; a box or container to hold oil for annointing/baptism; and Aaron's rod or staff from the Ark of the Covenant. The Grail Hallows are are sometimes identified with objects from Irish myth: a spear, a cauldron, a stone/platter/dish and a sword. So: Helga Hufflepuff's cup/cauldron - which Voldemort already has; Godric Gryffondor's sword - in Dumbledore's office which Harry has already used once; Slytherin's locket/box - in Grimmauld Place Rowena Ravenclaw's wand/rod/spear - ??? maybe Interesting that these objects are roughly akin to suits of the minor arcana in Tarot (cups, swords, rods, pentacles). Anyway, once you start thinking in terms of Grail legend, Perceval comes to mind. Maybe Harry is Rowling's version of the Grail Knight. Perceval was the knight from Arthurian Legend whose mother/guardian kept him isolated and unaware of the world of knighthood because of her fear that he would be killed in battle like his knight-father. Once Perceval becomes one of Arthur's knights, however, he becomes the best. Arthur has an inexplicable interest and fondness for Perceval and becomes his mentor - which is later explained by a blood relationship that Perceval doesn't know about. Perceval, in some stories, is said to have trained for 7 years (Hogwart's school term), before he goes off in search of the grail. In others, it is said to have taken him 7 years to find the castle where the grail (and the other hallows) are located, because the castle is enchanted and ordinary people can't see it. Like Muggles can't see Hogwarts. Perceval finally succeeds in his quest, heals the wounded fisher king (the grail guardian), restores balance and healing to the "wasteland" and takes the place of the king. Perceval's seat at the Round Table was called the "siege perilous," the "danger seat" reserved for the person who was on the quest for the grail. Wish I could remember how Perceval died! mryburge From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Jan 2 16:42:22 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:42:22 -0500 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was:Satisfaction of the story to date) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163394 I see HBP as the novel in which Harry gets to be a teenager. In it he takes classes, plays sports, gets a girlfriend, hangs out with friends--all the things that a normal sixteen-year-old is supposed to do. Until the end, there are no great quests or adventures, no epic battles, nothing on those lines. It gives us a glimpse of what life for an adolescent wizard is supposed to be like. Think of it like an interlude, an entre-acte, a breather. 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 quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 2 17:44:31 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:44:31 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163395 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jdl3811220" wrote: > Jenni from Alabama responds: I've been disappointed ever since the > end of HBP when Harry tells us what he is going to do. Arrrgh! It > ruined any hope for surprise in the next book. I like to be surprised > and JKR has always delivered. Now, I'm afraid that the surprises are > over. I'm sure they'll be some twists, but for the most part nothing > really mind-blowing will happen. I could be wrong - and I hope I am. > > Jenni > Quick_Silver: I'm sorry that your surprise was ruined but I think that JKR is trying to show something of Harry's growing maturity. Up until HBP Harry has been very reactionary, allowing events to happen to him rather, then taking the initiative. However during HBP we see him follow Draco (over a large part of the year) for the purposes of finding out what Draco is up to and he nearly succeeds. So, IMO, the fact that he tells of what he's going to do is important because it shows that Harry is finally beginning to realize that he needs to have a long term plan rather then just deal with events as they happen. Quick_Silver From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 2 18:00:12 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:00:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701021000t7a390cc0r732e0b463e2c47c4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163397 eggplant107wrote: >But I do need some advice, should I read the table of contents in the > very front of the book that lists the chapter titles? I have a > horrible hunch, I think the second to last chapter, the one just > before the one called "Epilog", will be called "The man who died". I > think maybe I should just close my eyes when I turn over the first few pages of the book and start with reading chapter 1. I could be > wrong,your comments would be appreciated. maria8162001: I suggest not to read the table of contents. The american version or scholastic have table of contents but the british version doesn't have. My HP books are british version except for the 1st HP which I bought in the US when we spent a holiday in California and this scholastic have table of contents. But even with the first HP I never read the table of contents as I always plunged directly to the first chapter after reading the page on whom the book is dedicated to. Actually with my first HP which have a table of contents I read the table of contents last. You would have more fun with excitement and thrill reading HP without knowing the table of contents. Just a thought. ======================================================== Jeremiah: Just to stroll down the path of past chapter titles... (and hopefully prove a point)... When book 6 came out there was a lot of talk about a chapter called "Spinner's End." Everyone had an opinion about the nature of Spinner... it's End... The End... The Spinner... I think I'd read things about it possibly being Molly Weasly's death because she knits and possibly spins wool into yarn... Others were sure it had something to do with spiders and maybe Harid's giant spider friend died (and he did... but not in that chapter)... Some people thought that it was Snape and he was going to die. Well, it all took place at Snape's house but he did not die. Wrong again! It was the name of Snape's town (? was it just the town or the street... anyway... not so important)... So, If there is a "hunch" that the title to the last chapter is "the man who died" we have to recognize that it is just a hunch. No facts as of yet. Also, Which man? Harry will be a man... Tom Riddle is a man and was transformed... but is still a man... Ron is a man... Snape is a man, Mr. Weasley is a man, Neville will be a man... Lots of men in the series now since all the "kids" are turning 17 and are legal in the Wizarding World. So, a title to a chapter will not give away the ending. JKR is too savvy for that, IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjones at telus.net Tue Jan 2 19:03:19 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:03:19 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <459AAC77.4020507@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163398 KJ Writes: I will have to give this a try. The last time I did this, I was so wrong that my guesses should clear the field. >> In the first category are the "I would actually bet money on these" >> predictions: >> >> 1) Peter will help Harry somehow with his silver hand but it might > not be on purpose. He's going to end up in Azkaban where he's belonged > all along. KJ: Peter is going to finish off Greyback. His hand is silver for a reason, and JKR says that it is not for Lupin. I don't think that it will be an accident or the life debt would be pointless, but it might be against his will. Peter will also be killed, and I think that Lupin will be killed by Greyback. I think that JKR means to finish off all of the Marauders. >> 2) Hagrid will die a noble death in service to Harry and no, > there's no hope we will be spared the Grawp grief scene. KJ: Hagrid and Grawp will be tackling the other giants that Voldemort has pressed into service. Hagrid may well die in this book because he was so dependent on Dumbledore. >> 3) No Weasleys will die during the writing of this book although > one or two may be harmed. KJ: I think that Percy is not long for this world. He will give up his life to protect one of his family members, probably his father. >> 4) The 'gleam of triumph' will prove to be something about Harry's >> blood that will come back to haunt Voldemort in the Locked Room. KJ: I think that Harry's blood is just one of those unfortunate choices that Voldemort made when he re-produced a body. It is made of the hand of a traitor, the bone of the man that repudiated him, and the blood of Harry, which can not be a healthy thing for him. All of these things will weaken him at the end. >> 5) Lord Voldemort's demise will be "Voldemort in the Locked Room > with Love" (hehe, that's from the Clue game if anyone plays). KJ: Possibly. I still like Harry dragging Voldemort's unconcious body through the veil. Perhaps the Love room will be a way to get Harry back after the trip. >> 6) Harry will survive the locked room with his untarnished soul > and the rest of him intact. KJ: This room might also be used to remove the soul piece from Harry while still allowing him to live free of Voldemort. If Voldemort tries to possess Harry, the room might also be used to force him out. I agree that there will be more than one battle. There may be a confrontation at Godric's Hollow and at Hogwarts. >> In the category of "I hope these won't happen but JKR didn't > consult me" predictions are: >> >> 1) Harry has a Voldemort soul-piece inside of him by some strange > twist of magical fate that occurred at Godric's Hollow. (Heck, every > other occurrence at Godric's Hollow was a never-before-seen phenomenon, > so why not this one?). Overlooking this possibility will prove to be >> Dumbledore's greatest emotional mistake to date. KJ: I agree that he has a soul piece. This is part of the "darkest before the dawn" scenario that all heroes go through. >> Now for the category of "Very few people buy these but I like 'em >> anyway": >> >> 1) Voldemort will lure Harry with the temptation of hurting and/or >> murdering Snape (I don't know how, the the evil overlord will work > out the details.) Harry will be *this* close to giving in to his > feelings of hatred and revenge when at the crucial last moment he will > remember that his 'ability to love...is the only protection that can > possibly work against the lure of power like Voldemort's' and he will stop >> himself. KJ: Because love is his only protection, Harry will have to learn to forgive. Anything else is too much to hope for. Harry will remember the Prince from the book and Snape's memories which will help. There is still information out there, and we will see pensieves again that may be a factor in this. If Harry gives in to hatred, it will strengthen the soul piece in his head and allow Voldemort safe entry. >> 2) Grawp, Krum, Fleur, Madame Maxime, Bill...pretty much anyone > left will help Harry over the course of the Horcrux hunt and/or the > grand finale. And I predict JKR will make their roles sound much more >> interesting than I do. KJ: JKR said that this is what Harry thought he had to do. This was a corrected statement. So, he will either have to find fewer horcruxes because someone else is looking after them(Snape) or more because he has one he doesn't know about. I don't believe that Harry or anyone else other than Snape (maybe) that has the ability to destroy horcruxes. >> Jen, wishing everyone a Happy New Year! >> > > AmanitaMuscaria is wishing everyone, including our favourite author, > a busy and fruitful New Year. KJ, adding good wishes and a Happy New Year to all. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 19:07:55 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:07:55 -0000 Subject: Question about First year book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163399 --- "gold_starrs1" wrote: > > Why is the troll called a Mountain troll do they live > there? OR is that what they just call them. Also what > is the blue fire used for? > > gold_starrs1 > bboyminn: I suspect that a 'mountain' troll is a very specific type of troll, and yes, most likely they do live in the mountains. In folktales and mythology, there is also the 'bridge' troll which hides under bridges and attackes little children. On some occassions, the 'bridge' troll will present the approaching person with a riddle, and if you guess the riddle he will let you pass. Fail to guess, and he will eat you. Since, this troll lives under a bridge, we can assume he is a 'valley' or 'river valley' troll. I'm sure there are other types of trolls in folklore and mythology. I'm sure you will find Trolls associated with all kinds of seemingly perilous geographic areas; cave trolls, forest trolls, sea trolls, etc.... Also, from the perspective of the author, I think 'mountain' troll just sounded more dangerous. For an excellent summary of 'Trolls' in general - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll As to the Blue Flame Spell (Bluebell Flame) that Hermione is performing, I think that while the Blue Flames do give off heat, they are, to some extent, 'cool' flames. That is, they are not likely to ignite other object or to burn the user. In a sense, they are 'safe' flames which is why Hermione uses them. Note, the Blue Flames are also waterproof which is certainly an advantage. I think the 'Blue Flame Spell' is an invention of JKR. Here is some more information on JKR's 'Bluebell Flames' http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/spells/spells_b.html#bluebell_flames Hope that helps. Steve/bboyminn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 20:16:13 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:16:13 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163400 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > 1) Harry has a Voldemort soul-piece inside of him by some strange > twist of magical fate that occurred at Godric's Hollow. Overlooking > this possibility will prove to be Dumbledore's greatest emotional > mistake to date. zanooda: I still think that DD new, but didn't dare to tell Harry, just as he couldn't bring himself to tell about the prophecy. Maybe DD hoped to find a way to remove the soul bit first. It is not easy to tell a 15- year old boy that he has to kill or be killed. It is much more difficult to tell him that he must die in order to succeed. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 2 21:06:48 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:06:48 -0000 Subject: Backlash? In-Reply-To: <618012.38228.qm@web80814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163401 Megan Lerseth wrote: > Something I have always wondered about in the HP books is the lack > of backlash from the mixed-blood wizard community regarding the > persecution that the Death Eaters and their sympathizers level at > them. > I don't understand why there are no insults in the books > characterizing all pure-bloods as inbred freaks, or diversity-minded > vigilantes going and Avada Kedavra-ing pureblood families in the > dead of night. SSSusan: Hmmmm. How 'bout the way that Herself portrayed the Gaunt family? They sure seemed the height (or would that be depths?) of the stereotypical inbred, pureblood freaks to me. They were dirty, had eyes that went the wrong direction and seemed at *least* three bricks shy of a load... each! I know this doesn't address your main question, about why there hasn't been any backlash from any of *characters* themselves, but it did strike me as awfully over-the-top of JKR to have portrayed the Gaunts as she did. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who is finally wrapping up LOTR and who has been dying to say that, for those who think JKR's characters and imagery are too blatantly black & white, jeepers, I think JRRT has her beat in that category! I mean, ANY person, place or thing which is evil is dark, literally, or ugly, while just about all the good guys wear silver, gold or white and are beautiful. ::grumble, grumble:: From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 2 21:44:53 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:44:53 -0000 Subject: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701021000t7a390cc0r732e0b463e2c47c4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163402 Jeremiah: > Just to stroll down the path of past chapter titles... (and > hopefully prove a point)... > > When book 6 came out there was a lot of talk about a chapter called > "Spinner's End." Everyone had an opinion about the nature of > Spinner... it's End... The End... The Spinner... I think I'd read > things about it possibly being Molly Weasly's death because she > knits and possibly spins wool into yarn... Others were sure it had > something to do with spiders and maybe Harid's giant spider friend > died... Some people thought that it was Snape and he was going to > die. Well, it all took place at Snape's house but he did not die. > Wrong again! It was the name of Snape's town. SSSusan: This is true. But keep in mind that this was a chapter title JKR let us know about IN ADVANCE. In other words, she chose this as one of the ones to let out early on purpose, I suspect because she knew that people would both 1) have fun with it, and 2) never be able to figure it out. :) Jeremiah: > So, If there is a "hunch" that the title to the last chapter > is "the man who died" we have to recognize that it is just a > hunch. No facts as of yet. Also, Which man? Harry will be a man... > Tom Riddle is a man and was transformed... but is still a man... > Ron is a man... Snape is a man, Mr. Weasley is a man, Neville will > be a man... So, a title to a chapter will not give away the > ending. JKR is too savvy for that, IMO. SSSusan: Well, yes and no. I mean, you're correct that such a chapter title could be any man... but the idea of "The Man Who Died" juxtaposed to the first book's "The Boy Who Lived" would, I think, understandably make us suspect Harry. Also, I think the danger (if one doesn't want spoilers) in looking at the last chapter's title is that I think later chapter titles are more likely to give things away. I mean, come on, look at HBP's last two chapter titles -- "The PHOENIX Lament" followed by "The WHITE Tomb"? Who, from those who looked at that before beginning to read, didn't at least have a suspicion that those rumors about DD's death in Book 6 were going to come true? JKR is certainly savvy enough to avoid give-aways *if* she wants to. But she may simply prefer to create meaningful chapter titles, and if they happen to give something away, so be it. Read the TOC at one's own peril, then. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who detests spoilers and who learned her lesson with HBP about reading the TOC before beginning! From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 2 21:47:41 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:47:41 -0000 Subject: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > When the casher at the bookstore takes my money at 1201 AM and I > receive the last Harry Potter book that well ever be written I will > not jump to the very last page; I may be dumb but I'm not that dumb. > But I do need some advice, should I read the table of contents in the > very front of the book that lists the chapter titles? I have a > horrible hunch, I think the second to last chapter, the one just > before the one called "Epilog", will be called "The man who died". I > think maybe I should just close my eyes when I turn over the first few > pages of the book and start with reading chapter 1. I could be > wrong,your comments would be appreciated. > > Eggplsnt > Jenni from Alabama reponds: I didn't say I actually WAS going to skip the the end of Deathly Hallows, just that I was tempted! If I did actually skip to the end, it would ruin the little surprises that JKR has included in Deathly Hallows. I just don't think there are going to be any major surprises and this book will be pretty predictable. Sorry, just my opinion. I could be wrong, but I don't expect anything really mind blowing to take place. Jenni from Alabama (Please let me be wrong and this book blow my mind as the others have!) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 2 21:49:09 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:49:09 -0000 Subject: Casting a little light on Book 7 topics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163404 In message 163377 Jen wrote: > 5) Lord Voldemort's demise will be "Voldemort in the Locked > Room with Love" (hehe, that's from the Clue game if anyone > plays) Geoff: Now that really worried me. In Cluedo, when you make a statement such as "It was Professor Plum in the Library with the spanner", you are making a suggestion that the named person committed the murder. If your accusation above is right, then it looks like curtains for Harry. I sincerely, oh so sincerely, hope, dear Jen, that you REALLY mean "it was Harry in the Locked Room with the Power of Love." In message 163391 in a discussion of possible Book 7 events Jenni from Alabama wrote: > I've been disappointed ever since the end of HBP when Harry tells > us what he is going to do. Arrrgh! It ruined any hope for surprise > in the next book. I like to be surprised and JKR has always delivered. > Now, I'm afraid that the surprises are over. I'm sure they'll be some > twists, but for the most part nothing really mind-blowing will happen. > I could be wrong - and I hope I am. Geoff: Come now, have you ever known anyone's plan to save the real world ever come out straight without any wriggles? So it is in the Wizarding World. Harry's agenda is bound to go pear shaped. Remember the prophecy of the great Scots Seer Robert of the Burns who said of such ideas: "The well-laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley" meaning that however well you lay the patio, the tree-roots will get you in the end. In message 163399, bboyminn wrote on the subjects of trolls: > I suspect that a 'mountain' troll is a very specific type of troll, and yes, > most likely they do live in the mountains. In folktales and mythology, > there is also the 'bridge' troll which hides under bridges and attacks > little children. On some occasions, the 'bridge' troll will present the > approaching person with a riddle, and if you guess the riddle he will > let you pass. Fail to guess, and he will eat you. Geoff: The troll mentioned above by Steve has a well-known niche in UK children's stories in `The Tale of the Three Billy Goats Gruff" and its corresponding song. It may now be a long-extinct species and forgotten by biological scientists but there existed in the long ago days of Middle-Earth cave trolls who were drawn into the service of various of the baddies who roamed the lands in those days. Geoff: Trying to cast a few beams of light (heartedness) into the growing gloom surrounding Book 7. :-) From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Tue Jan 2 22:21:06 2007 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:21:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question about First year book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68890ddfa7ec99cc50e4a391f62970a5@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163405 On Jan 2, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Steve wrote: > --- "gold_starrs1" wrote: > > > > Why is the troll called a Mountain troll do they live > > there? OR is that what they just call them. Also what > > is the blue fire used for? > > > > gold_starrs1 > > The mountain troll is a particular type of troll. Rowling (in FANTASTIC BEASTS...) lists three types of trolls--mountain, forest, and river. In her words, the mountain troll "is the largest and most vicious. It is bald, with a pale-grey skin." Barbara Roberts (Ivogun) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 2 22:22:08 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:22:08 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163406 Jen: > Predictions? Did someone say predictions? *Jen adjusts her > crystal ball so the glare of the computer won't interfere with her > awe-inspiring Seer abilities and grabs a bottle of sherry for good > measure.* SSSusan: Ooooh! Predictions!! ::SSSusan sits up straight in her chair and puts on big sh*t-eating grin, recalling the "glory days" of her Top Ten performance in TigerPatronus's HBP prediction contest:: Jen: > In the first category are the "I would actually bet money on > these" predictions: > > 1) Peter will help Harry somehow with his silver hand but it > might not be on purpose. He's going to end up in Azkaban where > he's belonged all along. SSSusan: I believe Peter will help Harry somehow, and I think it would be cool if it were with the silver hand. I almost think it *will* have to be intentional, though, if it will be meant to be a repayment of the life debt. Something about the way DD worded that to Harry -- was it "There may come a day when you are glad that Pettigrew is in your debt" or something like that? -- which makes me think Pettigrew will make a CHOICE to help. His going to Azkaban? I'm not sure about that part.... Jen: > 2) Hagrid will die a noble death in service to Harry and no, > there's no hope we will be spared the Grawp grief scene. SSSusan: Yeah, I suppose Hagrid's toast. Sigh. And I suppose we'll have to be subjected to Grawp. UGH. I so detest Grawp. Jen: > 3) No Weasleys will die during the writing of this book although > one or two may be harmed. SSSusan: Oooh. I think I actually disagree with this one, my usual think- alike pal. I think either Charlie or Percy or Arthur will be dead by the end. Jen: > 5) Lord Voldemort's demise will be "Voldemort in the Locked Room > with Love" (hehe, that's from the Clue game if anyone plays). SSSusan: Heh. Why does this make me want to break out into "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"?? (Hey, CMC -- you out there? Hint, hint!) Jen: > 6) Harry will survive the locked room with his untarnished soul > and the rest of him intact. SSSusan: Wow. I'd definitely put this one into an "I HOPE these happen but JKR didn't consult me and so I'm not confident" category! I'm not brave enough to put it into the "I'll bet money on it" category. But I'll root HARD for you to be right, Jen! My own additions to the "I'll bet money on it" category would be: 7) We will find out about the missing 24 hours, and it will play a role in why DD trusted Snape implicitly. 8) Bellatrix is going to FRY in one great, gigantic, green burst of flames!!!!!!!! 9) While Harry has little *conscious* memory of Godric's Hollow, he does have a complete memory which can be "wandered around," and somehow that memory *will* make it into a pensieve for review 10)The tiara in the Room of Requirement will play somehow in DH Jen: > In the category of "I hope these won't happen but JKR didn't > consult me" predictions are: > 2) Snape and Lily had a connection. I'm hoping for the potions > buddy connection over a Snape infatuation and a Snape infatuation > over an actual love affair. If there was a love affair, my last > line of defense is the hope that JKR won't actually *describe* > their romance. SSSusan: Heh. I would love for it to be the potions buddy scenario, and I would be pleased, even, with the Snape infatuation. I could even live with full-fledged LOLLIPOPS. But I'm with you on the description of it! :) Jen: > Now for the category of "Very few people buy these but I like 'em > anyway": > > 1) Voldemort will lure Harry with the temptation of hurting > and/or murdering Snape (I don't know how, the the evil overlord > will work out the details.) Harry will be *this* close to giving > in to his feelings of hatred and revenge when at the crucial last > moment he will remember that his 'ability to love...is the only > protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like > Voldemort's' and he will stop himself. SSSusan: Interesting! I think you're wise to not put this in the "bettin' money" category, but I could see it happening. It could also be simply Harry encountering Snape and considering hurting/murdering him, with no part played by Voldy?? Jen: > Here's my own unique category: "Jen has little to no canon support > for these but wants Dobby to be important": > 2) Dobby's hand-made Snitch socks will help Harry at some pivotal > moment and he will be oh-so-surprised Harry didn't realize they > had magical powers! SSSusan: I *so* want the sock running theme to be resolved by the end! So for that reason alone I'm voting a "Yes, please!" to this one! *Anything* which will bring up the topic of socks, especially if it answers why DD wanted socks. Jen: > Finally, in the category of "Well, they are part of the story so I > have to throw them in somewhere to wrap this up" predictions: > > 1) Lupin will go with Harry to Godric's Hollow and that will help > him put the past behind him and move forward as the last surviving > Marauder. SSSusan: Oh, yes, please!! I'd even put this one up with the "Bettin' money" category... or at least in my "I HOPE this happens but JKR didn't consult me" category. One of my sorest disappointments with HBP was that Lupin played such a minor role in Harry's life that year. I had so looked forward to him stepping up after Sirius's death. I was definitely pleased that DD stepped up and we got a lot of time & interaction between him & Harry instead, but I really want Lupin to have a major role (as a loyal Order member, natch) before the end, AND to live. Having all four Marauders either die or end up being ESE! would be just too much cruelty/tragedy on JKR's part for me. Jen: > 3) Percy will come back to the right side by some circumstance > of, erm,...he rethinks his priorities because, er....oh, I don't > even care, he just will . SSSusan: I'm of two minds about Percy. I just cannot figure out what I think is going to happen with him. I could see him going all-out for the wrong side, I could see him doing something noble to save a family member, I could see him discovering the error of his ways and returning, I could see him dying without having made amends with his family in any way. I just don't have a clue! Jen: > 4) Dementors, Dementors....something should happen to these guys > but I have no predictions. Anyone else? SSSusan: Hmmmm. I liked what happened to 'em in A&Z's "After the End," but since I don't think that's really going to happen.... I do think it'd be cool if somehow they all "blew up" along with Azkaban. :) Siriusly Snapey Susan From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 00:04:55 2007 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:04:55 -0000 Subject: Predictions? Did someone say Predictions? -- The Return of TigerPatronus! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163407 Predictions! Did someone say predictions? TigerPatronus's (TK Kenyon's) Final and Formidable Prediction Contest will open much closer to the as-yet-unannounced-but-eagerly- anticipated release date! Begin to prepare your predictions *now* to assume the mantle of S/He- Who-Knows-All! The first of my predictions: Harry does not die but must sacrifice something terrible in order to rid the world of Voldy-thingy. Example: His magic. Yours in Potter, TigerPatronus TK Kenyon, Author of Rabid: A Novel Coming in April, 2007 from Kunati Books "Part thriller, part-literay slapdown" - Starred review from Booklist Three subtle but unambiguous post-modernish references to the Harry Potter Saga! www.tkkenyon.com --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: . > > Jen: Predictions? Did someone say predictions? *Jen adjusts her > crystal ball so the glare of the computer won't interfere with her awe- > inspiring Seer abilities and grabs a bottle of sherry for good > measure.* From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Wed Jan 3 00:00:28 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:00:28 -0000 Subject: Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163408 > Mike now: SNIP> > But after he finds out he is the "Chosen One" at the end of OotP, how > can he be shown as the still uninterested youth of his first five > years? There is more of the "hormonal-Harry" in HBP than the guy > destined-to-bring-down-Voldemort-who-better-start-getting-prepared- > Harry. If that isn't regression it is at the least an appalling lack > of progression. Where's the urgency? Where's the resolve that he > seemed to have in the Weasley's broomshed? Harry is more interested > in Quidditch and how his Captaincy will be viewed in retrospect than > whether he can cast a defensive spell non-verbally. Huh? This is the > priority our hero has set for himself? IOW, what Annemehr said: > > > Carol responds: > > > > I agree with both of you although I hope that Harry learned some of > > what Snape taught him and that those lessons will come back to him > > when he needs them, without Snape's presence in his daily life to > > distract him. While Harry may not learn to "close his [mind]", > > surely he'll learn to "shut his mouth" --that is, to cast nonverbal > > spells, particularly defensive ones. > > Mike interjects: > But when? Isn't this year (6th) the year to be learning to cast non- > verbals? Which one does he show any ability for, after this year? > None that I see, at least none that he should have been learning in > DADA class. Shouldn't he be able to cast some of them non-verbally by > the end of the year? How about that "Petrificus Totalus" that > Hermione learned to cast verbally in year one? Shouldn't Harry be > able to cast that one non-verbally by now? Lilygale responds: I don't see Harry taking his role as Chosen One lightly, but he has managed to lead a relatively normal teenage life, which was one of Dumbledore's main goals in protecting Harry from the prophecy. Harry follows Dumbledore's lead in learning about the past, and his own lead in pursuing his suspicions regarding Draco. And Harry *has* demonstrated an ability with non-verbal spells. He merely thinks Levicorpus and Ron is hanging from the ceiling. He used a non-verbal Aguamenti (sp?) to refill the wine bottles in order to reach an important goal. True, Harry regressed back to easier modes (verbal, more basic spells) when faced with a real life and death fight. That's not surprising given the level of stress as well as the fact that simple verbal spells have served him well in the past against Voldemort. So who could predict that the simple spells would not work against Snape? Harry didn't. We don't have any canon showing us exactly what Snape was teaching in DADA, so we don't have standards to judge. As far as initiative, Harry certainly took advantage of all the Prince had to offer. And regarding Harry's interests, I thought that JKR was making it clear that Harry was losing just a little interest in Quidditch, in part because more important things (Malfoy = Death Eater) were on his mind. Remember how *strongly* tempted he was to ditch a match and run after Malfoy. I can't imagine 13 or 15 year old Harry even imagining such a thing. (Slightly off topic, but I believe Harry was disgruntled about missing the last Quidditch match more because he felt ashamed that he was letting his team down rather than ignoring the reason for the detention in the first place.) Lilygale From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Tue Jan 2 23:21:38 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 23:21:38 -0000 Subject: Backlash? In-Reply-To: <618012.38228.qm@web80814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163409 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Megan Lerseth wrote: > > SNIP> > What I'm trying to say here is that even the most noble causes will have their extremists. I don't understand why there are no insults in the books characterizing all pure-bloods as inbred freaks, or diversity-minded vigilantes going and Avada Kedavra-ing pureblood families in the dead of night. That's what happens in the real world, and I think it would be interesting to see Harry and the other heroes have to deal with people on "their" side using Dark tactics against the Death Eaters. > > Megan > Lilygale here: I think we see an inkling of this kind of behavior in James' and Sirius' actions towards Severus. Because Sirius believes that Snape is "up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts" (sorry, an approximate quote because I am canonless at the moment), James and Sirius feel somehow justified in taunting, hexing and embarrassing him. After all, he's just a dirty little Dark Arts freak. True, the combination of teen!Severus acting both sullen and intellgent also may have spurred the abuse. But it seems like James and Sirius, while not using Dark Magic against Severus, certainly acted in a darkly immoral manner. And Harry *does* have to deal with his reactions to the actions of his previously adored father and godfather. Harry takes the moral highroad by refusing to buy into their prejudiced thinking. Now if he could only stay that way when he next meets Snape! Sigh, wishful thinking... Lilygale, who found going back to work today much duller after a week of reading Potter canon and lore From rkelley at blazingisp.net Wed Jan 3 01:05:58 2007 From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 19:05:58 -0600 Subject: Looking at the last page. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163410 Always before I was waiting in line, in a hurry to get at the book to quickly skim through it on a first read and grab the main details before going back for a slow, detailed read to try to glean clues. But this time will be different. I mean, this is it. No more clues to guess. No more postings of theories and predictions. Finite. Finality. The end. Th-th-th-that's all folks. I don't want to hurry through it because I have no idea if I'm ever going to want to pick up the book again, depending on how it all turns out. I'm one who was really disappointed in HBP. I keep thinking what if it just gets worse in DH? There won't be any more chances to make it right. Even if Jo does the most wonderful, surprising, awe-inspiring, all-questions-answered ending, and all the threads are tied up just as I'd like, it's still an end to something we'll likely never see again in our lifetimes. I want it to last. I want to savor it, page by page, as though it were rich dark chocolate melting across my tongue like velvet. When it's done I want to gently close the book, with a smile on my face as I gently nod and say, "Yeah. It's finished. Thanks, Jo." Until then, Anders [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 01:54:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 01:54:39 -0000 Subject: If Harry will find out about UV, how will it happen? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163412 I just had a strange thought :) I am of the mindset that Harry will definitely find out about UV taking place in book 7. I just did not really consider before how will he find out. Now, of course one way to find out is from Dumbledore pensieve. I do not really buy it personally, but not just because I am not the biggest fan of DD!M Snape, who told Dumbledore everything about UV> I think there was too much pensieve in the books already, but that is JMO. The thing is theoretically if Harry will find out the way I am thinking he would, Snape can also be DD!M. Ooops for me then. I think rather dramatic way to make Harry find out would be from the evil highness himself - Mr. Voldemort. And not just at any moment in time, but when Harry will be learning something about Snape that will make him consider forgiving the bastard. Although on the other hand, Voldemort and Harry and Snape together is only likely to happen during final scenes. Oh, another related thought that Peter on Voldemort's orders will inform Harry. Thoughts? Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 3 02:25:58 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:25:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: <3202590701012118h1b4acd3fh44c98d7d8a820910@mail.gmail.com> References: <3202590701012118h1b4acd3fh44c98d7d8a820910@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <459B1436.8010404@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163413 Scarah wrote: >>3) No Weasleys will die during the writing of this book although one >>or two may be harmed. > > Sarah: > I'd disagree here, but the problem is I can't specify who or how many. > I will go out on a limb and say that at least Ginny and Bill probably > make it. I don't know if it looks good for Ron, though. When reading that, I was thinking that Percy would be a logical candidate. It would show that, in a war of that scale, there are no neutrals. Which made me think of something (subsequently, I looked it up on the web, and found that I'm not the only one who has thought of this). Especially since JKR has promised that, by the end of book 7, the Christianity of her outlook will be clear (or words to that effect). The situation in the Potterverse is very much like Milton's Paradise Lost. The magic world is small, but they are far more powerful than humans. Yet, they accept the human sovereignty over the Earth. There are a group of rebels, who believe that they should rule over the Earth with their power. And the forces of good are aligning against the forces of evil for a final battle. Included in this are clear statements by JKR that there will be no more Harry Potter books. This implies that the final battle will be the Final Battle. I am going to take a leap and predict the following: After the final battle between Harry and Voldemort, the Wizarding World will be no more. Bart From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Jan 3 03:08:08 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 03:08:08 -0000 Subject: If Harry will find out about UV, how will it happen? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163414 Alla: I just had a strange thought :) Ceridwen: Hee, I'm dying to hear it! Alla: > I am of the mindset that Harry will definitely find out about UV taking place in book 7. I just did not really consider before how will he find out. Now, of course one way to find out is from Dumbledore pensieve. I do not really buy it personally, but not just because I am not the biggest fan of DD!M Snape, who told Dumbledore everything about UV Ceridwen: I do think Snape told DD everything. But I am not a fan of random memories lying around for Harry to find. That goes for notes, too. First, there is a war on. Leaving random informaton lying around could allow the enemy to find it first. There are plants at the Ministry who have been around for decades just waiting, like sleepers, to pick up with their jobs for LV. Especially now with DD dead, there could be any number of spies, traitors and moles wandering Hogwarts just looking for something to get them catapulted into LV's favor. It'll take a heck of a big thing to push Snape aside, after the end of HBP! Second, if everything we've hoped would be left in a note or Pensieve memory actually appears as such, there will be no room for anything else in the books unless one note or memory could tie up several lose ends at once. But again, see above: leaving random memories and notes around for just anyone to find would be dangerous. Alla: > The thing is theoretically if Harry will find out the way I am thinking he would, Snape can also be DD!M. Ooops for me then. Ceridwen: Hee! Dropped your potion? ;) If the UV is important enough to come back to haunt DH, then I think it will lead to DDM!Snape any way it happens. Only my opinion, though. *(snip)* Alla: > Oh, another related thought that Peter on Voldemort's orders will inform Harry. Thoughts? Ceridwen: I think this idea ties in neatly with the recent post about Voldemort possibly knowing Snape is really DDM, but needing him for the moment. I'm sorry that I don't remember whose post that was! After seeing the brutes sent to back Draco at Hogwarts, I can see LV biding his time until he can do away with all the DEs he needs right now, then doing them under after he conquers the WW. Though Snape would be an asset to him both before and after, if he is DDM, then he will be gotten rid of once the battle is won. Voldemort won't tolerate snakes in his bosom other than Nagini. But, this would be a dangerous balancing act for LV. Snape, being less pure brute and more of a thinker, would be poised to help Harry at the end if he is DDM. And this would be a delicate time for LV, since everything hinges on his defeat of Harry, according to the prophecy. In his eyes, I imagine that he must play the Snape line with finesse in order to maximize Snape's usefulness to him, but minimize his usefulness to the other side. Ceridwen. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 04:37:37 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:37:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163415 ----Compilations from within this thread: > > Sandy wrote: > As far as my dis-satisfaction with the last two books goes: > With OoP it is all about Umbridge. I don't care if she is necessary > to the plot or not; I can't stand the woman, so much so that > reading the parts that involved her caused my stomach to knot up > and my teeth to grit. IOW, I have a very physical reaction to the > story, and it is not pleasant. Mike: Sorry to hear it was that bad for you, Sandy. I too couldn't stand Umbridge, and on my rereads started to skim read all the scenes she was in, slowing when a different character took center stage. Quite frankly, I thought Umbridge had way too much face time (part of the filler I lamented upthread). And hope dearly that whatever JKR has planned for her in DH, that Hermione gets to hit her with a "Silencio" before she starts to speak. > Sandy added: > Then there were the seemingly endless pages devoted to the Ron- > Lavender crap that could have been so much better used. I have to > wonder if the juvenile readers even enjoyed that. But, as per > the Leaky/Mugglenet interview, JKR was quite pleased with herself > over the romance in the book. Earth to JKR: You have more > important issues to address and it ain't your strong suit. Mike : Oh yeah, nice shot across her bow. My compliments!! ********************************************************* Amie now: I agree that his behavior in the first 5 books is typical juvenile behavior. This also makes Harry's behavior in HBP believable as well. I think his commitment to Quidditch and short-sitedness on nonverbal spells is typical of Harry's previous behavior. If he had suddenly become completely and 150% committed wouldn't we be having the reverse discussion now? In my view, Harry was attempting to have as normal a life as he could under the circumstances. Lilygale adds: I don't see Harry taking his role as Chosen One lightly, but he has managed to lead a relatively normal teenage life, which was one of Dumbledore's main goals in protecting Harry from the prophecy. Mike: Not to sound like a broken record (how many remember *records*?), but the time for Harry to have a normal teenage life ended when Dumbledore gave up in his self-admitted ill-adviced attempt to keep Harry in the dark. I expected Harry to find a new priority in life after he found out "neither can live, while the other survives..." His short, stiff upper lip speech to Dumbledore in the Weasley's shed led me to believe that he has realized the gravity of his situation. Then....nothing! Sure, he pays attention to Dumbledore during his history of Tom Riddle lessons, yet still places getting the memory from Slughorn low on his ToDo list. 150% committment? How about trying to exceed 50%? How about putting more than half of you effort towards staying alive significantly past your 17th birthday? (which he learns in the beginning of HBP will be when his protection at the Dursleys runs out). IMO, I don't see even that much effort. And that characterization seems a little too shallow for me to accept. Amie now: Why isn't it believable? As you said above, he hasn't done anything alone before now. I think that this idea that you can't go it alone is one of JRK's main themes. Mike: It's not that I expect him to go it alone. Did he employ Hermione at *any* time during sixth year to learn something? If this is JKR's theme, how much after learning he is the "Chosen One" should Harry be waiting before he starts preparing himself for the ultimate showdown? I'm saying that JKR spent too much time on the Trio's + Ginny's hormones and not enough on Trio's + Ginny's + Neville's, et al, magical maturation. (see Sandy's response, above) (Speaking of Neville, what happened to him after all that development in HBP?) Amie continued: I have to say I agree with Carol. Harry may be the "hero" of the book, but he's not adult. As a reader, I wouldn't expect Harry to have this unyielding commitment to the cause. While some may prefer to have their hero be all-knowing and full of purposeful drive, I think this flaw in Harry makes him a more believable, and interesting, character. I don't really see it as a flaw though, just more of adolescent behavior. Mike: OK, maybe "believable" is the wrong word, how about palatable? When I had to take a class with a teacher I disliked, I tried extra hard to show that I was better than that teachers opinion of me. I don't want Harry to start liking Snape, hell, I don't like Snape and he's never done anything to me. But Harry, supposedly this wiz (can I use that term in this context?) at DADA, is stuck on despise for Snape. In the few short weeks since that little speech in the shed, he's forgotten about Voldemort and can't get past his irrational hatred to learn something from Snape. Is this the logical progression of a kid who has just found out Genghis Khan with a wand is gathering his hordes to come after *him*? On second thought, maybe "believable" was the word I wanted. SSSusan: OTOH, as has been pointed out, even at the end of the year, when he & Snape are having their little exchange across the grounds, Harry shows that he's not mastered nonverbal spells [NVS] and that he still resorts to a repertoire of spells he had access to many years prior. Is this yet more evidence that Harry just can't/won't learn *from Snape*? Has he not mastered NVS because Snape demanded that he do so? Or is he truly just not as competent at this stuff as we'd hope and expect Our Hero to be? (Dang! I mean, he's only a year away from IT!) Where is the kid who could conjure a corporeal patronus WAY before anyone expected it? Where is the kid who could make his wand illuminate while not touching it? No, what I saw in HBP which I wasn't prepared for was more of a SmartAss!Harry, a Harry who didn't seem to think of himself as just a kid talking to adults. I'm thinking, in particular, about two scenes. Mike: I thought your second scene was going to be Harry's exchange with Scrimgeour, which I think you could add as exhibit C. In fact, I think your second scene (Harry's "Protego" in Snape's first lesson) was a further hint at the inherent power within Harry, per your previous paragraph. JKR has hinted from day one that Harry has extraordinary powers, not just advanced powers for his age. What happened to that in HBP? OK, he still has to figure out how to harness the *power of love*. I know that was never going to happen until book 7. But shouldn't he have shown a little more advancement? Where is that kid that produced a Patronus at 13, held off a dozen DEs until help arrived at 15? Lilygale adds: True, Harry regressed back to easier modes (verbal, more basic spells) when faced with a real life and death fight. That's not surprising given the level of stress as well as the fact that simple verbal spells have served him well in the past against Voldemort. So who could predict that the simple spells would not work against Snape? Harry didn't. Mike: Well, given that NVS were the major theme of at least three of Harry's classes, including Snape's class, I'd say that Harry was given enough of a hint. So not only does Harry regress back to verbal, he knows no new spells besides the ones he learned for the TWT. Is he a wizard or a mouse? *************************************************************** > Magpie: > Actually, I thought that some of Harry's "obsessions" in HBP were a > step forward, not back. His "friendship" with the Prince and > obsession with Draco in particular seemed far more important to his > success than any specific spell. Mike: Huh? I'm not seeing how his obsession with Draco is going to bring him success in the upcoming battle with Voldemort. It may be more improtant thematically to the "story of Draco's revelation", but where is this helping Harry? And you don't really think anything he learns from the "Prince" is going to help him, do you? I mean from the book, not from the adult Snape. Or are you predicting that Harry will have an epiphany about his "friend" the "Prince" being his enemy Snape, that will soften his views on Snape? This is the "friend" that changed from a lovable pet to a rabid dog, in Harry's eyes. > Magpie continues: > Let's face it, Rowling's never been interested in complicated > magical ideas. Magic is only important in that way when it's a > metaphor for Harry's emotional development--like when he needed > to protect himself with Patronus or JKR needed some superficial > suspense in GoF (will Harry be able to master than Accio spell when > he needs it most? What do you think?). Mike: Yes, but as SSSusan and I said above, JKR has gone out of her way to tease us with Harry as a "powerfully magical" wizard. If Harry stalls or regresses in his magical abilities, what does that say for his emotional development...metaphorically? Magpie, I think you're looking at the Picasso version of Harry and seeing the pieces coming together to form the complete picture. I'm seeing the Norman Rockwell version of Harry that's letting the steaks burn on the grill, while he chews out the dog for digging in the garden. We may be reading the same books, but the words don't mean the same thing. > Magpie continues: > I thought he had more important development in turning his > mind to Draco's caper because of the subtle changes it caused in > how he thought about Slytherins. It wasn't a big turnaround with > Harry ending the book thinking, "Wow, I've been totally wrong about > these people and they're awesome!" It was the subtle change of > Harry starting to pull down certain walls he'd always had in place > where he didn't allow himself to think of them as people like > himself. Mike: See, that's you finding another piece of the puzzle hidden in the overt action that pulls us the other way. I admire your ability to extract these subtle clues. I relate to JKR's world on a much more visual level. I can still see my Harry, Ron, Hermione, et al, seperate from the actors in the celluliod abominations. I see the Hogwarts castle in detail, well... I did until JKR started moving the entrance to the Headmaster's office. (BTW, I've settled on the fifth floor, it works better for me.) Which, I suppose is why I feel short changed when JKR concentrates on the psychosocial formulations to the expense of my more temporal world. > Magpie finishes: > That, to me, seemed far more important than Harry learning how to > cast non-verbal spells or to Apparate-and it seemed like it was > also something Dumbledore hoped Harry to get from the Pensieve > trips that were supposed to help him get to know Tom Riddle. With > all his Slytherin antagonists in HBP Harry seemed to have some > moments of recognition. Mike concludes: Howsoever, I still contend that she had the time, space, and obligation to have Harry learn to cast that non-verbal spell. Mike ______________________________________________________________ All messages extracted from within this thread. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Jan 3 04:43:18 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:43:18 -0000 Subject: FILK: Ghost Writers Modify Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163416 Ghost Writers Modify (HBP, Chap. 15) To the tune of Ghost Riders in the Sky Here's a You-tube performance by Johnny Cash & Friends http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R2M-s2HEC8&mode=related&search= Dedicated to Pippin (who filked the same song a few years back) THE SCENE: Slughorn's Christmas bash. Harry rejects overtures from celebrated ghost writer Eldred Worple. The Sluggy Club was warming up one cold and icy night Potter, with Lovegood, entered, as the Christmas tree shone bright. When all at once a grizzled hack named Worple came his way A-drawin' up a contract to write an HP essay His pal was a vampire and his fangs were really real He soon began a-flirting, and he made fangirls to squeal His mouth commenced to water until Worple said, "Refrain! You'd better stick to pasties, friend, or our work will be in Vein." Type-ee-yi-ay, Type-ee-yi--o Ghost writers modify "The pages of your memoirs, they are sure to be a smash. The readers of the Wizard World will shower you in cash. You need but grant me interviews, say five or maybe six. Our profits will go higher when they start to shoot the flicks." Type-ee-yi-o, Type-ee-yi--ay Ghost writers glorify But Worple's hopes were shattered when he heard the Boy Who Lived: "Exclusive rights to my bio I did Jo Rowling give. So if you have a need to write of Harry Potter's life, Just go online and send it to a fanfiction archive." Type-ee-yi-o, Type-ee-yi--ay Ghost writers stultify Ghost writers stultify - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated 1/1/07 with 21 new filks) From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jan 3 05:03:04 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:03:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163417 Mike: OK, maybe "believable" is the wrong word, how about palatable? When I had to take a class with a teacher I disliked, I tried extra hard to show that I was better than that teachers opinion of me. I don't want Harry to start liking Snape, hell, I don't like Snape and he's never done anything to me. But Harry, supposedly this wiz (can I use that term in this context?) at DADA, is stuck on despise for Snape. In the few short weeks since that little speech in the shed, he's forgotten about Voldemort and can't get past his irrational hatred to learn something from Snape. Is this the logical progression of a kid who has just found out Genghis Khan with a wand is gathering his hordes to come after *him*? On second thought, maybe "believable" was the word I wanted. Sherry now: I had the impression in HBP, that Dumbledore--remember him, the all wise, knowing and always right? *forgive the sarcasm, not aimed at mike but aimed at the character*--Dumbledore was teaching Harry what he felt Harry needed to learn for the battle to come. Not defensive spells; not ancient runes, not any of that. It was all about Tom's past and about horcruxes, maybe even a bit of bringing out the Slytherin within. As for what Harry did or did not learn in Snape's DADA lessons, we really have no idea, because it was mostly off screen, um, page I mean. So, we don't know if Harry learned anything or not. It was obviously not important to the plot of HBP Frankly, I was glad of that, because if there's one thing I didn't need was much more page time of Snape sniping at Harry, and Harry getting mad and frustrated over it. The less Snape from now on, the better! It seemed to me that in many ways, HBP was preparing us for Harry not to be at school next year, because the things that were important in sixth year, don't seem to have been much to do with lessons. Sherry From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jan 3 05:19:49 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:19:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) References: Message-ID: <003601c72ef6$caf3b430$6dba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163418 >> Magpie: >> Actually, I thought that some of Harry's "obsessions" in HBP were a >> step forward, not back. His "friendship" with the Prince and >> obsession with Draco in particular seemed far more important to his >> success than any specific spell. > > Mike: > Huh? I'm not seeing how his obsession with Draco is going to bring > him success in the upcoming battle with Voldemort. It may be more > improtant thematically to the "story of Draco's revelation", but > where is this helping Harry? And you don't really think anything he > learns from the "Prince" is going to help him, do you? I mean from > the book, not from the adult Snape. Or are you predicting that Harry > will have an epiphany about his "friend" the "Prince" being his enemy > Snape, that will soften his views on Snape? This is the "friend" that > changed from a lovable pet to a rabid dog, in Harry's eyes. Magpie: I'm saying that it doesn't seem like JKR has never been interested in complicated battle spells. The Sorting Hat sings about the four houses coming together and Dumbledore says Harry's power is love, and I think that the movement in the story is more towards a reconciliation with Slytherin and something coming from that than Harry learning how to do any new-fangled magic. I mean, a Patronus is just a spell for getting rid of Dementors, a specific monster. Riddikulus is a spell for getting rid of Boggarts. Otherwise it's kind of zap zap zap. There honestly doesn't seem to be a lot of thought put into a magical system where things get more complicated. Different skills sometimes seem randomly assigned to different ages. What I think is more important is Harry reconciling with his Shadow, and that's all about Slytherin and Snape and the HBP who only turned into a rabid dog when Harry knew it was Snape. If he hadn't found that out he'd still consider him a friend. > Mike: > Yes, but as SSSusan and I said above, JKR has gone out of her way to > tease us with Harry as a "powerfully magical" wizard. If Harry stalls > or regresses in his magical abilities, what does that say for his > emotional development...metaphorically? > > Magpie, I think you're looking at the Picasso version of Harry and > seeing the pieces coming together to form the complete picture. I'm > seeing the Norman Rockwell version of Harry that's letting the steaks > burn on the grill, while he chews out the dog for digging in the > garden. We may be reading the same books, but the words don't mean > the same thing. Magpie: Yes, I see that you mean that Harry should be progressing in magical skill etc. I was only making a very limited point that I thought the obsessions that Harry was more interested in than getting Slughorn's memory or schoolwork were important developments towards his final victory and healing the WW. So while it's still valid to wonder why he didn't progress magically also, it wasn't completely treading water. >> Magpie continues: >> I thought he had more important development in turning his >> mind to Draco's caper because of the subtle changes it caused in >> how he thought about Slytherins. It wasn't a big turnaround with >> Harry ending the book thinking, "Wow, I've been totally wrong about >> these people and they're awesome!" It was the subtle change of >> Harry starting to pull down certain walls he'd always had in place >> where he didn't allow himself to think of them as people like >> himself. > > Mike: > See, that's you finding another piece of the puzzle hidden in the > overt action that pulls us the other way. I admire your ability to > extract these subtle clues. Magpie: I guess for me it doesn't seem subtle because when I read the books this is the stuff that always stands out more for me. Why does Snape hate Harry? Because of a hatred of James that went back to his own school days. Where do the antagonists all come from? Slytherin--the house Harry didn't want to be Sorted into and where all the bad Wizards are. Harry/Snape is the most central relationship to the story. Everything goes back to Snape--and Draco is not only linked to Snape overtly but is placed in a strategic position on the other side. So any change on that front seems written in neon to me while a lot of other things seem less important. I was trying to think of how I'd describe it using your painting example, and I wound up thinking it was funny you used Norman Rockwell as an example, because he tends to paint kind of obvious emotional situations. When I look at the picture (this hangs in the pizza parlor near me so it comes to mind easily;-) of the policeman eating at the counter with the little boy who's got a stick with his belongings on it, I don't think it matters whether the kid packed the right stuff in his bag, because the picture's about the policeman talking the kid into going back home. I have a feeling that analogy just made the whole thing stranger using Rockwell in just a totally different way--but then, if he did a painting where Harry's yelling at the dog while the burgers are burning, that would be intentional. (Actually, there are moments where I think are just like that in canon--for instance, in OotP when the Hat sings about the rift at Hogwarts and Harry looks at Malfoy and says something like, "I would never reconcile with him!" and Hermione goes, "I'm going to make a group that includes all the houses...except for Slytherin!"--that's a hamburgers burning moment for me.) >> Magpie finishes: >> That, to me, seemed far more important than Harry learning how to >> cast non-verbal spells or to Apparate-and it seemed like it was >> also something Dumbledore hoped Harry to get from the Pensieve >> trips that were supposed to help him get to know Tom Riddle. With >> all his Slytherin antagonists in HBP Harry seemed to have some >> moments of recognition. > > Mike concludes: > Howsoever, I still contend that she had the time, space, and > obligation to have Harry learn to cast that non-verbal spell. Magpie: Oh, yes, she certainly did. And it's not like Harry couldn't do both. I was just saying that I thought this development was also important for what was coming up. But one didn't have to come at expense of the other. Harry could have started getting better at NV-spells, and she could have come up with other things for Harry to be doing as well. -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 06:04:29 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:04:29 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: <459B1436.8010404@sprynet.com> References: <3202590701012118h1b4acd3fh44c98d7d8a820910@mail.gmail.com> <459B1436.8010404@sprynet.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0701022204k60844089l6fd99c1d7a771594@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163419 Ok. I'll give this a shot: 1. The Dursleys will attempt to get Harry's money to pay them back for the years they took him in 2. The Dursleys will end up at Grimmauld Place for a period of time. 3. Harry will be hospitalized at least once during the course of the novel with a serious injury. 4. Two of the Weasleys, most likely Ron and very possibly Ginny will also be hospitalized after an injury from which Harry saves them. 5. A minor character, possibly Ernie McMillan or Hannah Bones will die. 6. Grawp will die. 7. Ron's skill at chess will serve him well as a tactition and he will help Harry formulate and carry out the battle plan for the final battle. 8. Not only will Harry have the help of Ron and Hermione throughout the story, but many others as well. I'm especially thinking that Luna, Ginny, Neville and Bill will be important. 9. One of the Weasleys will die, but I have no clue which one. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 05:58:42 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 05:58:42 -0000 Subject: Satisfaction of the story to date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163420 > > Mike: > > And where was the advancement of Harry's magical skills [in HBP]? > He learns a > > few of the "Princes" spells, but what about a full years worth of > > DADA under the best DADA professor Harry has ever had? Did he learn > > *Nothing* from Snape's class during the entire year? Neri: Harry doesn't need to learn more skills. He already has all of Voldemort's powers in his head. His problem is how to use them without turning into a Dark Lord himself. For this he had to study Tom's childhood in HBP, not to learn Occlumency or nonverbal spells. > > Mike: > > Yes, I realize the storyline of the influence of the teenage Snape > > juxtiposed with the lack of influence of the adult Snape. Does that > > mean he can't learn anything? After Hermione reminds Harry how much > > Snape sounded like him from the previous year, I expected that > Harry > > would at least listen in Snape's classes, maybe actually > participate > > in the in-class exercises. Neri: He doesn't need it. The last thing Harry needs now is to learn more hexes, or learn to cast old hexes in more effective ways. Especially not if the key for doing so is to "close his mind" and "master his feelings". Dumbledore knew that, although it took what happened in the MoM to make him fully realize it ("in the end it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you"). Snape does not understand this part at all. He thinks Harry is "mediocre" and doesn't stand a chance against Voldemort because he "wears his heart on his sleeve". But Dumbledore and JKR believe that this is precisely the source of Harry's strength. > Annemehr: > Again, almost the only time I see even trying to master his feelings > in HBP is when he concsiously refrains from shouting at Dumbledore > (for example, in ch. 25, in DD's office just after hearing that Snape > had been the eavesdropper to the first prophecy -- and with mixed > success, at that). > Neri: This assumes that the key to Harry winning in DH is "mastering his feelings". I predict it will turn out, as in the MoM, that the key to Harry winning is the opposite. Harry *doesn't* hate Snape, not really anyway, because he is incapable of true hatred. In the end of HBP he tries to crucio Snape and *fails*. A scene that repeats almost exactly the scene in the end of OotP, when he tries to crucio Bellatrix and fails. If Harry finds himself in DH in a situation where he has the opportunity to kill Snape or Bella, he will of course do exactly what he did when he had the opportunity to kill Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, or when he had the opportunity to merely allow someone else to kill Peter. When JKR shows me basically the same scene four times in a series, I think I can get the hint. The dilemma I see JKR setting for DH is: how can Harry kill Voldemort if he's incapable of using the Unforgivables. How can he AK Voldemort when he's incapable of even crucioing Snape. I can see Snape in DH, after saving Harry's life because of his Debt and as a result finding himself stuck in the anti-Voldemort camp, trying to convince Harry that he must learn to close his mind and use the AK as the only way to win ("no Unforgivables for you until you learn to keep your mind close and mouth shut"). Or maybe this offer will come from the part of Tom's soul that Harry carries inside himself. Or from both. In any case, Harry's real test will be to refuse this offer. Neri From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Jan 3 06:10:48 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 06:10:48 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: <3202590701012118h1b4acd3fh44c98d7d8a820910@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163421 > Jen previous: Peter will help Harry somehow with his silver hand > but it might not be on purpose. He's going to end up in Azkaban > where he's belonged all along. > Sarah: > Azkaban (which doesn't seem too potent anymore, I can't imagine why > Lucius is still stuck there), dead, something along those lines. > Agree with the first sentence. KJ: > Peter is going to finish off Greyback. His hand is silver for a > reason, and JKR says that it is not for Lupin. I don't think that it > will be an accident or the life debt would be pointless, but it > might be against his will. Peter will also be killed[...] SSSusan: > I believe Peter will help Harry somehow, and I think it would be > cool if it were with the silver hand. I almost think it *will* have > to be intentional, though, if it will be meant to be a repayment of > the life debt...His going to Azkaban? I'm not sure about that part. Jen: Death seems too good for this guy, too easy. He dreaded Azkaban more than returning to Voldemort so the more pain the better . Although Sarah may be right there's not much to Azkaban anymore. That guy gets on my last nerve, doing major damage and some of it pretty cleverly done, all the while making it seem like he was 'forced' into being evil while his actions belie his words. Makes me appreciate Bella for wallowing in her evil ways. Re: the Life Debt, Peter hasn't made a right choice for the right reason yet. Now maybe he could make a right choice for the wrong reason, i.e. self-interest? Peter choosing to help Harry over Voldemort without thought of his own consequence sounds too much like a redemption, something JKR isn't laying clues for and something Peter hasn't shown himself wanting or being capable of achieving (from how I read his character). > Sarah: > Hagrid is definitely toast. I hadn't given any thought to Griefy > Grawp, but thanks a lot for the image. :) > SSSusan: Yeah, I suppose Hagrid's toast. Sigh. And I suppose we'll > have to be subjected to Grawp. UGH. I so detest Grawp. Jen: You're welcome! Just wanted to share the joy. > AmanitaMuscaria again - I'm counting on Grawp dying heroically, as > well as Hagrid. > KJ: Hagrid and Grawp will be tackling the other giants that > Voldemort has pressed into service. Hagrid may well die in this > book because he was so dependent on Dumbledore. Jen: I think you guys are saying something similar, that Hagrid and Grawp will be working together. Good point, I hadn't thought about what exactly Hagrid will be doing in the next book, just that he's next on the chopping block. > Eggplant: Hagrid could die, but there are others that are far more > likely to; like Percy, Snape, Wormtail, Voldemort, and sorry to > say, Harry. Jen: Part of my reasoning here is because JKR has followed the alchemy symbolism with her deaths so far: Black, White and next is Red (Rubeus). May be coincidence, I'm betting not. (Credit for that probably goes to many people but I read it in a Granger article.) > Jen: > 3) No Weasleys will die during the writing of this book although > one or two may be harmed. > Sarah: > I'd disagree here, but the problem is I can't specify who or how > many. I will go out on a limb and say that at least Ginny and Bill > probably make it. I don't know if it looks good for Ron, though. > SSSusan: Oooh. I think I actually disagree with this one, my usual > think-alike pal. I think either Charlie or Percy or Arthur will be > dead by the end. > KJ: I think that Percy is not long for this world. He will give up > his life to protect one of his family members, probably his father. > Eggplant: I think Percy will escalate from being a insensitive > jerk into a full blown traitor who tries to lure Harry to his > death. I think he will end up being killed by a member of his own > family. Jen: I'd say Percy's chances are looking pretty slim right about now! Wonder what the oddsmakers are giving his chances? > Jen: > 4) The 'gleam of triumph' will prove to be something about Harry's > blood that will come back to haunt Voldemort in the Locked Room. > KJ: I think that Harry's blood is just one of those unfortunate > choices that Voldemort made when he re-produced a body. It is made > of the hand of a traitor, the bone of the man that repudiated him, > and the blood of Harry, which can not be a healthy thing for him. > All of these things will weaken him at the end. > Eggplant: Perhaps, but whatever that gleam was it is a 2 edged > sword. A fraction of a second after Dumbledore looked triumphant he > looked tired and defeated. My guess is he just thought of a way to > kill Voldemort, but then he realized it would mean Harry's death > too. Jen: Your theory sounds better than mine KJ, I may have to borrow that prediction. And Eggplant's thought reminds me of Dumbledore saying it will take a wizard with 'uncommon skill and power' to kill Voldemort even when his Horcruxes are destroyed. So whatever caused Dumbledore to feel triumphant for a moment was replaced quickly with just how far they would still have to go to rid the world of Voldemort (whether because Harry would have to die or because how difficult Voldemort will be to kill, even a weakened Voldemort). > Jen: 1) Harry has a Voldemort soul-piece inside of him by some > strange twist of magical fate that occurred at Godric's Hollow. > Overlooking this possibility will prove to be Dumbledore's greatest > emotional mistake to date. > zanooda: I still think that DD new, but didn't dare to tell Harry, > just as he couldn't bring himself to tell about the prophecy. Maybe > DD hoped to find a way to remove the soul bit first. It is not easy > to tell a 15-year old boy that he has to kill or be killed. It is > much more difficult to tell him that he must die in order to > succeed. Jen: Here's my reasoning on why Dumbledore didn't know if Harry has a soul piece: Dumbledore was coming clean in OOTP about his mistakes and letting Harry know he couldn't continue because he does care about all the 'nameless, faceless' people who will die if he isn't straight with Harry from that point forward. And then JKR said in an interview, "...but as people who have finished Order of the Phoenix will know, Dumbledore has had to step back a little bit from Harry in an effort to teach him some of life's harder lessons." ( 2003, Royal Albert Hall) It would seem contradictory to me if Dumbledore did know Harry might have a soul piece and wouldn't tell him, rather than making an almost unconcious emotional mistake because he couldn't handle the truth. JKR set this up when she said, "But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that." I read that comment to mean DD relies on his brainpower to reason everything out at the expense of recognizing the role his emotions play in his decisions. That's why it took him 5 years to figure out his emotions were causing him to keep the Prophecy from Harry. > Jen: > 5) Lord Voldemort's demise will be "Voldemort in the Locked Room > with Love" (hehe, that's from the Clue game if anyone plays). Geoff: > Now that really worried me. > In Cluedo, when you make a statement such as "It was Professor > Plum in the Library with the spanner", you are making a suggestion > that the named person committed the murder. If your accusation > above is right, then it looks like curtains for Harry. > I sincerely, oh so sincerely, hope, dear Jen, that you REALLY mean > "it was Harry in the Locked Room with the Power of Love." Jen: Oops! You are exactly right, Geoff, that's exactly what I meant. And I love that your game is called Cluedo and one of your weapons is a spanner--would that be the same as the wrench in American version? (OT moment here: weapons in American version are rope, lead pipe, revolver, wrench, candlestick, and knife.) > Sarah: I know Dumbledore said that it was really just love and all, > but I'm hoping beyond hope it can be something just slightly more > interesting and less of a no-brainer. "Sacrifice/courage in the > face of death" would be a good one, as would "Soul." As far as I > can see, those are really the things Voldemort doesn't have and > Harry possesses in such great quantities, not love. Jen: I was using love as a shorthand term but don't think that's exactly what JKR is going for. Harry characterized his power as "I can love" which is different from being filled with love. And I put great weight on Dumbledore's statement that "you are **protected** by your ability to love" which is far different from saying Harry's love will kill Voldemort. The fact that Harry has remained a human capable of loving in the face of great pain is what makes him completely different from Voldemort and that's what will save *Harry* in the end, not kill Voldemort. That's why I think Voldemort will have to die in the locked room, no one is actually capable of killing him, but Harry is uniquely qualified to figure out the weakness that will destroy Voldemort in the end. (Which doesn't in any way answer what is in the room so basically I'm with you on thinking it's something a little different than love.) > Sarah: > Arguments against this are basically semantical to me at this point. > There are books and books of canon that Harry's forehead is related > to Voldemort. This induces powers, dreams, visions, emotions, > tactile feelings. Dumbledore in book two says that Voldemort > put "a bit of himself" in there. If it's not a soul slice, it's as > good as one. And I think it has to come out. Jen: When you say the soul slice has to come out, is that the same thing as breaking the eggs to make an omelette? I don't like it, no, not at all. ;-) She already picked off my other two favorite characters, grumble grumble. > Sarah: > We are ITA here, and I'll go one step further. My favorite idea is > that the "connection" is, Snape stole Lily's potions chops by > writing down what she did in class in his book. This mitigates > Harry's "cheating" a little, because the potions stuff is Lily's > anyway. And it lets the connection be not reciprocal. Because a > romance is TEW EWW, so to speak. Jen: Oh, more reason for Harry to hate Snape! I've wondered why he doesn't teach his methods in class? As icky as it is, I'm going with the symbolic reason, Snape buried that book in the dungeon just like he buried his feelings of loss when Lily died. Jen, wanting to write a separate post about Voldemort tempting Harry because of all the good thoughts on that issue but ran out of time tonight. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jan 3 04:14:11 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:14:11 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was:Satisfaction of the story to date) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163422 > Harry's Characterization (was: Re: Satisfaction of the story to > date (was: I Hate Horcruxes Society) > > Mike commented: > > But after he finds out he is the "Chosen One" at the end of OotP, > how can he be shown as the still uninterested youth of his first > five years? There is more of the "hormonal-Harry" in HBP than the > guy destined-to-bring-down-Voldemort-who-better-start-getting- > prepared-Harry. If that isn't regression it is at the least an > appalling lack of progression. Where's the urgency? Where's the > resolve that he seemed to have in the Weasley's broomshed? Harry is > more interested in Quidditch and how his Captaincy will be viewed in > retrospect than whether he can cast a defensive spell non-verbally. > Huh? This is the priority our hero has set for himself? IOW, what > > Amie now: > I agree that his behavior in the first 5 books is typical juvenile > behavior. This also makes Harry's behavior in HBP believable as > well. I think his commitment to Quidditch and short-sitedness on > nonverbal spells is typical of Harry's previous behavior. If he had > suddenly become completely and 150% committed wouldn't we be having > the reverse discussion now? In my view, Harry was attempting to have > as normal a life as he could under the circumstances. Sure he should > have taken his studies more seriously, but shouldn't everyone? I > know he has to save the world and all, but wouldn't that become > quite a bit to take without anything else. I'm trying to imagine a > story in which Harry had become so committed to learning things and > was suddenly a perfect student. I'm finding it quite hard to do with > the characterization we have so far. > > > > Carol continues: > To the extent that this series is a Bildungsroman, JKR can't have > him learn the most important lessons in the penultimate book. They > have to be saved for the last book. He also needs to realize, as JKR > herself has said, how much he already knows, and put it all together- > -much as we, the readers, have been trying to do, but with more > success (I hope!). > > Mike: > I don't need him to learn the most important lessons by now. But I > do think that JKR should have shown him to be a little better > prepared. Or lacking that, with a little (alot) more purposeful > drive to > prepare than she has shown Harry to have so far. (BTW, what's a > Bildungsroman?) > > > Amie now: > > (bil?dungs?ro?man or Bil?dungs?ro?man (bl'dngz-r?-m?n', - > dngks-) > n. - A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, > and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.) > > I have to say I agree with Carol. Harry may be the "hero" of the > book, but he's not adult. As a reader, I wouldn't expect Harry to > have this unyielding commitment to the cause. While some may prefer > to have their hero be all-knowing and full of purposeful drive, I > think this flaw in Harry makes him a more believable, and > interesting, character. I don't really see it as a flaw though, just > more of adolescent behavior. This is supposed to be a story for > adolescents after all, so they're likely to identify with this part > of Harry's character. > > > Anne Squires shyly enters the conversation: Warning --- long comment ahead. I agree with all of Amie and Carol' points. As I see it there are several reasons why Harry has no sense of urgency. Furthermore, I think Harry may be better prepared than everyone, including Harry, realizes. Harry has no sense of urgency because he is Harry. Harry tends to react to situations instead of prepare for them. (I don't count the DA because Hermione masterminded the whole thing and forced a rather reluctant Harry to take charge.) In CoS he knew he was hearing voices in the walls but did nothing about it; he confided in Ron and Hermione but otherwise did nothing. It was Hermione who developed the polyjuice plan to find out who the Heir of Slytherin was; it was also Hermione who researched the Chamber and figured out that there was a basilisk loose in the school. Hermione even figured out that the thing was using the pipes to move about. Throughout CoS Harry was reactive while Hermione was very much proactive. In PoA Harry knows there is an escaped killer who wants to kill him. He has no plan to trap said killer, even after learning that not only did this man betray his family, but he is also his godfather. Harry does learn to defend himself against Dementors; but he never seems to worry about defending himself against a convicted killer and/or battling that killer. (And I think he should have done. In fact one of the reasons that I tend to agree with the ESE!Lupin theories is that Remus never even suggests that Harry learn to defend himself against a wizard who wants to kill him. But, I digress.) Harry very foolishly sneaks into Hogsmeade for fun and games, breaking several rules and thumbing his nose at all attempts to protect him. Harry's actions in PoA are very foolhardy, but they are the actions of a thirteen year old boy. In GoF Harry goes through the whole year literally waiting to the very last minute to do anything, to learn anything, to prepare for the tasks, to ask someone to the ball, etc. The entire book is an illustration of denial which leads to procrastination. In this novel Harry wants to live in the moment instead of facing and preparing for the various tasks. Also in GoF Harry longs to be like everyone else. I think Harry mainly wants to pretend that he is not a champion and none of it is actually happening to him. I also believe this foreshadows his attitude in HBP. Harry did not put his name in the goblet just as Harry never asked to be The Chosen One. All of this has been placed on Harry by others and I think Harry likes to pretend that it isn't really happening. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. In OotP, as stated previously, Harry does care about the DA, but as I said, he was manipulated into starting and leading this organization. Harry, true to form, avoids being proactive in this book. He is obsessed with the door at the end of the corridor in his vision but does nothing to find or get to this door (except invade Snape's pensieved memory where he thinks he might find out something about the "weapon"). He does nothing to block this vision when even he realizes that it must be coming from LV. Harry, once again, is the reluctant hero who reacts to situations and is never, ever proactive. So, in HBP Harry is being Harry when he has no sense of urgency. He wants to be a regular guy, as he always has. Regardless of what he tells DD in the Weasley's shed. Don't get me wrong, I think Harry was sincere at the time, but Harry is still Harry. Harry wants to be a teenager, not an adult. Harry has a history of living in denial and in the moment. He puts everything off to the last possible moment. Even DD becomes rather annoyed with Harry when he learns that Harry has procrastinated in getting Slughorn's memory. Harry resents being the BWL/Chosen One. Harry never chose any of this. Harry does not prepare for events; he reacts. All of these characteristics are typical of teenage boys and they are typical of Harry throughout the entire series. If Harry had changed drastically I would think that JKR was not being true to the character she has created. Also, Harry knows that he will not/cannot defeat LV in a duel. I do not care how many spells Harry learns. I do not care whether they are verbal or nonverbal, he will never be a match for LV in a duel. LV has fifty years on Harry. LV will always be a better spell caster, swifter, much more experienced, darker, more powerful. But that is not the point. Harry's wand cannot duel LV's. Priori Incantantum (sp?) will always be the result. Furthermore, LV will be defeated by a "power the Dark Lord knows not." Whatever that power is, Harry is _not_ ever going to learn it in Severus Snape's DADA class. Harry is all too aware of everything I just stated, so why should he bother to apply himself in Snape's DADA class? Of course, the very fact that Snape is the DADA professor means that Harry is unlikely to learn a single thing in Defense this year. (Except he really did learn quite a bit from the Prince, didn't he?) I think that even if Flitwick, who is suppose to be an excellent dueler, had been given the position of DADA professor Harry still would not have applied himself to his DADA studies because what's the point really? Some might argue that Harry needs to prepare himself to face not only LV but also the DEs. My response to that is that Harry already has faced the DEs and was able to hold his own against them. Plus the prophecy speaks to this issue as well --- either must die at the hand of the other. Thus, when/if Harry is defeated it will be at LV's hand, not by the hand of a DE. Harry knows this as well. Furthermore, DD is very aware of how prepared or unprepared Harry is to face LV and his DEs and what does he see fit to do? I ask you. Does he admonish Harry to apply himself in Defense? Does he arrange for Harry to take private Defense classes with anyone in the Order? Does he tutor Harry himself in DADA? No, he does not. In fact he gives the DADA position to the one man in the world from whom Harry is guaranteed not to learn a single thing. So what exactly does DD see fit to do? He gives Harry a series of history lessons about the life and times of Tom Riddle/Lord Voldemort. All of this sends Harry a message: Don't worry about your DADA class, Harry; but be sure to learn whatever you can about LV's background. Again, Harry's behavior is tacitly condoned by DD, so why should Harry feel compelled to worry about preparation/urgency? Given Harry's personality and propensities, I doubt he would come to a conclusion that he should train more when it is implied that he need not. DD seems to know what preparation Harry needs (JKR definitely does and DD is her spokesperson in the books) and he seems to be unconcerned about Harry's attitude. He does not tell Harry that he needs to prepare more, study more, train more. DD seems unperturbed by Harry's apparent lack of urgency/lack of resolve? He does get on to Harry about collecting Slughorn's memory. So, if DD were upset about Harry's attitude I think he would scold him (in a grandfatherly way, of course). I propose that we, the readers of this series, do not know what Harry needs to fight Voldemort. Mike says that he thinks that JKR should have shown him to be a little better prepared. But, since we do not know what skills Harry needs or does not need, I say that how do we know Harry is not prepared? And I think he is extremely well prepared. Here is a list of what Harry does have (not in any particular order/ranking): 1. Devoted friends. Ron and Hermione, of course. But beyond this he also has the backing of former DA members, the Weasleys (sans Percy, obviously), and Order members. Not to mention Dobby. 2. Personal experience going up against LV. I think the fact that Harry has had various confrontations with LV will prove to be invaluable. At the very least it will boost Harry's confidence that he can, in fact, defeat him. If Harry doesn't believe in himself then he is defeated before he begins. Also Harry definitely has some sort of instinct, sixth sense or connection to LV. He always knows exactly the right thing to do at exactly the right moment when facing Voldemort. 3. Experience going up against DEs. 4. The knowledge that LV created horcruxes and enough information to figure out where they are and how to destroy them. 5. His mother's love/sacrifice. I know the blood protection at the Dursley's runs out on Harry's birthday; but Harry will have the opportunity to renew this protection before he begins his quest to defeat LV. 6. The power the Dark Lord knows not. And that you and I know not as well, in the sense that we don't know exactly what this power will turn out to be or how this will all work itself out. 7. Experience as a leader. Quidditch captain and leader of the DA. 8. Charisma. Harry is a person whom people want to believe in, want to rally behind. I believe he has the ability to unite the WW. The DA included members of three of the four houses. When Harry held Quidditch tryouts members of other houses wanted to be on Harry Potter's team. The DP has declared that he is The Chosen One. 9. Experience facing a dragon, a basilisk, merpeople, giant spiders, etc. 10. The ability to perform well under extreme pressure. 11. Magical knowledge from six years of schooling and the HBP's potion book. I don't mean to imply that Harry does not still have room for improvement, lessons to learn. What I am saying is that he is in a good position to learn these lessons which I suspect will somehow involve forgiving Snape. In conclusion, Harry does not need a sense of urgency. I personally feel that JKR has shown Harry more than prepared to progress to the next stage of the adventure. Everything is right on track. Everything is proceeding according to plan. From megan_phntmgrl at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 3 05:59:42 2007 From: megan_phntmgrl at sbcglobal.net (Megan) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 05:59:42 -0000 Subject: Backlash? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163423 Megan: Like I said, it's possible that this point of view comes from the fact that I attended a high school in which being white was looked down upon by the largely black student body. Every time in history class when slavery was discussed, black students would point at me and smirk and imply that I'd buy them as slaves in a second if given the chance. Worst of all was when my 11th grade history teacher singled me out as the only student in the room whose genetic profile would have been acceptable to the Nazis. I'm not saying that violent anti-DE action would enhance the books per se, but rather that it would sadly make a lot of sense. > SSSusan: > Hmmmm. How 'bout the way that Herself portrayed the Gaunt family? > They sure seemed the height (or would that be depths?) of the > stereotypical inbred, pureblood freaks to me. They were dirty, > had eyes that went the wrong direction and seemed at *least* three > bricks shy of a load... each! > > I know this doesn't address your main question, about why there > hasn't been any backlash from any of *characters* themselves, but it > did strike me as awfully over-the-top of JKR to have portrayed the > Gaunts as she did. Megan: Yeah, I managed to overlook that. I remember someone (I believe it was the creator of the Potterpuffs) saying something about how "[the Gaunts'] chapter needed the banjo music from 'Deliverance' in the background." Also, Merope always seemed to me kind of a pastiche of the character of Fantine in "Les Miserables". Yeah, Fantine is usually portrayed as being glowing and beautiful and sad in the musical, but in the book, while she's still pretty, she's also quite scummy and uneducated and becomes a tubercular, drunken prostitute out of desperation. (For Fantine's plot in the novel details, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables because I'm too lazy to recount the whole thing here.) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 11:01:33 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:01:33 -0000 Subject: Backlash? In-Reply-To: <618012.38228.qm@web80814.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Megan Lerseth wrote: > > Something I have always wondered about in the HP books is the lack of backlash from the mixed-blood wizard community regarding the persecution that the Death Eaters and their sympathizers level at them. A lot of this comes from the fact that I live in a town full of violence and racial tension, but it still seems an odd omission. > snip... Doddie here: The answer is quite simple....the backlash comes from actions not words --namecalling and such... are for posers...there are few purbloods left and given the gaunt hisotry...those whom brag about it look more foolish that those they are making fun of.. typically we see all talk an no action (during the first few books) JK wouln't allow Harry & C0.. to dip down into DE & Offspring territory by have them behaving just like them.. JK has it right...it is much more satisfactory to read the behavior rather than read the words.. Hence we have the "Hermione throws a punch episode"....and Harry tosses a lump of mud at draco's head! LOL Kudos to JK for taking a leaf out of Ghandi's and M.L. King Jr.'s book... Doddie From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 3 15:37:18 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:37:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > JKR has hinted from day one that Harry has extraordinary powers, not > just advanced powers for his age. What happened to that in HBP? OK, > he still has to figure out how to harness the *power of love*. I know > that was never going to happen until book 7. But shouldn't he have > shown a little more advancement? Where is that kid that produced a > Patronus at 13, held off a dozen DEs until help arrived at 15? > Mike I share your feeling on a gut level that Harry isn't ready, that he simply hasn't even begun to learn enough. I would note in passing however that Harry is learning far more than the pages of the book lead us to believe most of the time. Were you surprised by his OWL results? I wasn't but I was. I wasn't because I thought those results were expected of him, that the author planted those expectations in us. I was because I am at a loss to see how he got to that point, the books give us the expectation but then portray a character who would seem to be a very poor student. For all that has been said about how poor a teacher Snape is for Harry and how Harry is simply incapable of learning from him (and I understand where those feelings come from and agree with them) Harry did surprisingly well in his potions OWL. The text of the book is consistently misdirecting us from Harry's true potential and actual performance as a student. It is also grossly overstating Snape's failings as a teacher. There seem to be strong similarities between Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker and Frodo Baggins. All three seem woefully unprepared for the task before them. Luke is nowhere near the level of Darth Vader or the Emperor. In his early career Luke is saved by the power of love isn't he? His father wants to turn him, not kill him. We don't know how exactly but we do see Luke make quite a bit of progress in advancing his skill as a Jedi through the three movies. He is more than a match for ordinary foes even when outnumbered. But in the final battle with the Emperor he is way out of his league again. He has no hope, he can do nothing against the Emperor's power, it is his father's love that saves him in the end and turns his father not him. Sending two Hobbits into Mordor was the height of folly. They did not even have the benefit of an education in any martial art. They were armed only with their dogged determination and loyalty to each other. At the climactic point in their mission they could not accomplish the task. Frodo could not take the simple step of opening his two fingers and letting a ring drop into the abyss even though by then he hardly had the strength left to hold them together any more. It was the love that they had showed Gollum, often grudgingly, that saved Middle Earth. Neither wisdom nor strength was any help. It was only the willingness to spare the life of a murderous, untrustworthy wretch that saved the mission. Harry cannot oppose Voldemort strength to strength. Harry could not even follow what was happening when Dumbledore and Voldemort dueled at the Ministry. Harry is gifted but he is still a typical 17 year old boy. He does not embody the wisdom and prowess of a 40 year old the way some young prodigies do. I am sure he is going to walk the path of Luke and Frodo to success. Perhaps, I hope, that means like them he will survive. Harry has lost his Gandalf, his Obiwan, even as Frodo and Luke lost theirs. He still has his Sams and he does have many of them. He has a Darth Vader figure in Snape and he has a Gollum figure in Wormtail. In the end I don't expect his education will play much of a role although it certainly will be used to get him to the final showdown. He is already a match for most members of the wizarding world and he most likely never will be a match for Snape or Voledmort in direct combat. He has a bond of forgiving love with Peter and he has a bond with Snape that runs through his parents. The last is currently expressed only in hatred but it seems on the cusp of a dramatic shift. They were very close to connecting after the pensieve moment but their history with each other got in the way. All the signs point to Snape playing a crucial role for the good guys in the end no matter where his loyalties lie at the moment. This is not the story of a young gunslinger advancing to the top of his craft. This is the story of a young man learning to embody the goodness and love that the author says is epitomized by Dumbledore, however hard it is for some here to see that. Harry is not going to stand atop Volemort's corpse at the end, smoking wand raised high, shrieking a challenge daring any and all to match his prowess. He is going to survive, if at all, by the skin of his teeth, with the help of others. He will stagger through the halls of a floundering battle station carrying the dying body of his now beloved potions teacher to an escape pod on the hanger deck, he will collapse on a spit of rock surrounded by lava flows and be rescued by a girl with flaming red hair riding a hippogriff, he may even die in the moment of his triumph like Beowulf. He will triumph, he will be a hero, he will not be the mightiest wizard who ever lived. Ken From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jan 3 15:39:32 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:39:32 -0000 Subject: Backlash? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163427 > Doddie here: > > The answer is quite simple....the backlash comes from actions not > words --namecalling and such... are for posers...there are few > purbloods left and given the gaunt hisotry...those whom brag about it > look more foolish that those they are making fun of.. > > typically we see all talk an no action (during the first few books) > > JK wouln't allow Harry & C0.. to dip down into DE & Offspring > territory by have them behaving just like them.. > > JK has it right...it is much more satisfactory to read the behavior > rather than read the words.. > > Hence we have the "Hermione throws a punch episode"....and Harry > tosses a lump of mud at draco's head! LOL > > Kudos to JK for taking a leaf out of Ghandi's and M.L. King Jr.'s > book... Magpie: I've never thought of JK's characters or story being much like Ghandi, actually--what did he have to do with throwing punches? (Which Hermione did not do. She slapped someone--and not over anything to do with Purebloodism. Why is this one bit of movie- contamination so stubborn--to the point where even Harry is suddenly remembering Hermione punching someone? Did he watch the trailers too?) Anyway, imo, what's to backlash against? The DEs simply aren't shown terrorizing Muggleborns. The one scene where they are behaving that way they're going after Muggles whom all wizards can enjoy baiting (only the good ones only go after Muggles they have a personal grievance against). What's possibly more unusual in canon is that Muggleborns don't have an identity at all, really. They don't group together in any noticable way. In general the prejudice in the books is often contradictory without any clear rules about only bad people being prejudiced or having any preconceptions about blood or background--not that that's necessarily a criticism. In real life that happens a lot too. The racial conflicts seem to more play out on an internal, individual level. Even Harry isn't so horrified by the kind of "dipping down to the DE offspring territory" if by that we mean James and Sirius treatment of Snape in the Pensieve. He's shocked when they do it to a boy he doesn't exactly know (since he didn't know Snape as a teen) but I'm not so sure all the important differences he sees in his own generation were supposed to be so objectively true. -m From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Jan 3 16:14:37 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:14:37 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163428 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > lupinlore wrote: > > > > Well folks, it is beginning to look like Horcruxes are the key to > the seventh book, very unfortunately. Personally, I strongly suspect > > that the "Deathly Hallows" of the title are none other than the > > Horcruxes themselves, which leads to all sorts of unfortunate > > corollaries. > > > > The most unfortunate is that I think we will have to suffer through > > the hunting and destruction of all four of them -- each and every > one in wearisome detail. I don't think we are going to have relief > from coincidences or "off-screen" developments. I don't think two or > more of the horcruxes are going to be hidden in the same spot. I > don't think the horcruxes are going to turn out to be unimportant > after all. And I don't think anyone off-screen, be it Snape, Regulus, > > Wormtail, or God in a Clown Suit, is going to destroy any of them. I > > think the heart of the book is going to be four mini-quests after > four seperate "hallows," followed by a major confrontation at the end. > > > > Now this leads to some opportunities. Ron/Hermione could be > > developed in the course of the quests. Also perhaps one of the > > Hallows is hidden at Durmstrang, which could provide an appearance > by Victor Krum. But much else we have been promised or kind-of > > promised, including a Weasley wedding and an Umbridge come- uppance, > > or that we desire, such as an end to Percy's arc, will have to be > > sandwiched among, around, and between McGuffin chases. > > > Carol responds: > Oho! Finally, a point that Lupinlore and I agree on--the Horcruxes are > surely the least interesting of the questions and issues that need to > be resolved in DH. But I wouldn't leap so quickly to the conclusion > that the Horcruxes are the unhallowed "Hallows." It still sounds like > a placename to me, and I think "The Hogwarts Hallows" of a rejected > title indicates that it's the burial place or places of the Four > Founders (or three, if Slytherin isn't there). And I see no reason why > Harry would not need help from others, not only Hermione and Ron but > Lupin, Bill Weasley, and, yes, Severus Snape. I don't think that JKR > is going to let all those beautiful subplots die by turning DH into a > McGuffin hunt (and, though I hate to say it, the Horcruxes are not > true McGuffins as their destruction really is necessary to the defeat > of Voldemort. They're not *just* plot devices that the characters > think are important; they do serve an ultimate purpose. > > Consider GoF, in which the TWT tasks served several plot purposes but > nevertheless set up an unavoidable three-part structure for the novel. > JKR managed to bring in a great many other important elements, from > the Death Eaters and the Unforgiveable Curses to the Pensieve and > Snape's past as a DE and spy for Dumbledore. (BTW, she also informed > us for the first time that Dementors are blind. I don't think we knew > that in PoA. Hermione certainly didn't.) So take comfort; she can > still tell a unified story, tying together many seemingly diverse > elements, despite the accursed Horcruxes (which, I, too, wish had > never been introduced). > > Also, while I do see the Tarot/Founders connection, and consequently > am leaning toward the Ravenclaw Horcrux as being the wand rather than > the tiara (maybe the tiara is a red herring? Why mention not one but > two tiaras rather pointedly if they're not going to play some role?), > but we still have Nagini, who doesn't fit the pattern but will have to > be killed whether or not she's a Horcrux (and I do think she is, but I > won't go back there again). And that, I think, is where the Sword of > Gryffindor will come into play. DD has said that it isn't a Hocrux and > I believe him, but I do think it's a powerful magical object that will > be used to kill Nagini as it was used to kill the Basilisk. It isn't > encrusted with blood-red rubies for nothing. It has powers we haven't > yet seen, tied in with Fawkes, I'm sure of it. And it's the sole > remaining relic of Godric Gryffindor, which ties in with the relics of > the three other Founders that were turned into Horcruxes (two for > sure, one only probably), but it is not itself a Horcrux. > > Anyway, I hold a more optimistic view than you do of the plot of the > story. I have a feeling that it won't feel artificial and > prefabricated. And we do know of one more puzzle piece besides Snape, > Umbridge, and RAB that JKR is bringing into play--house-elves, which > she mentioned in an update to her website. And while I'm not fond of > house-elves and dislike SPEW rather passionately, that bit of > information should give you hope that the loose ends from OoP will be > resolved after all. And I do hope that a visit to Durmstrang is on the > agenda, though with Krum no longer a student and Karkaroff a carcass, > I don't know how that can be arranged. > > Carol, who expects to learn more about Mundungus, Aberforth, and the > Order's activities in general, and to see more of Mrs. Figg, Rufus > Scrimgeour, Percy Weasley, and Viktor Krum, just to name a few people > other than the regulars Brothergib adds! Not sure where to snip here and retain the coherent argument between Carol & Lupinlore so apologies for the long message! Point 1; Harry has to destroy the Horcruxes. I agree with Carol. Harry will need help and lots of it. It took DD a whole book to track down one Horcrux, and then it practically killed him. IMO Bill will help Harry destroy the only Horcux he will find i.e. the locket. With regard to the others, I remain convinced that Snape's role is to destroy the remaining Horcruxes. He is the most gifted wizard with regard to the Dark Arts, and LV now has every reason to trust Snape with their whereabouts. Point 2; The Hogwarts Hallows. Again I agree with Carol, although the title probably has several simultaneous meanings. Certainly one of these could mean the Horcruxes, but I think the graveyard of the founders is also an appropriate meaning. I can't remember where I read this, but someone made the point that Harry and LV always confront each other in some place with underground/underworld connotations. An underground graveyard at Hogwarts certainly fits for a final confrontation. Considering that it is LV who is fascinated by the founders, I would suggest that he would want to go there for some reason (see below). Point 3; Nagini I disagree with Carol. I think this is DD's biggest mistake. I don't believe that having spent so long collecting his Horcruxes, that LV would suddenley panic and use a muggle death to encase his seventh (and therefore most magical one could argue!) piece of sole in a Horcrux. Point 4; Ravenclaw artefact My belief is that LV remains one Horcrux short. I think it likely that the Gryffindor & Ravenclaw objects are at Hogwarts - hence LV gave up trying to obtain them due to DD's presence. I still believe that LV had intended to make the prophecy a Horcrux using Harry's death. However, now that DD is gone, I think LV will attempt to obtain the final object from Hogwarts once again. We know the sword is there, but what if LV is aware that Ravenclaw was buried with her valuable artefacts. It could explain why LV and Harry would have one final confrontation in the Hogwarts Hallows, where Harry has been lured by LV (kidnapped Ginny?) to be used to generate a final Horcrux! Loads of speculation, with little canon - but in my mind at least, it fits quite nicely! Brothergib - completely depressed that Xmas is over and now facing a cold London January! From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 3 16:36:34 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:36:34 -0000 Subject: Backlash? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163429 > Megan: I'm not saying that violent anti-DE action would enhance the books per se, but rather that it would sadly make a lot of sense. Pippin: Sirius tells us that many of those who opposed Voldemort became as cruel and violent as the Death Eaters themselves. The Ministry authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses, and allied itself with the dementors. We haven't seen that happening to Harry's generation, but they could be tempted -- a lot of people see that in Harry's attempt to use the Cruciatus curse and Hermione's punishment of Marietta. And the Ministry is already very careless with its power, and becoming more so. I think you are talking about more of a fifth column thing, though, not the ministry becoming cruel and violent, but people acting on their own because they don't think the ministry is being cruel and violent enough. I think the dynamics of the situation work against that for Muggleborns. They want to fit in, not be recognized as a fifth column. But other victims of pureblood discrimination might be acting behind the scenes. If Snape is not the real traitor, we will discover the real traitor's motive only when he reveals himself. I could see someone joining Voldemort not because he is behind the pureblood agenda but to get revenge on them. Voldemort has no true loyalty and is not a pureblood himself. Would it not be tempting to defeat the purebloods not only at their own game but using their own weapon? Pippin From chnc1024 at bellsouth.net Wed Jan 3 16:46:11 2007 From: chnc1024 at bellsouth.net (Chancie) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:46:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) References: Message-ID: <001801c72f56$acca71f0$0201a8c0@your4dacd0ea75> No: HPFGUIDX 163430 Ken said: Mike I share your feeling on a gut level that Harry isn't ready, that he simply hasn't even begun to learn enough. I would note in passing however that Harry is learning far more than the pages of the book lead us to believe most of the time. Were you surprised by his OWL results? I wasn't but I was. I wasn't because I thought those results were expected of him, that the author planted those expectations in us. I was because I am at a loss to see how he got to that point, the books give us the expectation but then portray a character who would seem to be a very poor student. For all that has been said about how poor a teacher Snape is for Harry and how Harry is simply incapable of learning from him (and I understand where those feelings come from and agree with them) Harry did surprisingly well in his potions OWL. The text of the book is consistently misdirecting us from Harry's true potential and actual performance as a student. It is also grossly overstating Snape's failings as a teacher. ************************************************************************************ Chancie: I understand where your comming from, and agree with you on many levels, but I see things a bit differently. I don't think that the books so much show a failure on Snape's part as a teacher, only his failure to let go of an old grudge. Harry's poor potions work and grades was a result from the unfair treatment he recieved from Snape, not because Snape was a poor teacher. And in turn Harry doesn't try to learn from Snape, because of his own feelings. Harry finds it easier to preform in his OWL's because he's free of Snape's torment, and sabatoge, and is in turn more able to focus on the task at hand, and not concentraiting on how much he hate's Snape! Also, I believe (sorry for not including chapter info, all my HP books except HBP are still in their packing boxes...) that the student's were only required to follow the directions for a potion, not nessisarily recall one from memory. It seems to me, as long as you could read, and know a few basic bits of information, that this task should have been somewhat easy. Also, we don't know what an O, E, A, D or T, in the Owl's is equal too. For example we know that E is exceeds expectations, but what exactly are the "expectations" they are looking for? How wonderful must a student preform to be considered Outstanding? Until we can understand what is required for the grades, I think that it would be very difficult to judge whether or not the grades were equal to what we see in the pages from Harry's school work. Another example of this can also be taken from Nevile, we know he's probably one of the worst student's in Harry's grade, yet he still got an A in transfiguration. ************************************************************************************ Ken again: Harry cannot oppose Voldemort strength to strength. Harry could not even follow what was happening when Dumbledore and Voldemort dueled at the Ministry. Harry is gifted but he is still a typical 17 year old boy. He does not embody the wisdom and prowess of a 40 year old the way some young prodigies do. I am sure he is going to walk the path of Luke and Frodo to success. Perhaps, I hope, that means like them he will survive. Harry has lost his Gandalf, his Obiwan, even as Frodo and Luke lost theirs. He still has his Sams and he does have many of them. He has a Darth Vader figure in Snape and he has a Gollum figure in Wormtail. In the end I don't expect his education will play much of a role although it certainly will be used to get him to the final showdown. He is already a match for most members of the wizarding world and he most likely never will be a match for Snape or Voledmort in direct combat. He has a bond of forgiving love with Peter and he has a bond with Snape that runs through his parents. The last is currently expressed only in hatred but it seems on the cusp of a dramatic shift. They were very close to connecting after the pensieve moment but their history with each other got in the way. All the signs point to Snape playing a crucial role for the good guys in the end no matter where his loyalties lie at the moment. This is not the story of a young gunslinger advancing to the top of his craft. This is the story of a young man learning to embody the goodness and love that the author says is epitomized by Dumbledore, however hard it is for some here to see that. Harry is not going to stand atop Volemort's corpse at the end, smoking wand raised high, shrieking a challenge daring any and all to match his prowess. He is going to survive, if at all, by the skin of his teeth, with the help of others. He will stagger through the halls of a floundering battle station carrying the dying body of his now beloved potions teacher to an escape pod on the hanger deck, he will collapse on a spit of rock surrounded by lava flows and be rescued by a girl with flaming red hair riding a hippogriff, he may even die in the moment of his triumph like Beowulf. He will triumph, he will be a hero, he will not be the mightiest wizard who ever lived. Ken *************************************************************** Chancie: I couldn't agree with you more! That is shockingly close to how I see the story playing out, and I couldn't have said it better! I think that if any of Harry's education will come into play in the final battle, it will come mostly from the things the trio learned in prepareing to tutor the D.A. We know Harry sat reading those defence books and seemed to be quite caught up in them, I think it's possible that if he does come up with some mysterious spell that it's quite possible that it will have been from one of those books. I also expect to see some long forgotten (forgoten by Harry of course, not by us) object to prove to be quite more valuable to Harry than he would have thought, Sirius's mirror, time-turner, or maybe the mirror of Erised? I also would under estamate the roll that Dobby will play in the final battle. He's already stood in the way of Lucius when he attempted to curse Harry in CoS, and that was his master. But however JKR decides to end her story, I'm certian that none of us will have predicted it exactly. I can't wait for that book!!!! Chancie-who's shocked that she actually had time to write an actual reply without her kids interupting. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 18:54:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:54:30 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163431 zanooda wrote: > > I still think that DD [knew that Harry or his scar is a Horcrux], but didn't dare to tell Harry, just as he couldn't bring himself to tell about the prophecy. Maybe DD hoped to find a way to remove the soul bit first. It is not easy to tell a 15-year old boy that he has to kill or be killed. It is much more difficult to tell him that he must die in order to succeed. > Carol responds: Heaven forfend! If Dumbledore suspected any such thing, surely he would have told Harry rather than misleading him into thinking that he knows all the remaining Horcurxes (the cup, the locket, the snake, something from Gryffindor or Ravenclaw). Easy or not, Dumbledore would have done what was right--and I believe that he did so. BTW, Harry is sixteen, not fifteen, during HBP, and DD says that he's told Harry everything that he knows or suspects about Horcruxes. It's only Snape that he still conceals information about. And if Harry has to be killed to defeat Voldemort, exactly how is that supposed to work? If Harry!Horcrux dies first, he can't kill Voldemort. If Harry!Horcrux "kills" Voldemort but is still alive himself, Voldemort will become Vapormort and the process will start all over again. *If* Harry is a Horcrux and is actually carrying a soul bit rather than merely some of LV's powers, then he will have to be de-Horcruxed--the soul bit destroyed to make Voldemort mortal and Harry still alive to kill or destroy Voldemort. Personally, I think Harry will use the one Voldie!power he's not yet aware that he, erm, possesses--possession--to force Voldie through the Veil. I think that, like the heroes of mythology, Harry will enter the Underworld (or, in his case, the world beyond the Veil) and return again. Unlike Sirius Black, who died as a result of entering that world, he will return because his own body will have been left behind. Carol, who thinks that the Horcruxes are what DD says they are and that Harry will defeat LV and live to tell the tale to his grandchildren From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Jan 3 20:15:52 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 20:15:52 -0000 Subject: Killing the soul piece if Harry is a Horcrux (Predictions, Wishful Thinking ..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163432 Carol: > And if Harry has to be killed to defeat Voldemort, exactly how is > that supposed to work? If Harry!Horcrux dies first, he can't kill > Voldemort. If Harry!Horcrux "kills" Voldemort but is still alive > himself, Voldemort will become Vapormort and the process will start > all over again. *If* Harry is a Horcrux and is actually carrying a > soul bit rather than merely some of LV's powers, then he will have > to be de-Horcruxed--the soul bit destroyed to make Voldemort mortal > and Harry still alive to kill or destroy Voldemort. Jen: The locked room can solve this dilemma pretty handily if Harry does have a soul piece. My reasoning on why Harry could stay alive and the Horcrux be detroyed is we haven't seen that the receptacles are ruined after killing the soul piece: The diary had a hole in it from how Harry destroyed the soul piece not the actual soul- destruction, so it seems possible the crack in the ring was from the same cause. A power flowing through Harry (and not hurting him because it is the same power he holds inside) might be able to destroy the soul piece without wounding Harry. But I think that same power would destory Voldemort and his soul piece because he has *none* of the power inside to protect him. And the wording of the prophecy would still hold true symbolically ('either must die at the hand of the other') if Harry is the one who manages to get Voldemort inside the room. Here was something I said in another post which is relevant here: The fact that Harry has remained a human capable of loving in the face of great pain is what makes him completely different from Voldemort and that's what will save Harry in the end, not what will kill Voldemort. That's why I think Voldemort will have to die in the locked room, no one is actually capable of killing him, but Harry is uniquely qualified to figure out the weakness that will destroy Voldemort in the end. Carol: > Personally, I think Harry will use the one Voldie!power he's not yet > aware that he, erm, possesses--possession--to force Voldie through > the Veil. I think that, like the heroes of mythology, Harry will > enter the Underworld (or, in his case, the world beyond the Veil) > and return again. Unlike Sirius Black, who died as a result of > entering that world, he will return because his own body will have > been left behind. > Jen: Harry using Voldemort's power of posssession seems like Harry sinking to LV's level rather than finally coming to terms with all Dumbledore has taught him about Voldemort's weaknesses and Harry's power, why Harry is a wizard 'of uncommon skill and power' when it comes to defetaing Voldemort if not for any other reason. JKR was saying that in her mind OOTP was the dark (underworld) moment for Harry, she said that he was like the phoenix rising from the ashes after that, he returned strengthened and renewed from that experience. Here's the quote (Stephen Fry interview, BBC, 2005): JKR: And Harry, therefore, did have to reach a point where he did almost break down, and say he didn't want to play anymore, he didn't want to be the hero anymore ? and he'd lost too much. And he didn't want to lose anything else. So that ? Phoenix was the point at which I decided he would have his breakdown. SF: Right. JKR: And now he will rise from the ashes strengthened. From kjones at telus.net Wed Jan 3 20:48:08 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:48:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <459C1688.1010705@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163433 > Carol responds: > Heaven forfend! If Dumbledore suspected any such thing, surely he > would have told Harry rather than misleading him into thinking that he > knows all the remaining Horcurxes (the cup, the locket, the snake, > something from Gryffindor or Ravenclaw). Easy or not, Dumbledore would > have done what was right--and I believe that he did so. BTW, Harry is > sixteen, not fifteen, during HBP, and DD says that he's told Harry > everything that he knows or suspects about Horcruxes. It's only Snape > that he still conceals information about. > > And if Harry has to be killed to defeat Voldemort, exactly how is that > supposed to work? If Harry!Horcrux dies first, he can't kill > Voldemort. If Harry!Horcrux "kills" Voldemort but is still alive > himself, Voldemort will become Vapormort and the process will start > all over again. *If* Harry is a Horcrux and is actually carrying a > soul bit rather than merely some of LV's powers, then he will have to > be de-Horcruxed--the soul bit destroyed to make Voldemort mortal and > Harry still alive to kill or destroy Voldemort. snip > Carol, who thinks that the Horcruxes are what DD says they are and > that Harry will defeat LV and live to tell the tale to his grandchildren KJ writes: So, Carol, just for the sheer sake of arguing as Devil's Advocate here, let's consider some possibilities. 1. We know that Dumbledore makes emotional mistakes and can't bring himself to believe, perhaps, what he suspects to be true. We know that he suspects because he avoided Harry completely after the Goblet of Fire and until he felt that it was safe to do so in OotP. Dumbledore knew that Voldemort had access to Harry before Harry returned to school. 2. We know that the Room of Love is likely to show up in book 7, and we suspect that the Veil Room will show up in book 7. We also expect to see conflict at Dursley's residence on Harry's birthday, and at Hogwarts. 3. We also suspect that Snape has been put in place by Dumbledore for a specific purpose. He is in a position to a) poison Nagini, b) find out the whereabouts of the Horcruxes, and c) be in attendance at the confrontation between Voldemort and Harry. We also know that the wands of Harry and Voldemort do not work properly against each other. Somebody (cough, cough, Dumbledore) got Ollivander out of the way so that this won't change. Snape's wand will work. 4. I propose that if Harry does figure out that he has a soul piece in his head, he may be able to make use of the Love Room to drive it out. He would survive the experience, but perhaps the soul piece will not. This is a best case scenario, since I think that Harry is going to bite it. This may be a way that JKR allows him to survive. 5. If I am wrong about the Love Room, then Harry must discover that he is the holder of a soul piece. Once the two, Voldemort and Harry come together, I would expect that Voldemort would kill Harry. Once the last soul piece is gone, Snape could easily kill Voldemort. If Harry struck his usual lucky blow, and killed Voldemort, Snape could snuff Harry, who would be struggling to prevent Voldemort from taking possession of him. Or, by the end of the book, Harry and Snape could be working together. Snape whacks Voldemort and Harry drags his unconscious body through the Veil. Or, I could be completely wrong, as usual. There are several ways for this to play out depending on who you want to live. KJ From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 3 19:59:19 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:59:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, decisions, and guilt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163434 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > The fact that JKR is bulding up Snape and Harry conflict for > dramatic reasons is fine by me, I am looking forward to the > resolution of that conflict as much as anybody else, but when I look > at their conflict as if they were **real**, then I absolutely do not > care if Dumbledore needs Snape in Hogwarts for the reasons necessary > to fight Voldemort, if that means that Snape is allowed to abuse his > students on the regular basis ( IMO of course). > > I believe that Dumbledore Headmaster and Dumbledore as Head of the > Order of Phoenix should not be allowed to make those decisions, his > hats conflict too much, if that makes sense. Most excellent. However, it does raise an interesting point. The conflict of interest between DD as Head of the Order and DD as Headmaster is, as you say, very important. But who should not "allow" him to make these decisions? In other words, what are the duties of the other people involved in this whole mess (Sirius, Lupin, McG, etc?) Rather a lot, I'd say. The problem just isn't with Dumbledore, although he is at the crux of it. The problem is with the general cowardice and ineptitude of the adults around Harry -- cowardice in the sense that they all seem perfectly willing to let DD get away with anything, no matter how contemptible. Sirius, of course, is working off his problems after Azkaban. Lupin, on the other hand, generally drops the ball in his emotional repression and desire to be popular with everyone. McG owes Harry a huge apology of her own for her contemptible behavior early in OOTP. Hagrid is a dim bulb, bless his giant heart. So there is plenty of guilt to go around, although the lion's share falls on Snape and DD. > > So, no, Pippin I do not want different story, but I do want to > criticise the characters for the decisions made in this one. > Yes, but here we get into the problem of what message is being sent. Frankly, I don't think JKR wants the characters, particularly DD, criticized in this way. I suspect she is still firmly wedded to her "epitome of goodness" characterization -- which raises all kinds of complications. You, Alla, had said you wondered if JKR would still make the same statement now as she did in her interview earlier in the series, and have said you would be disappointed if she did. So would I, obviously, but I rather suspect that is exactly what she would do. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 00:10:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:10:56 -0000 Subject: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163435 Anders wrote: > > Always before I was waiting in line, in a hurry to get at the book to quickly skim through it on a first read and grab the main details before going back for a slow, detailed read to try to glean clues. > > But this time will be different. I mean, this is it. No more clues to guess. No more postings of theories and predictions. Finite. Finality. The end. Th-th-th-that's all folks. > I don't want to hurry through it because I have no idea if I'm ever going to want to pick up the book again, depending on how it all turns out. I'm one who was really disappointed in HBP. I keep thinking what if it just gets worse in DH? There won't be any more chances to make it right. Even if Jo does the most wonderful, surprising, awe-inspiring, all-questions-answered ending, and all the threads are tied up just as I'd like, it's still an end to something we'll likely never see again in our lifetimes. I want it to last. I want to savor it, page by page, as though it were rich dark chocolate melting across my tongue like velvet. When it's done I want to gently close the book, with a smile on my face as I gently nod and say, "Yeah. It's finished. Thanks, Jo." Carol responds: Well, yes. I understand the urge to savor the experience, rather like (for me) reading LOTR for the first time--a never-to-be recaptured experience. But I also understand the hurry-up-and-get-to-the-end impulse, the desire to find out how it all ends (without cheating and peeking at the TOC, much less the last two chapters) and *then* coming back to savor it in a reread, especially if it ends as I want it to, with HRH and Neville and Snape alive and Snape revealed to be DDM. But a good book is always worth rereading and reanalyzing, and I very much doubt that all the questions will be answered. Those of us who prefer analysis of existing canon to speculation about what hasn't yet appeared, or who enjoy both equally, will still be here, at least till the flame of interest burns out, say around 2017. Carol, looking forward to the ChapDiscs for DH and subsequent reinterpretation of all the books much more than to the celebration of correct predictions and the bittersweet eating of crow by all and sundry From scarah at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 00:02:17 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:02:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore, decisions, and guilt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701031602m5974cc34h1f0133ec35a2e74a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163436 Lupinlore: > Yes, but here we get into the problem of what message is being sent. > Frankly, I don't think JKR wants the characters, particularly DD, > criticized in this way. I suspect she is still firmly wedded to > her "epitome of goodness" characterization -- which raises all kinds > of complications. You, Alla, had said you wondered if JKR would > still make the same statement now as she did in her interview earlier > in the series, and have said you would be disappointed if she did. > So would I, obviously, but I rather suspect that is exactly what she > would do. Sarah: I don't know. The context of that "epitome of goodness" interview is that she's been asked whether she likes writing the evil characters more, because Voldemort is pretty bad. She replied that she likes writing Dumbledore even though he's the EoG. I always read this as her speaking very relatively to make that contrast as relates to her enjoyment of the writing, not in terms of how we are supposed to feel about the characters. Also, she had to be careful about sparking ESE Dumbledore ideas. These days, she speaks more freely about his faults. I personally don't have the greatest opinion of Dumbledore, or any of the other adults. They've all got issues. (In fact, you could replace 'adults' with 'characters,' heh.) But that's one thing that I think makes the books interesting. Everyone's got problems. I also think that it's mechanically necessary. It's a common thread of boarding school fiction and most YA fantasy, and even shows like Beavis and Butthead, that the adults have to either be stupid, irresponsible, unapproachable, just plain mean, or absent. Or some combination thereof. If all the young protagonists had a reasonable number of responsible and nice adults around, providing an adequate amount of supervision, it would be difficult for them to be able to have wacky adventures. If Dumbledore had behaved in a way we would find beyond any reproach, there wouldn't be a story. Sarah From scarah at gmail.com Wed Jan 3 23:28:17 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:28:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Killing the soul piece if Harry is a Horcrux (Predictions, Wishful Thinking ..) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701031528y1169f550uf486974463d82d33@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163437 > Carol: > > And if Harry has to be killed to defeat Voldemort, exactly how is > > that supposed to work? Sarah: Easy. Who says he has to be killed instantly? He could accomplish a lot of last gasps while fatally wounded. Sarah From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 01:23:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:23:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163438 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > Mike I share your feeling on a gut level that Harry > isn't ready, that he simply hasn't even begun to learn > enough. I... > > There seem to be strong similarities between Harry > Potter and LukeSkywalker and Frodo Baggins. All three > seem woefully unprepared forthe task before them. ... > > Sending two Hobbits into Mordor was the height of folly. > ... At the climactic point in their mission they could > not accomplish the task. Frodo could not take the > simple step of opening his two fingers and letting a > ring drop ... > > Harry cannot oppose Voldemort strength to strength. ... > I am sure he is going to walk the path of Luke and > Frodo to success. Perhaps, I hope, that means like them > he will survive. ... > > This is not the story of a young gunslinger advancing > to the top of his craft. This is the story of a young > man learning to embody the goodness and love that the > author says is epitomized by Dumbledore, however hard > it is for some here to see that. ... He will stagger > through the halls of a floundering battle station > carrying the dying body of his now beloved potions > teacher to an escape pod on the hanger deck, ... he may > even die in the moment of his triumph like Beowulf. He > will triumph, he will be a hero, he will not be the > mightiest wizard who ever lived. > > Ken > bboyminn: Excellent essay Ken, it broke my heart to cut a single word, though those wise word are not lost, they remain up thread for all to read. I think you are absolutely right, Harry is an underdog, just as all mythological heros are not prepare when adventure comes calling, neither is Harry prepared. Yet, heros aways follow adventure. They always take the dark and dangerous path, though more often washed away on a tide of destiny then by conscious choice. An this is Harry's fate, to be washed along by the tide of destiny. But, I think we need to view Harry's fate ALWAYS from two perspective. From the external perspective of the Lit-Crit, the viewer or reader, you are absolutely right, if I may paraphrase, 'love will conquer all'. But from an internal perspective, we have a very different view. We must ask ourselves 'what should Harry reasonably do under the circumstance', not how will the story resolve itself. From Harry's internal perspective, he is the hopeless underdog, and THAT is truly something he must do something about. From his perspective he needs to gain many skills and do so very quickly. In my opinion, to do otherwize is irrational. Now in the latest book (HBP) I can excuse Harry lack of enthusiasm for learning the specific things he will certainly, from his perspective, need to know. First, he has Dumbledore; as has been oft repeated, as long as we have Dumbledore, everything is under control. Second, Dumbledore has promised to teach Harry what he needs to know to defeat Voldemort. Harry, Ron, and Hermione speculate that it will be spectacular spells and curses. But it turns out to be a history lesson in Voldemort/Tom Riddle. Well, certainly, Harry must trust that this information will be important, but I suspect Harry is continually expecting the /next/ phase of his training to start. From an internal perspective, I assume that at some point Dumbledore did intent to start arming Harry with certain necessary skills like curse breaking, identifying magic, and combat dueling. He has given him a working sample of all those skill. But that chance never came. My point is that, from Harry's perspective, as long as Dumbledore is in charge and in control, then everything is...well...under control. So, Harry continues to increase his skills in school along with the other students; probably no better or worse than any. But he is also obssessed with Draco and rightly so. I think Dumbledore just wanted Harry to leave the situation alone, but instead of talking to him, he just told him 'not to worry his pretty little head about it'. No kid, especially Harry, is going to stand for being condescended to in such a way. If Dumbledore had said, 'thank for the info, but I'm aware of what Draco is doing and I'm on top of it'. That would have gone farther toward comforting Harry, then being told to forget about it. Additionally, Harry's year is pretty full. He's worried about Draco, and even more so when two of his friends are nearly killed and he is convinced Draco is behind it. He is worried about Voldemort and what he is up to. He is furious because the very year he desperately needs to learn DADA, Snape, of all people, is teaching it. His love life is having it's ups and downs. Ron is behaving badly, and Hermione is behaving even worse. Who can blame him for being distracted. Still through it all, Dumbledore is there guiding him. Dumbledore is in control of the only effective resistance. Dumbledore has the Grand Plan. As long as everyone follows Dumbledore's /Grand Plan/ everything will turn out all right in the end. So, Harry is being a good soldier. He is following orders. He does what Dumbledore tells him. But now Dumbledore is gone, and with him, the bulk of the /Grand Plan/. Yes, we have a bit of it; the Horcruxes, but Dumbledore must have had bigger plans than that. He must have had ideas as to the location. He had knowledge as to the disposal. As long as they have Dumbledore they are 'aces', unfortunately, now they don't have him. Consequently, from Harry's internal to the story perspective, he is out of excusses. Now everything falls on him. He has lost the last of his great protectors and now HE NEEDS TO LEARN TO PROTECT HIMSELF. Up to this point, I can explain away Harry's action, but if he is not going full force towards arming himself, then all faith in the story will be lost for me. Yes, WE know that love is the answer, and to a limited extent, Harry knows it, but how do you arm yourself for battle with 'love'? The answer is, you don't. You work long and hard to learn how to kick ass. Still Ken, despite my endless ramblings, that was one first class essay you wrote. Steve/bboyminn From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 4 02:45:28 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 02:45:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163439 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > Now in the latest book (HBP) I can excuse Harry lack of > enthusiasm for learning the specific things he will > certainly, from his perspective, need to know. First, > he has Dumbledore; as has been oft repeated, as long as > we have Dumbledore, everything is under control. Second, > Dumbledore has promised to teach Harry what he needs to > know to defeat Voldemort. Harry, Ron, and Hermione > speculate that it will be spectacular spells and curses. > > But it turns out to be a history lesson in Voldemort/Tom > Riddle. Well, certainly, Harry must trust that this > information will be important, but I suspect Harry is > continually expecting the /next/ phase of his training > to start. From an internal perspective, I assume that > at some point Dumbledore did intent to start arming > Harry with certain necessary skills like curse breaking, > identifying magic, and combat dueling. He has given him > a working sample of all those skill. But that chance > never came. Quick_Silver: Ok I'm in general agreement with what both you and Ken are saying but at the same time I think that's it's risky to say that Dumbledore ever intended to teach Harry magic unless Harry specifically asked him to. One of the things that I get from the books is that the very best wizards (in terms of their magical abilities) are primarily self- driven. Snape and the Marauders, aside from excelling at school, mastered an impressive amount of magic on their own initiative. JKR described Dumbledore as being mainly self taught and Voldemort was well on the way to becoming a wizard whether he was accepted to Hogwarts or not. And I think that for Harry to be truly great he needs to find the motivation that makes him want to do magic. Considering that Snape, the Marauders, Dumbledore, and Voldemort were probably motivated for totally different reasons and appear to have markedly different views on the use of magic I just don't think that this is something that can be taught (it can be encouraged however). If Dumbledore had started teaching Harry what he knew about magic there's the very real possibility that Harry could come to rely on Dumbledore as a crutch (like the rest of wizarding world seems to). Or to use the example form OotP Snape suggestion of "not wearing your heart on your sleeve" and then Harry escaping Voldemort using his heart (I'm at little hazy on those scene my books are packed away) which shows what is good for one wizard might not be good for another. > bboyminn: > But he is also obssessed with Draco and rightly so. I > think Dumbledore just wanted Harry to leave the situation > alone, but instead of talking to him, he just told him > 'not to worry his pretty little head about it'. No kid, > especially Harry, is going to stand for being condescended > to in such a way. If Dumbledore had said, 'thank for the > info, but I'm aware of what Draco is doing and I'm on top > of it'. That would have gone farther toward comforting > Harry, then being told to forget about it. Quick_Silver: See I view the Draco fiasco as being a huge event in Harry's "training" if you will. He shows dedication, is forced to evaluate Draco motivations and mental state, has to re-form several of his arguments to take into account evidence, uses the resources that he has available (the invisibility clock, the Marauder's map, Dobby, Kreature), and heck he even get to test out some powerful magic on Draco (Sectumsempra). And all of that takes place without Dumbledore really planning on it to happen although I think it reinforces the lessons that Dumbledore was trying to teach Harry with the memories of Tom Riddle and fetching Slughorn's memory. Quick_Silver From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 03:47:53 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 03:47:53 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163440 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Heaven forfend! If Dumbledore suspected any such thing, surely he > would have told Harry rather than misleading him into thinking that > he knows all the remaining Horcurxes zanooda: Oh, I understand your sentiment, Carol. I don't like this idea (DD knowing that Harry has a soul-bit) myself. This is what I believe, yes, but I don't like it, if it makes any sense to you :-). I don't like how DD looks in this case, unless he intended to tell, but didn't have the time. It doesn't work well with the theory that DD was dying all that year and knew about it, but this is just a theory, right? Maybe he didn't intend to die so soon and thought he still have enough time to explain everything. I think DD telling Harry about Nagini was the first step in this direction (I don't believe she is a H-x and I don't think DD believed it either). I also don't like in what position all this puts our dear Snape (DDM variety). I mean, if Snape was really DD's confidant, then he must know about Horcruxes and about this soul bit in particular. Then, to ensure the final destruction of LV, the poor guy must let LV kill Harry so that he (Snape) can then AK Horcrux-less Voldy. Or, if Harry somehow kills LV first and LV turns into Vapor!Mort again, Snape will have to kill Harry, and quickly, before Vapor!Mort manages to get another body. This is all theoretical, of course, but I don't like it anyway, I don't like it at all! Too dark for my taste! Still, I cannot believe that DD didn't know, or at least suspected, that there is LV's soul-bit stuck inside Harry. There is no canon support for this, but the idea should have crossed DD's mind, IMO. Finally, for the record, I've always believed and I believe now that Harry will stay alive. If Harry turns out to be a Horcrux (and I'm not even sure he will), I feel confident that JKR will find a way around it and Harry will survive. I don't know how. I have very poor imagination and can't think of anything myself, but I believe that both your possession idea and going through the veil will work well here. Whatever it turns out to be, Harry will be "de-Horcruxed" and Snape won't have to kill him. That would be too much to take. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 03:11:05 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 03:11:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, decisions, and guilt In-Reply-To: <3202590701031602m5974cc34h1f0133ec35a2e74a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > > Sarah: I also > think that it's mechanically necessary. It's a common thread of > boarding school fiction and most YA fantasy, and even shows like > Beavis and Butthead, that the adults have to either be stupid, > irresponsible, unapproachable, just plain mean, or absent. Or some > combination thereof. If all the young protagonists had a reasonable > number of responsible and nice adults around, providing an adequate > amount of supervision, it would be difficult for them to be able to > have wacky adventures. If Dumbledore had behaved in a way we would > find beyond any reproach, there wouldn't be a story. > I understand what you are saying, but I think it's a cop out (on JKR's part, not yours). Once again, it's an example of forcing the characters to bend to the needs of the plot. It also speaks to JKR's slavish following of the hero's journey tropes, with all their (I think frankly silly and boring) ideas about the hero being stripped of his support and "going on alone." Lupinlore From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 05:35:24 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Snape's Witch) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:35:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape's methods -- was Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Message-ID: <845588.36410.qm@web50115.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163442 Jen: >Oh, more reason for Harry to hate Snape! I've wondered why he >doesn't teach his methods in class? Snape's Witch's reply: Why do you assume this to be the case? I can find Snape requiring only one textbook: the first year Magical Drafts and Potions by Arsenius Jigger. Later in the series he is shown writing the recipes on a blackboard. Umbridge states that his students are more advanced than expected by the Ministry. But for me the best argument that he does indeed teach his improvements is what happens to Hermione in the N.E.W.T.'s class. Until that year she had been his best student, but now when she follows the book's instructions she doesn't do as well as Harry using the Prince's improvements. Could it be because Snape had taught his own recipes? IMO yes! Snape's Witch __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 06:26:51 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 06:26:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > ******************************************************* > > Mike previously: > > But shouldn't he have shown a little more advancement? > > Where is that kid that produced a Patronus at 13, held off a > > dozen DEs until help arrived at 15? > > ******************************************************* Mike now: Let me add my compliments to Steve's for Ken's excellent essay. And let me preface my response by saying that I don't disagree with *anything* Ken wrote. I left my previous remark up above so you know where I'm going on this post (eventually). So here goes: > > > Ken: > Mike I share your feeling on a gut level that Harry isn't ready, > that he simply hasn't even begun to learn enough. I would note in > passing however that Harry is learning far more than the pages of > the book lead us to believe most of the time. Were you surprised by > his OWL results? I wasn't but I was. I wasn't because I thought > those results were expected of him, that the author planted those > expectations in us. I was because I am at a loss to see how he got > to that point, the books give us the expectation but then portray a > character who would seem to be a very poor student. The > text of the book is consistently misdirecting us from Harry's true > potential and actual performance as a student. It is also grossly > overstating Snape's failings as a teacher. Mike again: In this paragraph you have stated the dichotomy of the boy Harry Potter which JKR has writ large over the whole series. She writes a character that seems to barely be succeeding in everyday life, but suddenly draws from some inner power to succeed when the chips are down. She never shows us from whence this ability springs, but we have plenty of hints that it is there just below the surface, waiting to be called upon. I have always thought that a simple line from Sirius, up in the cave during GoF, was a very telling line both for Harry and for JKR's Wizarding World in toto. To wit: "He's a great wizard, Barty Crouch, **powerfully magical** -..." (GoF p.526, US, emphasis mine). In JKR's WW, a witch or wizard evidently can have some *je ne sais quoi* which puts them in a magical class above the norm. Then there are those which far exceed the norm, making them almost a seperate species of wizard. Voldemort is there, Dumbledore was probably there, and JKR has shown me enough hints to think that Harry is there. Harry has "IT", whatever it is. (Some speculation coming here, but the gist of "IT" is all over the page, IMO) It matters not how young Harry is, once he reaches his 17th birthday, the "IT" will become fully fledged. Harry *will* be able to challenge Voldemort toe-to-toe because of his inate abilities. In fact, he already did it in GoF, in the graveyard. Harry was able by force of will to overpower Voldemort during the "Priori Incantatum" wand connection. So we know Harry is more powerfully magical than Voldemort. (Side question: I wonder if he would have been more powerful than a *whole* Tom Riddle?) Does Harry realize this? It seems not. He had continually protested to Dumbledore that he doesn't have the power that Voldemort has. He hasn't internalized the lesson from the graveyard, probably due to shock, grieving for Cedric, and a desire to stop the nightmares by putting the whole episode out of his mind. But we know it. JKR made sure we knew it. And *if* Harry has to harness the *power of love*, he will be able to because of the inate magical abilities he possesses which put him in a class by himself. I'm sure that Harry's magical quality/life force will underlie whatever manipulation, trickeration, or magic Harry will do to defeat Voldemort. (I think this all ties in to what Ken projects the final book has in store for Harry) Dumbledore saw it, probably very early on. He tells him, "I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." (OotP p. 839, US) In this passage Dumbledore isn't talking about Harry's *ability to love* yet. He's seen Harry perform in other ways, magical ways, that defy his stage in life. Dumbledore knew Harry was **powerfully magical**, and suspected that Harry will become more powerfully magical than any living wizard. In typical Dumbledore understatement, he tells Harry as much in the cave: "You are very kind, Harry... But your blood is worth more than mine." (HBP p. 560, US) So what happened to that boy in HBP? In every other book, Harry's magical abilities are the lynchpin to the end results of the penultimate or ultimate conflict of the book. He thwarts Quirrellmort with his touch, kills the Basilisk with Gryffindor's sword (yes, I think one needed magical ability to wield that sword), produces the Patronus, outduels Voldemort in the battle of wills, and throws off Voldemort's possession with his thoughts. What did he do in HBP? Well ... he apparated back to Hogsmeade. Wow, what a show of magical ability. He couldn't even handle an untransformed Greyback without help, much less land a single spell on Snape. Remember, while he's chasing them through and out of the castle, Harry thought stopping Snape was the key to rescuing Dumbledore. He wasn't thinking revenge as he was catching up to Snape and Draco. In his mind was the thought that he could somehow reverse events if he stopped Snape from escaping. So where was that inate magical ability when *Harry* thought he needed to do something? It wasn't there, was it? What happened? How come a year older Harry's power has failed him? I hate to think it was all for the storyline, but I hasve no other explanation. This is my grievance with HBP, the book. ***************************************************************** To quickly address Anne Squires wonderful post upthread. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163422 > Anne Squires shyly enters the conversation: > Mike says that he thinks that JKR should have shown him to be a little better prepared. But, since we do not know what skills Harry needs or does not need, I say that how do we know Harry is not prepared? Mike: Actually, I think JKR should have shown us a Harry that makes more of an effort to get prepared. I think Harry's lack of urgency in his sixth year is a failure of JKR's, not an indictment of Harry's abilities. As Steve pointed out: But from an internal perspective, we have a very different view. We must ask ourselves 'what should Harry reasonably do under the circumstance', not how will the story resolve itself. From Harry's internal perspective, he is the hopeless underdog, and THAT is truly something he must do something about. From his perspective he needs to gain many skills and do so very quickly. In my opinion, to do otherwize is irrational. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163438 Mike again: To have Harry spend his sixth year like it was any other year at Hogwarts, after he learns of the prophesy, after he knows Dumbledore is giving him special lessons, and after all his close calls with Voldemort (forgot about those, did he?), is a failure of writing on JKR's part, IMO. > Anne Squires cont: And I think he is extremely well prepared. Here is a list of what Harry does have (not in any particular order/ranking): Mike: But Harry had almost all of those already, going into his sixth year. The only new things he gained in his sixth year were the knowledge of Horcruxes and the Captaincy of Quidditch. Neither of which were the result of Harry's efforts to attain. (OK, he got the memory from Slughorn, and he took his sweet time getting it, didn't he?) Where was Harry's effort to improve himself? Off-screen, I guess. That is another failure of writing, IMO. Chancie: But however JKR decides to end her story, I'm certian that none of us will have predicted it exactly. I can't wait for that book!!!! Mike: Actually, I have been so impressed with the quality of writing of the people who participate in HP4GU, I'm almost not looking forward to the release of DH. Not that I don't want to know what happens, I do. But it's almost like I'm getting to read a lot of mini HP stories by reading the essays posted here. Thank you, everyone From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 12:53:05 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:53:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163444 Mike: > So what happened to that boy in HBP? In every other book, Harry's > magical abilities are the lynchpin to the end results of the > penultimate or ultimate conflict of the book. He thwarts Quirrellmort > with his touch, kills the Basilisk with Gryffindor's sword (yes, I > think one needed magical ability to wield that sword), produces the > Patronus, outduels Voldemort in the battle of wills, and throws off > Voldemort's possession with his thoughts. > > What did he do in HBP? Alla: I basically cut your whole post, Mike to concentrate on this point. I am not sure I quite agree that Harry's magical abilities are indeed the lynchpin to the end results of the book. I mean, they are, but IMO only metaphorically . Why Harry triumphed over Quirrel? Because of his mom's love. Killed Basilisk? Maybe he has the touch or maybe he does not, what he does shown is loyalty as Dumbledore tells him. Produced Patronus - found happy memory and his father within him. Outdid Voldemort? Because of the love and respect the dead shown him, no and because he drew within himself to keep the promise to Cedric. He did not throw the Voldemort out with his thoughts IMO, he threw him out with his heart. So, IMO in book 6 JKR did not drew the magical metaphor for what Harry does at the end of the book, she shown it unmetaphorically, rather directly. Harry felt a bit of pity for Draco and somewhere in between those lessons he even felt something for Tom Riddle. Personally I think this was Harry's greatest achievement in that book and very nicely done too. JMO, Alla, who is more and more convinced that Snape has no clue what Harry is about and his advice at the end of HBP ( if that was an advice) is not worth a dime and Harry emotions will be the key to his victory From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 4 16:00:33 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:00:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163445 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > It matters not how young Harry is, once he reaches his 17th birthday, > the "IT" will become fully fledged. Harry *will* be able to challenge > Voldemort toe-to-toe because of his inate abilities. In fact, he > already did it in GoF, in the graveyard. Harry was able by force of > will to overpower Voldemort during the "Priori Incantatum" wand > connection. So we know Harry is more powerfully magical than > Voldemort. (Side question: I wonder if he would have been more > powerful than a *whole* Tom Riddle?) > Yes, I agree that Harry is powerfully magical in this sense and exactly because of the example you give I agree that he is more powerful than Voldemort presently is (I too wonder what a Tom Riddle with a whole soul would be like) in this respect. That scene is a bullet hits a bullet scene, it happens in real life and I won't criticize Rowling for using it but if she does it again, that would be contrived. The power that Harry displays in this scene is not sufficient to save him although it certainly was necessary. He had to break the connection at some point and at that point that balance of power shifted back to Voldemort with his superior skill and his band of Death Eaters to support him. Harry would have been toast except for the support he got from the "echoes" that emerged from Voldemort's wand, the power of love in action. I think we have two different kinds of power at work here then, an innate talent that Harry excels at and the deep skill that comes with study and practice that Voldemort excels at. All trained wizards and witches in the Potterverse have both to some degree of course. Voldemort is probably unusually strong in both senses. And I think it was wrong of me to say that Harry will *never* be the equal of Voldemort or Snape, skillwise. What I really meant is that Harry does not have the time or discipline right now to achieve that level of skill before the final confrontation is likely to occur. I agree that he certainly would be wise to work on that in the time that he does have. I don't know if 17 year old Harry Potter has the perspective to see that. He strikes me as very much like the similarly aged Luke Skywalker who just wants to rush into a confrontation with Darth Vader. The difference is that Luke did not know how much he did not know about Darth Vader whereas Harry has seen plenty of evidence of Voldemort's skill. > > Dumbledore saw it, probably very early on. He tells him, "I never > dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." (OotP p. 839, > US) In this passage Dumbledore isn't talking about Harry's *ability > to love* yet. He's seen Harry perform in other ways, magical ways, > that defy his stage in life. Dumbledore knew Harry was **powerfully > magical**, and suspected that Harry will become more powerfully > magical than any living wizard. In typical Dumbledore understatement, > he tells Harry as much in the cave: "You are very kind, Harry... But > your blood is worth more than mine." (HBP p. 560, US) > I agree. We readers "know" that Harry will triumph because that is how "this kind of story" is expected to end. If we were actually living in the Potterverse through this time I think we could trust Dumbledore on this one. Harry doesn't seem to, he has the deep self doubts that plague even the most powerful among real people. > > What did he do in HBP? Well ... he apparated back to Hogsmeade. Wow, > what a show of magical ability. He couldn't even handle an > untransformed Greyback without help, much less land a single spell on > Snape. The last point, not being able to even scratch Snape, struck me like a ton of bricks too when I read that scene. It just made Harry seem hopelessly inadequate for the task that faces him. I don't think there is any believable way for Harry to close that skill gap in the time he has. So it has to be Dumbledore's power of love and the innate magical gift that you both see in Harry. Which is not to say that he shouldn't work on his skills too, skill is never bad to have. There is great disagreement over who hexed Greyback and I side with those who read it as Harry. We'll just have to disagree on that one! I also disagree about the apparation. It has been hammered home to us that although this is a common skill it is *not* an easy one and some are never able to master it. Harry had studied it but had not mastered it. I'm not sure if he had even managed to apparate a few feet on his own at that point but that may be just another example of the text omitting details, or my bad memory. So I would argue that this is another example of Harry being able to call upon his innate power to do something at need that he had not been able to do otherwise. He certainly had never acted as the "master" in a sidealong apparation. That really was quite a feat. Thanks to all for the kind words but I think my reviewers are being too kind. It wasn't that great an essay but perhaps it did strike a chord that resonates with the hopes that many of us have for Harry and company. When *will* that woman finish writing anyway?? Ken From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jan 4 19:00:02 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:00:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Talent, skill, knowledge, power (was Snape's Methods) Message-ID: <25765257.1167937203063.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163446 Snape's Witch's reply: > But for me the best argument that he does indeed teach his improvements is > what happens to Hermione in the N.E.W.T.'s class. Until that year she had been > his best student, but now when she follows the book's instructions she doesn't > do as well as Harry using the Prince's improvements. Could it be because Snape > had taught his own recipes? IMO yes! Bart: Which is as good an excuse as any to bring up a subject I have been meaning to bring up. In many subjects, how well you do is based on 4 factors, where having an excess in one or more can, up to a point, make up for deficiencies in the other factors. These are talent, skill, knowledge, and power. Talent you are born with. It is your potential for doing well in the subject, and not much can change it one way or the other, although it can be augmented. Skill is wholly learned. It is the physical and mental movements attached to the subject. Practice can increase skill. Knowledge is how much you know about the subject, and is limited by learning ability and self-discipline. Power depends on the subject, but it is the degree of amplitude (and, if applicable, speed) you can put into the subject. For example, I am quite talented on the piano, and have a decent amount of knowledge about musical theory, but I don't have the self-discipline to build up my skills. A lot of people think I'm an excellent piano player, when, in fact, I'm faking it all the way. A real piano player can tell this immediately. In other cases, knowledge and skill can make up for a lack of talent and power. I never was a terribly athletic person, but I lived in Europe for a while as a youth, and had to play soccer with kids who had practically been born with soccer balls at their feet. When I came back to the United States (soccer not being very popular at the time), although somewhat deficient in other sports, I played rings around even some of the best athletes in my class in soccer. Although I didn't have talent or power, I had a LOT more skill than they had. In arm wrestling, I have talent and skill, but very little power. Yet, when going agaisnt men built like professional athletes, often to the amusement of the onlookers. Yet, even when I have lost, many of them have told the onlookers, "He's GOOD." However, when there is no talent at all, sometimes all the other factors do no good. Consider the moviemaker Ed Wood, who, in spite of incredible dedication, hard work, practicing his skills, etc. is mainly remembered as the worst moviemaker of all time, because he had no talent whatsoever (Tim Burton made a movie in tribute to him). Now, let's look at these factors in the WW. Dumbledore, if he does not have all 4, has clearly made others believe that he does. Others are not as gifted and/or dedicated. Fred & George clearly have much talent (their magical inventions show that). They lack a certain amount of self-discipline, in that they won't learn what they don't want to learn. And there are hints that they augment their power by combining theirs together. Hermione has a certain amount of talent, but it's mainly augmented by a high degree of skill and knowledge. She has trouble even understanding the talent component; hence her "stick to the book" mentality, looking down at Fred and George's inventions, or Harry's use of the HBP methods. Voldemort clearly has much power and talent. Maybe a little too much. My own experience with piano has shown me that having a lot of talent can actually block one's gaining of skill, because of the discipline learning something the hard way that you can already do, even if you know that doing it will, eventually, enable you to surpass what you do. It's hard to put my finger on it, but, just based on my own experience, Tommy boy seems to, given an easy way and a hard way of doing things, like to take the easy way. This is masked by the fact that what is easy to him can be quite difficult to others. His disdain for Dumbledore's advice on the power of love is an indication of this sort of attitude. And Harry. Let's look at Harry. Talent? Certainly, he has talents in certain areas. He can think on his feet, and, once he learns something, he LEARNS it. Power? Certainly. Fighting off dementors at his age is considered to be impressive to the OWL testers; with no training fighting off the Imperious Curse, and his ability to even occasionally get past Snape's defenses (considering that Voldemort doesn't get past Snape's defenses; admittedly, Snape is more prepared for Voldemort than Harry; an expert fencer can be hit by an amateur, simply because the amateur will do something so stupid that the expert never expects it). But it has its price; if Harry does not want to learn something, he will refuse to learn it (such as History of Magic and Divination). And it seems that the only thing he practices with full fervor is Quidditch, which, quite frankly, is in many, if not most, ways, counter-productive. He probably would not have made it through his OWLS had Hermione not been helping him every step of the way through school. Consider how he breaks faith with Dumbledore when Dumbledore asks him to do a task which is too boring for his tastes (like learning Occlumancy or getting the information from Slugworth). That's one reason why I still believe that, in his last confrontation with Professor Snape, Professor Snape was doing the best he could to HELP Harry. In another series of novels, Wildcards, the best friend of one of the most powerful heroes does the hero a major favor by beating the crap out of him. He was pointing out that, in spite of his power, he had major weaknesses that could be easily exploited. In the case of HBP, Snape was showing Harry exactly where he weaknesses lay, saying, for the most part, "You can't even challenge ME! How do you expect to stand up to Voldemort?" Let's hope that, one way or the other, Harry finally accepts Snape's instruction. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 4 19:15:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:15:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163447 Mike wrote: > In this paragraph you have stated the dichotomy of the boy Harry > Potter which JKR has writ large over the whole series. She writes a > character that seems to barely be succeeding in everyday life, but > suddenly draws from some inner power to succeed when the chips are > down. She never shows us from whence this ability springs, but we > have plenty of hints that it is there just below the surface, waiting to be called upon. > In JKR's WW, a witch or wizard evidently can have some *je ne sais > quoi* which puts them in a magical class above the norm. Then there > are those which far exceed the norm, making them almost a seperate > species of wizard. Voldemort is there, Dumbledore was probably there, and JKR has shown me enough hints to think that Harry is there. Harry has "IT", whatever it is. > > It matters not how young Harry is, once he reaches his 17th birthday, the "IT" will become fully fledged. Harry *will* be able to challenge Voldemort toe-to-toe because of his inate abilities. In fact, he already did it in GoF, in the graveyard. Harry was able by force of will to overpower Voldemort during the "Priori Incantatum" wand connection. So we know Harry is more powerfully magical than > Voldemort. (Side question: I wonder if he would have been more > powerful than a *whole* Tom Riddle?) > > Does Harry realize this? It seems not. He had continually protested > to Dumbledore that he doesn't have the power that Voldemort has. He > hasn't internalized the lesson from the graveyard, probably due to > shock, grieving for Cedric, and a desire to stop the nightmares by > putting the whole episode out of his mind. But we know it. JKR made > sure we knew it. And *if* Harry has to harness the *power of love*, > he will be able to because of the inate magical abilities he > possesses which put him in a class by himself. I'm sure that Harry's > magical quality/life force will underlie whatever manipulation, > trickeration, or magic Harry will do to defeat Voldemort. > > Dumbledore saw it, probably very early on. He tells him, "I never > dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands." (OotP p. 839, > US) In this passage Dumbledore isn't talking about Harry's *ability > to love* yet. He's seen Harry perform in other ways, magical ways, > that defy his stage in life. Dumbledore knew Harry was **powerfully > magical**, and suspected that Harry will become more powerfully magical than any living wizard. In typical Dumbledore understatement, > he tells Harry as much in the cave: "You are very kind, Harry... But > your blood is worth more than mine." (HBP p. 560, US) > > So what happened to that boy in HBP? In every other book, Harry's > magical abilities are the lynchpin to the end results of the > penultimate or ultimate conflict of the book. He thwarts Quirrellmort with his touch, kills the Basilisk with Gryffindor's sword (yes, I think one needed magical ability to wield that sword), produces the Patronus, outduels Voldemort in the battle of wills, and throws off Voldemort's possession with his thoughts. > > What did he do in HBP? Well ... he apparated back to Hogsmeade. Wow, > what a show of magical ability. He couldn't even handle an > untransformed Greyback without help, much less land a single spell on Snape. So where was that inate magical ability when *Harry* thought he needed to do something? It wasn't there, was it? What happened? How come a year older Harry's > power has failed him? I hate to think it was all for the storyline, > but I hasve no other explanation. This is my grievance with HBP, the > book. > Carol responds: I can't tell whether I'm oversnipping or undersnipping this post! Let me just say, though, that I understand and respect your feelings about Harry's lack of preparation, and he certainly isn't prepared to fight *Snape*, but that isn't what he's destined to do. (He has to *forgive* Snape, IMO; certainly not defeat him in battle.) Fighting *Voldemort* will be entirely different and will not depend on his mastery of DADA skills. (I do hope that he recalls the DADA lessons Snape taught and applies them to fighting DEs, but given his antipathy to Snape, I'm not counting on it.) But I disagree that Harry's magical power is innate. He was born, I'm guessing, a rather talented Wizard, the child of a Quidditch champ/Animagus and a gifted witch (supposedly good in Potions and presumably good at Charms, based on her wand) but still no more talented or powerful on his own than, say, Draco, who is good at both Quidditch and Charms (see his magical badges) and better than Harry at Potions. Harry's exceptional magical ability, setting aside the power of love which comes from his mother's sacrifice, comes from the rebounded AK at Godric's Hollow, which somehow caused Harry to acquire some of *Voldemort's* powers in addition to the powers or talents that he was born with. He has the scar connection (now muted by voldemort's Occlumency), Parseltongue (which will surely come in handy when he fights Nagini), and, I'm guessing, the power of possession, which he doesn't yet realize he has. It's these powers, the Voldemort connection (no, I don't think it's a soul bit!) that makes Harry special. It's not his talents and powers. Otherwise, Dumbledore or Snape could easily have dispatched Voldemort (having first destroyed his Horcruxes) at some point. Harry has to do it because only Harry has powers identical with Voldemort's, from Voldemort himself, in addition to the power of love that protects him from being possessed, and perhaps from being killed, by LV: ". . . And the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not. . . ." So it isn't a matter of skills that he can practice (though he'd be well advised to practice nonverbal defensive spells to give him an advantage over the Death Eaters). Harry and only Harry can defeat Voldemort by *understanding* Voldemort and how he thinks. That, IMO, is what Dumbledore understood and was trying to get Harry to understand. As for the powerful Patronus, that may have been a fluke or part of James's heritage or a sign of Harry's potential to defeat the Dark Lord, but it certainly doesn't seem like typical Harry magic. He has as much trouble as Ron with Potions (till he gets hold of the HBP's book) and Charms and Transfiguration. He only masters the Summoning Charm, Accio, at the last minute in GoF. He has some talent with DADA spells, but no decent teacher until Snape, whom he hates and refuses to learn from (though I'll bet that some of Snape's lessons sank in against his will, just as they did in Potions, and I'll bet that *Hermione* can do nonverbal defensive spells, thanks to Snape. (An aside before anyone jumps on me--yes, I know that Lupin taught Harry to fight Boggarts and Dementors, not to mention Kelpies and Kappas and Grindylows, but his spells won't help against DEs or Inferi or Voldemort. Harry, like Draco, is rejecting what Snape is trying to teach him just when all the students need his expertise most, not to fight Voldemort, for which Harry is uniquely equipped, but to fight DEs and Dark Magic in general. And I wonder if the Protego that knocked Snape into the desk is really a sign of *Harry's* power--after all, Protego merely deflects the opponent's spell back onto the caster. The power we saw illustrated in that (verbal) Protego may have been Snape's, just as the Protego Harry cast against Snape in Occlumency lessons resulted in Snape's Legilimens spell being deflected onto him rather than Harry. In both cases, Snape is trying to get Harry to react, and in both cases, he accomplishes his objective. But in the second case, he wanted the defensive spell to be nonverbal, which it wasn't.) To return to my main point--yes, Harry is a procrastinator. Yes, he's learning only a few new spells, all of them courtesy of Teen!Snape, in HBP. Yes, he's making new mistakes, this time taking credit for potions improvements that aren't his and following Draco around rather than focusing on Dumbledore's lessons. (If only he'd gotten Slughorn's memory sooner and they'd been able to go to the cave before Draco succeeded in fixing the Vanishing Cabinet! Snape could have saved Dumbledore and shown Harry where his loyalties lie, and Harry would have found out sooner that the Horcrux was a fake. And Draco would not have been able to bring the DEs into Hogwarts because DD would not have left the castle at an opportune time. If only!) But Harry is learning the lessons that count. Except for Snape, onto whom he projects all his anger and hatred, he's learning to control his emotions (jealousy, attraction to Ginny, anger at anyone other than Snape), and he's always been able to control his fear. Courage, after all, is Harry's greatest innate virtue (certainly stronger than his ability to love). And his tendency to act without thinking, while it can be a handicap (think Snape's Pensieve memory and the MoM), is an asset when it comes to fighting Voldemort. There, and in a few other cases, for example, the TWT maze, his instincts guided him correctly. At any rate, the last stage of the journey--the quest to defeat Voldemort *and* the journey toward adulthood (which, despite the WW's laws, is not magically acquired on a person's seventeenth birthday)--is reserved for the last book and will be the hardest. Harry is not a Greek god or an ancient Greek hero or even a modern Superhero. He's an Everyman (Everykid) figure, as symbolized by his glasses, without which he's nearly as helpless as he is without his wand. Yes, he is uniquely equipped to destroy Voldemort, in part by his innate courage (which, nevertheless, was not enough for James), in part by his mother's sacrifice, and in part by the specific powers he acquired from Voldemort, which cannot be practiced in DADA or any other class--but otherwise, he's David fighting Goliath, a kid destined to bring down the greatest Dark Wizard in a century whose powers and intellect far exceed his own. Luck, courage, knowledge he does not yet realize he has, a unique connection to Voldemort and a unique understanding of him--those are what will enable Harry to destroy Voldemort, with the help of his friends and an ally he thinks is his enemy. Watching Harry grow up is like watching a son or grandson or nephew grow up. You wish that they'd stay small and young and innocent, but they can't. They have to grow up and face the challenges of adulthood, and to do so they must first undergo the trials (Experience) of adolescence--homework, mean teachers, hormones, jealousy, anger, prejudice, illness, injury, death of beloved friends or relatives, and all the rest. They have to learn that even the most trusted and respected adults are imperfect, that all human beings make mistakes, that some problems can't be solved and others they must solve for themselves. In the WW, those lessons include facing dangers that are not part of the RW. Everything Harry has learned about the WW, from hippogriffs to house-elves, is a rite of passage, preparing him for adulthood in a world very different from a middle-class Muggle neighborhood in Surrey. But only knowledge of Voldemort and an understanding of himself can prepare him for the ultimate challenge of Book 7. Carol, who firmly believes that Harry will survive the confrontation with life, limbs, and innate magical powers intact, losing only the powers he acquired from the by-then-dead Voldemort From kmrhapsody at gmail.com Thu Jan 4 23:00:16 2007 From: kmrhapsody at gmail.com (kmrhapsody) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:00:16 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163449 > Jenni from Alabama responds: I've been disappointed ever since the > end of HBP when Harry tells us what he is going to do. Arrrgh! It > ruined any hope for surprise in the next book. I like to be surprised > and JKR has always delivered. Now, I'm afraid that the surprises are > over. I'm sure they'll be some twists, but for the most part nothing > really mind-blowing will happen. I could be wrong - and I hope I am. kmrhapsody writes: I was so annoyed with HBP that I literally threw it onto the floor after reading the final chapter. On subsequent re- reads it grew on me. I am still not completely enthralled with the final product, but my appreciation for the genius that JKR has exemplified throughout the series remains strong. Like many others, PS3 or xbox games were the first thing that popped into my head with the introduction of horcruxes. I initally believed that it was a deliberate choice to play into the portability of turning the book into a game. Might still be... Now...I treat the horcruxes like the ship wars...I really don't care to mull over them too much anymore. Don't get me wrong, speculation can be fun, but I think that too many of my "theories" (proven or disproven) may have gotten in the way of my enjoyment of the last book. kmrhapsody - Who is ready to see where the tide takes all of us. (Hopefully it is somewhere warm and has margaritas on the menu... because it got ridiculously cold and rainy all of a sudden here in the midwest. Boooo.) From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 00:22:05 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:22:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163450 I'm really enjoying this thread, and would have piped up again yesterday, and responded to more posts, except I'm having too much RL these days. Since this bit is most zeroed in to what my interest is focussed on, I'll have to content myself with this. > > Ken: > > Mike I share your feeling on a gut level that Harry isn't ready, > > that he simply hasn't even begun to learn enough. I would note in > > passing however that Harry is learning far more than the pages of > > the book lead us to believe most of the time. Were you surprised by > > his OWL results? I wasn't but I was. The > > text of the book is consistently misdirecting us from Harry's true > > potential and actual performance as a student. It is also grossly > > overstating Snape's failings as a teacher. > > Mike again: > In this paragraph you have stated the dichotomy of the boy Harry > Potter which JKR has writ large over the whole series. She writes a > character that seems to barely be succeeding in everyday life, but > suddenly draws from some inner power to succeed when the chips are > down. She never shows us from whence this ability springs, but we > have plenty of hints that it is there just below the surface, waiting > to be called upon. > > I have always thought that a simple line from Sirius, up in the cave > during GoF, was a very telling line both for Harry and for JKR's > Wizarding World in toto. To wit: > > "He's a great wizard, Barty Crouch, **powerfully magical** -..." > (GoF p.526, US, emphasis mine). > > In JKR's WW, a witch or wizard evidently can have some *je ne sais > quoi* which puts them in a magical class above the norm. Then there > are those which far exceed the norm, making them almost a seperate > species of wizard. Voldemort is there, Dumbledore was probably there, > and JKR has shown me enough hints to think that Harry is there. Harry > has "IT", whatever it is. (Some speculation coming here, but the gist > of "IT" is all over the page, IMO) > > It matters not how young Harry is, once he reaches his 17th birthday, > the "IT" will become fully fledged. Harry *will* be able to challenge > Voldemort toe-to-toe because of his inate abilities. In fact, he > already did it in GoF, in the graveyard. Harry was able by force of > will to overpower Voldemort during the "Priori Incantatum" wand > connection. So we know Harry is more powerfully magical than > Voldemort. (Side question: I wonder if he would have been more > powerful than a *whole* Tom Riddle?) > > Does Harry realize this? It seems not. Annemehr: It is really tempting to agree with you... but *I don't know.* It seems to me the strongest canon hints point to Harry's power of *character* rather than of *magic.* In PS/SS ch. 16 (very near the end): ---------------------------------------------------------------- 'Harry -- you're a great wizard, you know.' 'I'm not as good as you,' said Harry, very embarrassed, as she let go of him. 'Me!' said Hermione. 'Books! And cleverness! There are more important things -- friendship and bravery and -- oh Harry -- be /careful/!' ----------------------------------------------------------------- In GoF, in the graveyard, Harry did indeed by force of will push the light beads back into LV's wand, but he seems to have managed this because of his character, not magic power. First of all, there is his stubbornness, which I say is not a *flaw* but a neutral character trait (that is, he could tap into it when it's helpful, as in the graveyard, but learn to control it when it isn't, as in lessons with Snape). But during Priori Incantatem, Harry was also helped by phoenix song, which 'is reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and to strike fear into the hearts of the impure.' [FBaWTFT, p. 32] Character again. In OoP, after DD replays the prophecy for Harry in the pensieve, and Harry protests that 'I haven't any powers he hasn't got, I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't possess people or -- or kill them --' DD replies 'There is a room in the Department of Mysteries, [...] It is the power held within that room that you possess in such quantities and which Voldemort has not at all. [...] That power also saved you from possession by Voldemort, because he could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests. In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you.' [OoP, ch. 37, near the end] That is, it was not magical power (Occlumency), but character (love) that forced LV out. And DD reiterates that the power the Dark Lord knows not is 'just love' [HBP ch. 23, p. 509 US]. BUT... But, but, but... You can certainly argue with all this, Mike, because JKR *does indeed* seem to mix the idea of love with magical power. Back to PS/SS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 'But why couldn't Quirrell touch me?' 'Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realise that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark.[...] [PS/SS ch. 17] ------------------------------------------------------------- This 'mark' Lily's love left not only burned Quirrell's skin, but was also apparently used in a protection charm for the place where Petunia dwells. LV understands these protections to be magic: 'His mother left upon him the traces of her sacrifice....This is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was foolish to overlook it....but no matter, I can touch him now.' [GoF ch. 33, pp. 652-653 US] 'Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations' care.' [GoF ch. 33, p. 657 US] Although, of course, LV's interpretations of a power he knows not may be subject to doubt. ;) Then we have the Department of Mysteries, where such things as Love, Death, and Time are studied. On the one hand, these things are part of human life universally, Muggle and Magical alike. On the other hand, there *does* seem to be some difference. Wizards do have Time- Turners, and Wizards who die *can* choose to remain as ghosts, while Muggles cannot [OoP ch. 38, p. 860US]. So, if Lily had been a Muggle instead of Muggleborn, would Quirrell's skin have burned? And again, during the GoF graveyard Priori Incantatem, it was Harry's purity of heart combined with the magical Phoenix song that saved him... It's a puzzle to me. I suppose it partly involves JKR's purpose in sharply distinguishing the Wizards from the Muggles and her apparent wish for us to identify with the Wizards. But it still seems to me that Harry's power is to be of a different *quality* than LV's or DD's powerful magicalness. Anyway, on to another matter... Mike: > So what happened to that boy in HBP? In every other book, Harry's > magical abilities are the lynchpin to the end results of the > penultimate or ultimate conflict of the book. > > What did he do in HBP? Well ... he apparated back to Hogsmeade. Wow, > what a show of magical ability. He couldn't even handle an > untransformed Greyback without help, much less land a single spell on > Snape. Remember, while he's chasing them through and out of the > castle, Harry thought stopping Snape was the key to rescuing > Dumbledore. He wasn't thinking revenge as he was catching up to Snape > and Draco. In his mind was the thought that he could somehow reverse > events if he stopped Snape from escaping. So where was that inate > magical ability when *Harry* thought he needed to do something? It > wasn't there, was it? What happened? How come a year older Harry's > power has failed him? I hate to think it was all for the storyline, > but I hasve no other explanation. This is my grievance with HBP, the > book. As a true DDM!Snape believer, I suggest that it's because *Snape* is powerfully magical and an integral part of the plan to defeat LV, and that Snape knew -- *really* knew -- what he had to do, and it wasn't to be captured by Harry. Annemehr From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 00:44:02 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:44:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163451 Carol wrote: > Watching Harry grow up is like watching a son or grandson or nephew > grow up. You wish that they'd stay small and young and innocent, but > they can't. They have to grow up and face the challenges of adulthood, > and to do so they must first undergo the trials (Experience) of > adolescence--homework, mean teachers, hormones, jealousy, anger, > prejudice, illness, injury, death of beloved friends or relatives, and > all the rest. They have to learn that even the most trusted and > respected adults are imperfect, that all human beings make mistakes, > that some problems can't be solved and others they must solve for > themselves. In the WW, those lessons include facing dangers that are > not part of the RW. Everything Harry has learned about the WW, from > hippogriffs to house-elves, is a rite of passage, preparing him for > adulthood in a world very different from a middle-class Muggle > neighborhood in Surrey. But only knowledge of Voldemort and an > understanding of himself can prepare him for the ultimate challenge of > Book 7. > > Carol, who firmly believes that Harry will survive the confrontation > with life, limbs, and innate magical powers intact, losing only the > powers he acquired from the by-then-dead Voldemort > Jenni from Alabama responds: I agree with you Carol. I really think that Harry will come out of this alive. The only thing I'm not completely sure of is if he will lose the powers that Voldemort inadvertantly passed to him. I think he'll keep them. Since I don't think that the power that Voldemort accidentally passed to Harry is a soul-bit I don't see why they would disappear when Voldemort dies. I think Harry will have those abilities until the day he dies - hopefully at a very, very old age. Jenni From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 01:13:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:13:41 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163452 In one of the Mugglenet editorials, Hermyone62442 has a theory that for stated reasons, the Secret Keeper Charm that protected the Potters at Godrics Hollow was broken. Now that in and of itself is not new, I too have a theory that the charm was broken but for different reasons than Hermyone62442. "The Obsolete Secret" http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/theburrow/hermyone01.shtml But here is the curious aspect, Hermyone62442, and a person she references named Brandon, believe that the charm became obsolete when the Potters died. However, here are a few key quotes that make up the thrust of this post. "Brandon also reminded us that, undoubtedly, a full day had passed before Hagrid retrieved Harry from Godric's Hollow." "I think the Potters' murder did dissolve the Fidelius Charm, but - for some reason - it didn't end abruptly. It needed 24 hours to fully disappear." Now my theory and apparently everyone else's has been that the Potters were killed, moments later Hagrid and Sirius arrive on the scene, Hagrid took Harry away, and 24 hours later, Hagrid delivers Harry to Privet Drive. The big question has always been, where was Harry during that 24 hours? This particular NEW theory says that Harry lay in the rubble for 24 hours while they waited for the Secret Keeper Spell to disolve. That means Hagrid is coming directly from picking up Harry when he arrives at Privet Drive. That might have some merit if we can assume that Godrics Hollow is in southern Wales. I just can't picture Harry lying in the rubble with no food or water for 24 hours. That means that the mysterious Missing 24 hours that we have all speculated about is not missing at all. I think this essay may have so merit in speculating that the spell was broken, but I just can't accept the alteration to the standard assumed timeline. Any thoughts? Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 04:19:33 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:19:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163453 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > I'm really enjoying this thread, and would have piped up again > yesterday, and responded to more posts, except I'm having too much > RL these days. Mike: Yes, this is jolly good fun, is it not? Come on Anne, shake off the dust of the RL and see the Potterverse. (paraphrased from where? hint: you probably saw it on a half dozen times this past month) > > Mike previously: > > Harry has "IT", whatever it is. > > > > In JKR's WW, a witch or wizard evidently can have some > > *je ne sais quoi* which puts them in a magical class above > > Annemehr: > It is really tempting to agree with you... but *I don't know.* It > seems to me the strongest canon hints point to Harry's power of > *character* rather than of *magic.* Mike: I don't know what "IT" is in JKR's world, that's why I included those two qualifications in my previous post. What makes Harry *powerfully magical*? Is it his character, mother's love, his *ability to love*, stubbornness? You can pick any or all of these, or come up with your own. I'm not trying to narrow it down nor quantify which characteristic is the most integral to Harry's power. I'm just sure that JKR wants us to subconsciously realize that Harry has something about him that noone else has. And, yes Alla, there is an explanation for each of his end of book triumphs. And you are right Anne, he does get help in almost every instance. But it's still Harry who does each of those things. I will add one caveat, and I will disagree with Carol on this point; I do think Harry has *the power* irrespective of what Voldemort gave him on that fateful Holloween night. Did he get it from some serendipitous confluence of Potter and Evans genes? I'll let JKR enlighten me. But I'm sure we'll find out. He isn't Superman, nor even Spiderman. He's much closer to Peter Parker. (Sorry, just watched Spiderman 2) In this way I agree with Carol's characterization of "Everykid". Hey, maybe he's the Incredible Hulk in reverse, his powers multiply when he feels love instead of anger. ;D Sorry if I'm repeating here, but JKR's hints at Harry's inner power keep coming back like a slap in the face. And it isn't even the obvious instances that ring strongest with me. Have you noticed how Harry can tell when someone is watching him? How did Harry end up on the roof of his grammer school? Destination, Deliberation, Determination anyone? How did Harry's wand light up in the alley when he didn't have it in his hand? Did you realize that Snape hadn't yet cast a spell when Harry's "Protego" knocked him back? That was Harry's power, not Snape's power rebounding. > Annemehr: > In OoP, after DD replays the prophecy for Harry in the pensieve, > > That is, it was not magical power (Occlumency), but character > (love) that forced LV out. Mike: Or force of will, or dedication to his friends, etc. But you've said it in your next quote: > Annemehr: > And DD reiterates that the power the Dark Lord knows not is 'just > love' [HBP ch. 23, p. 509 US]. Mike: The *power* of love. In JKR's world, love is not just an emotion, it's a power. It's in Harry's constitutional make-up, this power. And Harry has more of this *power* than any other witch or wizard, and *that* is why Harry is more *powerfully magical* than anyone. (I'll bet Lily had this power, moreso than James, although James would have some. And Lily's protection with "Ancient Magic" probably intensified Harry's already inherited power.) Note it was a magical protection that Lily's love cast over Harry. *Power*fully *Magic*al, the *power* of love. I fell like JKR is hitting me over the head with a club saying, 'don't ya get it?' > Annemehr: > > BUT... > > But, but, but... > > You can certainly argue with all this, Mike, because JKR *does > indeed* seem to mix the idea of love with magical power. Mike: Oh, I don't want to argue with you. I think your right. I think Ken was right. Same for Alla and Carol. And I don't think you're disagreeing with me, are you? I'm just out here promoting my belief that Harry has "IT". You have just further defined what you think that "IT" is, that's okay by me. > Annemehr: > This 'mark' Lily's love left not only burned Quirrell's skin, Mike: This just struck me. Does anyone know if there is an old English usage of the word "mark" that might shed further light on the prophesy? When JKR said she worded the prophesy carefully, this could be one of those careful words. > Annemehr: > But it still seems to me that Harry's power is to be of a different > *quality* than LV's or DD's powerful magicalness. Mike: No argument here either. :-) > Annemehr: > As a true DDM!Snape believer, I suggest that it's because *Snape* > is powerfully magical and an integral part of the plan to defeat > LV, and that Snape knew -- *really* knew -- what he had to do, and > it wasn't to be captured by Harry. Mike: Oh boy, wait till Alla here's this. You're gonna be in trouubble. Ken: I also disagree about the apparation. It has been hammered home to us that although this is a common skill it is *not* an easy one and some are never able to master it. Harry had studied it but had not mastered it. I'm not sure if he had even managed to apparate a few feet on his own at that point but that may be just another example of the text omitting details, or my bad memory. So I would argue that this is another example of Harry being able to call upon his innate power to do something at need that he had not been able to do otherwise. He certainly had never acted as the "master" in a sidealong apparation. That really was quite a feat. Mike: OK, I'll buy that it was a good feat. I will say though, that if this was Harry's big show of ability, at the end of his sixth year, then it pales in comparison to his previous feats. Mike, who is staying up entirely too late, but really enjoying this thread. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 04:38:35 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:38:35 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163454 > Mike: > I don't know what "IT" is in JKR's world, that's why I included those > two qualifications in my previous post. What makes Harry *powerfully > magical*? Is it his character, mother's love, his *ability to love*, > stubbornness? You can pick any or all of these, or come up with your > own. I'm not trying to narrow it down nor quantify which > characteristic is the most integral to Harry's power. I'm just sure > that JKR wants us to subconsciously realize that Harry has something > about him that noone else has. And, yes Alla, there is an explanation > for each of his end of book triumphs. And you are right Anne, he does > get help in almost every instance. But it's still Harry who does each > of those things. Alla: Am afraid that I am not going to be very substantive at this late hour, but just need to clarify something :) You do not have to convince me Mike, that Harry has **IT**, whatever that **IT** is, as you said. Heeee, if you are not really disagreeing with any of us, am I disagreeing with you? I don't know, all that I am saying is that IMO Harry's power feeds on his emotions, on his heart, that's all and I was specifically trying to point out Harry's extraordinary achievements in HBP and yes, I am saying that despite it not transforming in superb magical achievements as in other books, his emotional achievements were there. I think that feeling brief pity for Tom Riddle and feeling pity for Draco may in DH indeed transform in some extraordinary magic ( and I do agree with you that in Potterverse love is power and since JKR called HBP the first part, maybe we will see extraordinary magic based on that at the end. >> > Annemehr: > > As a true DDM!Snape believer, I suggest that it's because *Snape* > > is powerfully magical and an integral part of the plan to defeat > > LV, and that Snape knew -- *really* knew -- what he had to do, and > > it wasn't to be captured by Harry. > > Mike: > Oh boy, wait till Alla here's this. You're gonna be in trouubble. Alla: MAHAHAHAHA. Who me? Lonely believer in the fact that Snape may not be teaching Harry, but taunting him at the end of HBP? Lonely believer that Snape would be up for a big surprise at the end when he will get to experience the power that forgiving heart can weave? Oh, Mike, you are exaggerating my powers, you truly do :) There is one moment in that thread that I wanted to remark on, but sort of lost momentum, so may as well say it now. I was surprised of your surprise that Harry did not learn anything from Snape. I mean, even with the best case scenario, that Snape is supremely loyal to DD, why would Harry after six years of emnity suddenly **want** to learn anything from Snape? Why would Harry believe that Snape can teach him anything after Occlumency fiasco? And if I may Dumbledore itself does not insist that Snape can teach him anything, no? Ooops, must stop now. Just saying that I thought it was very consistent characterisation on JKR's behalf. Good night. Alla From violet_verdi at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 13:24:17 2007 From: violet_verdi at yahoo.com (:::: Violet ::::) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 05:24:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <606509.86748.qm@web59102.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163455 I agree with both Hermione62442 and bboyminn about the death of the Potters making the spell dissolve and I also agree with bboyminn when it comes to the time line. I do believe that, even though they refused to have Dumbledore as their secret-keeper, Lily and James wouldn?t refuse to have him know about their whereabouts. Now, we know everyone thought Sirius was the Secret-Keeper so Dumbledore didn?t hear the address directly from the Secret-Keeper?s mouth, but perhaps he read it (just like Harry did in the beginning of OotP). Having been handed the small piece of paper, he showed Hagrid as well. To Dumbledore that wasn?t a betrayal to the Potters seeing as how he blindly trusted Hagrid (he had all the motive to do so as well) and thought it could come in hand to have someone else on his side that knew where the Potters were seeing as how only the Marauders knew and all of them knew that one of them was a traitor. My theory about the whole thing is: I believe that the Ministry has a system that works just like the clock that?s on the Burrow: every time someone dies, they know immediately. That?s how they get to the place so fast. The night the Potters were killed, this device (which, I?m guessing, is not a clock taking into consideration the number of wizards there are) showed to whomever was looking after it that the Potters had been killed. Protocol would have been followed if it wasn?t for one small problem: the Ministry had no idea where the Potters were. This is when, in my theory, Dumbledore got wind of the news. So, Dumbledore set off to find out if the ?rumors? were true and, while he was off trying to track down Voldemort (for he didn?t know what had happened by this time), he sent Hagrid to Godric?s Hollow to see if the Potters were really killed and what had happened to Harry. He also gave orders to Hagrid to take Harry as quickly as he could from the Potters house if the child was still alive. Here we can also accept the theory that Hagrid went back to the castle to tell Dumbledore the news and Dumbledore gave him orders to go back, fetch Harry and bring Harry straight to him. I?m guessing that Hagrid didn?t run into the house (or what was left of it) at the precise moment he got there. He must?ve laid low to make sure he wouldn?t get killed when he entered the house. When Hagrid finally managed to get to Harry and exit the house the Fidelius charm was dissolving and the muggles were beginning to realize what had happened. Hagrid left the house with enough time not to be held responsible for what had happened (after all he is partly giant and muggles aren?t very familiar with that trait in a person). Outside he met Sirius ? who wanted to take Harry with him ? and got Sirius? motorbike. (A small FYI here: I do believe that Sirius giving Hagrid his motorcycle was a sign of innocence rather than a sign of ?you can have it because I?m going to Azcaban when Dumbledore opens his mouth?. He gave Hagrid the motorbike because he knew that, if Voldemort was still alive he would be able to track down apparation ? if Hagrid apparates ? or whatever mean of transportation Hagrid might?ve used, or even he simply got scared that Hagrid might try to fly a broom or something whilst holding Harry, so, to keep Harry safe, he gave away his motorbike. But that?s a whole other thread.) Now, no one knew at that point that Voldemort had vanished. No one knew anything. Dumbledore couldn?t risk sending Harry straight away to the Dursleys without making sure he would be safe first. So, as Hagrid pointed out to Sirius, he took Harry straight to Dumbledore who, at the sight of the scar (I?m guessing) figured out what had happened; took an educated guess, if you will. Then he set off to protect the Dursley?s house; to prepare the house for Harry?s arrival. Well, not really precisely to the Dursley?s house seeing as how McGonagall spent the entire day sitting on that wall. What I think happened is that Hagrid possibly stayed in Hogwarts whilst Dumbledore had everything ready, or even in a safer spot, like the Order of the Phoenix?s old headquarters (I don?t particularly like this theory seeing as there was a traitor at loose, someone from inside the Order, but one can imagine that this happened after they captured Sirius). So, when everything was set and ready, Hagrid met up with Dumbledore (who wasn?t taking Harry himself for safety measure ? if you were Voldemort or a Death Eater, who would you think was taking care of the surviving child? Exactly.). That?s my theory. Now, I believe with bboyminn when he says: <> I believe that Harry couldn?t have been lying on the rubble for that long as well. We know that Dumbledore found out about the deaths long before the muggles did (otherwise how can we explain that McGonagall was sitting outside the Dursley?s house for that long?) and he knew that Harry was alive (if we accept the Ministry always knowing theory). So he wouldn?t let Harry lying there at Voldemort?s mercy. Now that Voldemort knew where the Potters had been hiding, who knew who else had that information? Perhaps all the Death Eaters did. Dumbledore couldn?t risk leaving Harry there. And whilst the Ministry was saying that Voldemort was dead (once again I guess that the device showed that Voldemort was nearly dead and the Ministry assumed the best even after Dumbledore warned them that they were wrong) Dumbledore wasn?t so sure. He knew that Voldemort was trying to become immortal and was afraid he might have managed somehow. So either Voldemort would come back or one of the Death Eaters would try and kill him. Either way, Dumbledore couldn't take that risk. So, it's my belief that he had Hagrid take Harry to a safer place. Exactly where, well, I can only speculate about it. So, thoughts? ~*~ Violet ~*~ "Who knows, maybe a lightening can strike." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Fri Jan 5 05:25:14 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 05:25:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grail Hallows? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <691581.85789.qm@web8402.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163456 mryburge Arthur has an inexplicable interest and fondness for Perceval and becomes his mentor. Perceval finally succeeds in his quest, heals the wounded fisher king (the grail guardian). akash Well I think your idea is the one nearest to the HP series. Apart from other significant similarities, like 7 years of preparation before final war, hidden castle, and those artifacts, I guess King Arthur is DD here, as he was the mentor, while wounded fisher king can be Black who will finally be get rescued( healed) by Harry. I am going to read more about this legend. Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Jan 5 15:03:38 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 07:03:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: <606509.86748.qm@web59102.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163457 Violet said: I agree with both Hermione62442 and bboyminn about the death of the Potters making the spell dissolve and I also agree with bboyminn when it comes to the time line. sherry now: I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter told Voldemort where to find the Potters. Once the secret keeper betrays the secret, I don't think the charm is in effect any longer. Violet: I do believe that, even though they refused to have Dumbledore as their secret-keeper, Lily and James wouldn't refuse to have him know about their whereabouts. Now, we know everyone thought Sirius was the Secret-Keeper so Dumbledore didn't hear the address directly from the Secret-Keeper's mouth, but perhaps he read it (just like Harry did in the beginning of OotP). Having been handed the small piece of paper, he showed Hagrid as well. To Dumbledore that wasn't a betrayal to the Potters seeing as how he blindly trusted Hagrid (he had all the motive to do so as well) and thought it could come in hand to have someone else on his side that knew where the Potters were seeing as how only the Marauders knew and all of them knew that one of them was a traitor. Sherry: I don't think Dumbledore could have shown the paper to Hagrid. If Dumbledore received the secret this way, I think he had to have been meant to know it, and if Hagrid wasn't meant to know, I imagine he couldn't have read the paper. But my basic theory is that once the secret keeper betrayed the Potters secret, anyone could have found the family. and if, as Carol believes, Godric's Hollow was Dumbledore's house which he loaned to the Potters, he would have known where it was as soon as the secret keeper charm died. Sherry From mwburge1 at aol.com Fri Jan 5 15:59:54 2007 From: mwburge1 at aol.com (mryburge) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:59:54 -0000 Subject: Grail Hallows? In-Reply-To: <691581.85789.qm@web8402.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Akash aki wrote: > > > > > akash > Well I think your idea is the one nearest to the HP series. >Apart from other significant similarities, like 7 years of >preparation before final war, hidden castle, and those artifacts, I >guess King Arthur is DD here, as he was the mentor, while wounded >fisher king can be Black who will finally be get rescued( healed) by >Harry. > I am going to read more about this legend. There is tons of stuff out there - from Malory's Morte d'Arthur, to Wolfram von Eschenbach's Grail story, etc. The tale of Perceval has been "continued" by various writers/poets through the centuries, adding to his adventures. What I can't remember, or seem to find, is how Perceval died, or if his death is ever mentioned. I am rather obsessed with it now, because I am seeking any comfort for myself that Harry isn't going to die! mryburge From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 15:50:44 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:50:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163459 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > MAHAHAHAHA. Who me? Lonely believer in the fact that Snape may not > be teaching Harry, but taunting him at the end of HBP? > Lonely believer that Snape would be up for a big surprise at the end > when he will get to experience the power that forgiving heart can > weave? > > Not all THAT lonely. I guess it all does end up with what you mean by the power of forgiveness. The problem with many scenarios put forward about this is that they turn on the idea that Snape really hasn't done anything to be forgiven *for.* That is, that he is DDM!, that his relationship to Harry and Neville hasn't been abusive, and that he has already repaid any debts from school/DE days by his work as Dumbledore's agent. Thus everything comes down to Harry seeing he has been wretchedly wrong about Snape, he should let go of his petty enmity, etc. Okay, but that is a story about truth, not about forgiveness, and not about Christian forgiveness in a clear form. Recognizing that one has been wrong and correcting one's views is something any intelligent pagan Roman, Greek, or Egyptian of the ancient world could readily understand and agree with. In that sense, such a storyline could as well be about Aristotelian Ethics or Stoicism as Christianity or Judaism. In order for forgiveness to be meaningful, the one forgiven has to genuinely in the wrong -- the more clearly in the wrong, the greater the power of the forgiveness. To drag in the example of Star Wars, Luke's love and forgiveness were powerful for Darth Vader because Vader was genuinely evil. In LOTR, the power of forgiveness and mercy is clearly evident with regard to Gollum because even Gandalf agrees that Gollum deserves to die. How this will all play out with regard to Snape -- who knows? Perhaps it will have something to do with Harry's eyes -- that in being looked at with the clear and forgiving (and green) eyes of Lily, Snape will experience a revelation. Lupinlore, who really doesn't care whether Snape is DDM or not, as he has enough to answer for even without such issues From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 17:12:26 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 09:12:26 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: References: <606509.86748.qm@web59102.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <700201d40701050912i582dae8dx18ef20674243248e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163460 > sherry wrote: > > I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter told Voldemort where to > find the Potters. Once the secret keeper betrays the secret, I don't think > the charm is in effect any longer. Kemper now: I'm inferring you to mean that the Fidelius Charm works based on the loyalty of the Secret Keeper. If so, I don't like that implication. It would take away the emotional power of the spell, making the spell's strength based on the Peter's loyalty to the Potters rather than the Potter's faith in Peter. Yes, I know that the Potters first thought for their SK was Sirius and not Peter. But, the Potters made Peter their SK based on Sirius' suggestion. And they had every faith in him. > Violet wrote: > I do believe that ... Lily and James wouldn't refuse to have [Dumbledore] know about their > whereabouts. Now, we know everyone thought Sirius was the Secret-Keeper so > Dumbledore didn't hear the address directly from the Secret-Keeper's mouth, > but perhaps he read it (just like Harry did in the beginning of OotP). > Having been handed the small piece of paper, he showed Hagrid as well. To > Dumbledore that wasn't a betrayal to the Potters seeing as how he blindly > trusted Hagrid ... > > > Sherry replied: > I don't think Dumbledore could have shown the paper to Hagrid. If > Dumbledore received the secret this way, I think he had to have been meant > to know it, and if Hagrid wasn't meant to know, I imagine he couldn't have > read the paper. But my basic theory is that once the secret keeper betrayed > the Potters secret, anyone could have found the family. and if, as Carol > believes, Godric's Hollow was Dumbledore's house which he loaned to the > Potters, he would have known where it was as soon as the secret keeper charm > died. Kemper now: I'm not quite sure what you're saying, Sherry. It sounds like you are saying that if Dumbledore had a piece of paper with the Potter location written on it that Dumbledore /could not/ have shown the piece of paper to Hagrid because the secret was not written for Hagrid. If that's so, why would Moody burn the piece of paper with 12 Grimmauld Place written on it? If you are saying that Dumbledore /would not/ share the paper with Hagrid without explicit instruction to do so from the Potters themselves, then I totally agree. I think Violet's suggestion that Dumbledore would do that paints Dumbledore in a poor, if not bad, light. Kemper From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Fri Jan 5 17:14:24 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:14:24 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163461 > > sherry now: > > I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter told Voldemort where to > find the Potters. Once the secret keeper betrays the secret, I don't think > the charm is in effect any longer. > > Lilygale here: Interesting thought, but I'm having trouble buying it. A Secret Keeper obviously can let other people in on the secret. For example, that is how Harry found out that headquarters of the Order are at 12 Grimmauld Place. Is there something about the Fidelius Charm itself that recognizes an enemy of the people for whom the Charm is cast? But if that were the case, how did the traitor Pettigrew become Secret Keeper in the first place? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jan 5 17:26:16 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:26:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163462 > Alla: > MAHAHAHAHA. Who me? Lonely believer in the fact that Snape may not > be teaching Harry, but taunting him at the end of HBP? Lonely > believer that Snape would be up for a big surprise at the end when > he will get to experience the power that forgiving heart can weave? Lupinlore: > Not all THAT lonely. I guess it all does end up with what you mean > by the power of forgiveness. Jen: Not lonely at all, Alla! Lupinlore brought up what is meant by the power of forgiveness, and I'll bring up, 'what is meant by not teaching, but taunting?' Snape is always giving Harry unsolicited advice so the run across the grounds looked like the same old thing to me, similar to most of his interactions with Harry. The difference is his advice wasn't *wise* advice. Telling Harry not to cast Unforgiveables when he just cast an AK will come off as hypocrisy in the vein of 'do what I say, not what I do'. Also, Harry doesn't need to learn to close his mind, that would actually end up hurting him, and inflaming Harry's hatred and anger doesn't look like a good idea, either. Dumbledore must not have explained anything to Snape about what happened in the MOM when Harry expelled Voldemort from possessing him because Snape's advice is counter to Dumbledore's explanations of Harry's power. Snape pretty much summed up what he thinks of Harry in 'Spinner's End', that didn't sound like a cover story intended to hide Harry's 'power' from Voldemort since Snape doesn't believe there's anything unique or powerful about Harry and doesn't know all of the prophecy. I believe he will be very surprised when Harry defeats LV. Jen From mwburge1 at aol.com Fri Jan 5 17:37:07 2007 From: mwburge1 at aol.com (mryburge) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:37:07 -0000 Subject: Predictions, Wishful Thinking & Anything But *That*...! (Re: Satisfaction..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163463 >Jen: > 3) No Weasleys will die during the writing of this book although > one or two may be harmed. > Sarah: > I'd disagree here, but the problem is I can't specify who or how > many. I will go out on a limb and say that at least Ginny and Bill > probably make it. I don't know if it looks good for Ron, though. > SSSusan: Oooh. I think I actually disagree with this one, my usual > think-alike pal. I think either Charlie or Percy or Arthur will be > dead by the end. Mary: I am afraid it is going to be Ron....The "love connection" between Ron and Hermione has been there since the second book. Rowling was a classics major at university, as I understand. In Greek literature, Hermione, daughter of King Menelaus and Helen of Troy, was married to Orestes (of Agamemnon/Clytemnestra/Erinyes fame). Orestes met his death by the bite of a snake! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 18:14:46 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:14:46 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: <700201d40701050912i582dae8dx18ef20674243248e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163464 --- Kemper wrote: > > > sherry wrote: > > > > I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter told > > Voldemort where to find the Potters. Once the secret > > keeper betrays the secret, I don't think the charm is > > in effect any longer. > > Kemper now: > I'm inferring you to mean that the Fidelius Charm works > based on theloyalty of the Secret Keeper. ... It would > take away the emotional power of the spell, making the > spell's strength based on the Peter's loyalty to the > Potters rather than the Potter's faith in Peter. > > ... the Potters made Peter their SK based on Sirius' > suggestion. And they had every faith in him. > bboyminn: Yes, but 'faith' and 'loyalty' are a two way street. The Fidelius, or as I see it, the 'Fidelity' Charm is based in trust. The Potter's trusted Peter with their lives, and in accepting that trust, Peter is implying a true and deep loyalty to the Potters. When Peter betrayed the Potters, he betrayed their loyalty. He breached the 'fidelity' of the Charm, and the Charm was broken. Fidelity - "Faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances."(1) "Continuing loyalty to a person, cause, or belief."(2) "Fidelity implies the /unfailing/ fulfillment of one's duties and obligations, and strict adherence to vows or promises"(1) (from (1)American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Ed; and (2)Concise Oxford English Dictionary 11th Ed) Clearly, Peter was neither 'faithful' or 'loyal', and did not adhere strictly to his Vows and Promises. That supreme act of IN-fidelity breached the Charm. Now the writer of this particular essay believes that the Secret Charm disolved because the Secret became false. A Secret can't be a Secret when it is not true, especially in a case like this. While I agree in principle, I don't agree that it applies in this case. Trying to say the Potter's Secret was not true is pretty shakey when Harry presence is factored in. But it works in my mind for the current status of #12 Grimmauld Place. Regardless of whether the intent was temporary, at this point in time (as far as we know), Grimmauld Place is NOT the Headquarters of the Order, meaning the secret as revealed to Harry is no longer true. When that Secret became false, the Secret Keeper Charm on Grimmauld Place was broken (in my view). So, in my view, the Secret Keeper Charm can be broken by two methods; 1.) A total and complete faithless breach of fidelity 2.) when the Secret is no longer valid or true. I believe the first case applies to Godrics Hollow and the second case applies to Grimmauld Place. Other than that, I would speculate the only way the Secret Keeper Charm could be removed is by one of the original participating parties; the subject, the Keeper, or they hypothetical 'Binder'. > > > Violet wrote: > > I do believe that ... Lily and James wouldn't refuse > > to have [Dumbledore] know about their whereabouts. > > ... umbledore didn't hear the address directly from > > the Secret-Keeper's mouth, but perhaps he read it ... > > Having been handed the small piece of paper, he > > showed Hagrid as well. ... > > > > > > Sherry replied: > > I don't think Dumbledore could have shown the paper > > to Hagrid. ... if Hagrid wasn't meant to know, I > > imagine he couldn't have read the paper. ... > > > Kemper now: > I'm not quite sure what you're saying, Sherry. > > It sounds like you are saying that if Dumbledore had a > piece of paper with the Potter location written on it > that Dumbledore /could not/ > have shown the piece of > paper to Hagrid because the secret was not written for > Hagrid. If that's so, why would Moody burn the piece > of paper with 12 Grimmauld Place written on it? > > If you are saying that Dumbledore /would not/ share > the paper with Hagrid without explicit instruction to > do so ... then I totally agree. ... > > Kemper > bboyminn: You both seem to be laboring under the assumption that any pieces of paper with the Secret on them would just be laying around, or that they would be sent by a means as unsecure as the mail (owl-mail). We have one example, Moody had a paper from Dumbledore specifically to show Harry, and once that task was accomplished, the paper was destroyed. If say Sirius gave Dumbledore a piece of paper with the Secret on it, I think he would have taken it back immediately after Dumbledore read it, or he would have made sure it was immediately destroyed. He WOULD NOT have allowed Dumbledore to keep the piece of paper. I do think a few people knew the Secret because I believe the Potters needed a degree of support; news, friends, food, etc.... So, reasonably some people knew, exactly who knew is another matter. Certainly Dumbledore, but who else is open to speculation. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From violet_verdi at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 18:12:17 2007 From: violet_verdi at yahoo.com (:::: Violet ::::) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:12:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <252865.71975.qm@web59108.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163465 << sherry now: I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter told Voldemort where to find the Potters. Once the secret keeper betrays the secret, I don't think the charm is in effect any longer.>> <> <> Violet now: I have to agree with Kemper and Lilygale in this aspect. If the Fidelius spell worked by concealing a secret inside a person and the only people who can know the secret will be those chosen by the Secret Keeper. Now, if the SK can openly choose who he or she will disclose the secret to, wouldn?t that include enemies as well as friends? Plus, if that was even a remote possibility wouldn?t that have made Lupin innocent in the eyes of the Potters (remember in PoA when Sirius told him that they thought Lupin was the spy that was informing Voldemort)? And, if they had realized he was innocent, that he wasn?t the spy, he wasn?t the traitor, the enemy, wouldn?t they immediately have told Lupin about the SK switch? > Sherry replied: > I don't think Dumbledore could have shown the paper to Hagrid. If Dumbledore received the secret this way, I think he had to have been meant to know it, and if Hagrid wasn't meant to know, I imagine he couldn't have read the paper. But my basic theory is that once the secret keeper betrayed the Potters secret, anyone could have found the family. and if, as Carol > believes, Godric's Hollow was Dumbledore's house which he loaned to the Potters, he would have known where it was as soon as the secret keeper charm died. <> Violet now: I thought about the piece of paper seeing as how Dumbledore didn?t know who the SK was until Peter revealed himself in PoA. The only reasonable possibility as to how Dumbledore came to know about the Potter?s whereabouts was that one (to me anyway). I wasn?t trying to put Dumbledore under a ?poor, if not bad light?, as Kemper put it. Sorry that I came across that way. I don?t know for sure (in fact, no one apart from Rowling does) if the Potters knew Hagrid and trusted him enough to tell their secret. So, in my view of things, either they did trust him and did share the secret with him or Dumbledore persuaded them with the ?I?d place my life in the hands of Hagrid? speech (a truthful speech, I might add). That?s mainly why I stated what I stated. Or even, Hagrid read the paper without Dumbledore?s consent, by accident. I?m not too fond at this theory though, I?m most positive that Hagrid wouldn?t mess, read or eat anything that was on Dumbledore?s office without the Headmaster?s permission. However, I didn?t take under consideration the fact that Godric?s Hollow might?ve Dumbledore?s house and that he would?ve known instantly. A spur of the moment doubt occurred as I was writing the post, so, since it has everything to do with the thread, I?m placing it here, at the bottom: The Fidelius charm was cast to protect the location of the house, not of the Potters. Because if you believe that when the Potters died the spell dissolved then the spell was only protecting James and Lily seeing as how Harry is pretty much alive and that is completely unacceptable to me. I mean, James and Lily went into hiding to protect Harry. So, it is my belief that the Fidelius was keeping the whereabouts of Godric?s Hollow rather than the Potters. And it was dissolved when the house was destroyed: no object, no secret to keep. Just like Hagrid said: "'No sir-house was almost destroyed, but I got him out all right before the Muggles started swarmin' around.'" (15, SS) So, perhaps, the fact that the house was almost destroyed made the spell dissolved slower than it would have if the house had blown up at once? And that was why muggles didn?t swarm (as Hagrid put it) around immediately? ~*~ Violet ~*~ "Who knows, maybe a lightning can strike." From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 18:30:06 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:30:06 -0000 Subject: If Harry will find out about UV, how will it happen? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163466 Alla: > Although on the other hand, Voldemort and Harry and Snape together is > only likely to happen during final scenes. zgirnius: I tend to think that the Snape and Harry conflict will get resolved one way or another before the confrontation with Voldemort. However, there is another way Harry can learn of the UV from Voldemort. If he were to have one of those dreams, of a meeting between Voldemort and Snape, in which the subject came up. Yes, Harry didn't have any in HBP, but this is not because he has learned how to stop having them. Voldemort was actively preventing it by using Occlumency against Harry (according to Dumbledore). If he stopped, this would be a possibility. Alla: > Oh, another related thought that Peter on Voldemort's orders will > inform Harry. zgirnius: Interesting idea...how would Peter communicate with Harry? (Gee, and where is he living? I suspect Spinner's End might be crawling with Aurors, just now...) Another possibility I see is Draco and/or Narcissa. Assuming that either the Vow is still in operation, or whatever motivated Snape to take the Vow at Narcissa's request is still motivating him, Snape still has the problem of protecting the Malfoys from Voldemort. Snape might temporarily achieve this through fast talking (Draco did succeed in getting the Death Eaters to Hogwarts, and therefore Dumbledore is dead, and so on) but I think Snape is smart enough to know any such measure is purely temporary. I could see him encouraging them to seek the protection of the Order as a longer-term solution. From ibchawz at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 18:35:06 2007 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:35:06 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163467 sherry wrote: I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter told Voldemort where to find the Potters. Once the secret keeper betrays the secret, I don't think the charm is in effect any longer. Lilygale wrote: Interesting thought, but I'm having trouble buying it. A Secret Keeper obviously can let other people in on the secret. For example, that is how Harry found out that headquarters of the Order are at 12 Grimmauld Place. Is there something about the Fidelius Charm itself that recognizes an enemy of the people for whom the Charm is cast? But if that were the case, how did the traitor Pettigrew become Secret Keeper in the first place? ibchawz responds: The name of the charm used is Fidelius. To me, this implies that fidelity must be involved. I don't think that if the fidelity is broken, the charm will also be broken. If this were the only part of the equation, when Peter told Voldemort where the Potters were hiding, those that knew where the Potters were before the Fidelius Charm would have remembered where they were. If this were the case, backup from the original Order could have done something to protect or relocate the Potters before Voldemort arrived at their doorstep. As Flitwick said, this is a complex charm. This leads me to believe that breaking the charm would be more complex as well. I believe that action must be taken on the information that Peter provided to Voldemort. When Voldemort showed up at the Potters' house the charm was broken. The secret was no longer valid once Voldemort arrived. The Potters were no longer hiding from him because Voldemort had found them. ibchawz From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 18:56:22 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:56:22 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163468 --- "kibakianakaya" wrote: > > > > > sherry now: > > > > I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter > > told Voldemort where to find the Potters. Once the > > secret keeper betrays the secret, I don't think > > the charm is in effect any longer. > > > > > Lilygale here: > Interesting thought, but I'm having trouble buying it. > A Secret Keeper obviously can let other people in on > the secret. For example, that is how Harry found out > that headquarters of the Order are at 12 Grimmauld > Place. bboyminn: Ah, but you are ignoring THE most critical word 'betray'. When Dumbledore tells Harry the location of the Headquarters Order of the Phoenix, he is not betraying anyone or anything. He is simply expanding the Secret amoung those who would, should, and do need to know the Secret. Dumbledore is still being completely faithful to the intent of the Secret. > Lilygale continues: > > Is there something about the Fidelius Charm itself that > recognizes an enemy of the people for whom the Charm is > cast? But if that were the case, how did the traitor > Pettigrew become Secret Keeper in the first place? > bboyminn: Is there something in the Secret Keeper Charm that recognises an enemy? Well, yes, that 'something' is called 'magic'. It is crystal clear that the greatest threat to the Potters is Voldemort and those assisting him. The Potter are specifically hiding from Voldemort. So, it seems crystal clear who the enemy is from the very beginning. And once again, keep in mind that we are dealing with 'magic' not 'logic'. As to how Peter could /become/ Secret Keeper, why not? He has a specific Secret and he hasn't betrayed that specific Secret; yet. He may not have even known himself that he would indeed betray the Potters. He didn't ask to be the Secret Keeper, he was appointed. Certainly, he consented, but I don't see how the magic of the Charm could possibly come into play before the fact. Before the fact, there is no 'fidelity' to breach, and after the fact, it's too late. Yet, even immediately after the fact, when the fidelity is finally there, Peter does not immediately breach it, so the Charm is not immediately broken. Being a 'rat' is not enough, it takes an actually act of infidelity to break the Charm (in my view). As a very very side note; a strange thought just hit me, as strange thoughts often do. I've speculated in the past about what would happen if the Secret Keeper Charm on 12 Grimmauld Place became true again. If the headquarters moves back in, could that reactivate the Secret Keeper Charm? Now if it becoming true can reactivate it, then can renewed Fidelity also reactivate the Charm? Let's say in the final battle, though circumstances beyond my immediate imagination, Peter renews his fidelity in the Potters. Somehow he aids Harry in a way that magically represents 'fidelity'. Now as Voldemort and Harry a face to face for the final battle, Harry disappears from the eyes of all, with the exception of those who know the Potter's original Secret. Now, a very visible Voldemort is battling a very invisible Harry. A Harry concealed by the renewed Secret Keeper Charm. That could certainly turn things to Harry's advantage. I'm not sure if I believe it, in fact, it is probably too unlikely and unworkable toward resolving the storyline, but you must admit it is a strange ponderance. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 19:08:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:08:55 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163469 Mike wrote: I will disagree with Carol on this point; > I do think Harry has *the power* irrespective of what Voldemort gave > him on that fateful Holloween night. Did he get it from some > serendipitous confluence of Potter and Evans genes? I'll let JKR > enlighten me. But I'm sure we'll find out. Carol responds: Then how do you interpret the line in the Prophecy, "He will mark him as his equal"? I take that to mean that the scar both "marks" and holds within itself some of Voldie's own powers, the powers that make Harry his equal. And we do know that Harry has some of Voldemort's powers, which he was not born with. And "the power the Dark Lord knows not" is surely the power of Love, not innate to Harry but the result of Lily's sacrifice. No one except Harry has this "serendipitous confluence" of Love and power. No one but Harry has the scar that marks him as Voldemort's equal. Ironic as it may be, if it weren't for GH, Harry would not, IMO, have "the power to vanquish the Dark Lord." That's why Dumbledore, more powerful and far wiser than Harry, can't do it. Harry and Harry alone can defeat Voldemort because Voldemort inadvertently created his own nemesis. Had he not tried to thwart the Prophecy, he would not have passed on to Harry the powers that can destroy him. > Mike: > He isn't Superman, nor even Spiderman. He's much closer to Peter > Parker. (Sorry, just watched Spiderman 2) In this way I agree with > Carol's characterization of "Everykid". Hey, maybe he's the > Incredible Hulk in reverse, his powers multiply when he feels love > instead of anger. ;D Carol: Exactly. He's in some respects an ordinary Wizarding kid, not excelling in most of his classes, struggling to learn even some defensive spells despite DADA being his forte. As Harry says himself in GoF, the only thing he can do well is fly (or play Seeker, if you prefer). That, I think, is an innate power, inherited from James. But the rest, powers like Parseltongue that are rare in the WW but shared by LV and Harry, are the heritage of GH, and it's those powers, plus Love (the result of Lily's sacrifice and not inborn in Harry) that will make the difference in the final confrontation. (Parseltongue, for example, may help Harry to kill Nagini.) There's also, BTW, the shared Phoenix feather core in their wands. Just as the yew wand chose Voldemort, the holly wand chose Harry, sensing, I think, the same powers in Harry that its brother sensed in Tom Riddle, powers not innate to Harry but acquired at Godric's Hollow when the AK was deflected onto Voldemort. Mike: Did you realize that Snape hadn't yet cast a spell when Harry's "Protego" knocked him back? That was Harry's power, not Snape's power rebounding. > Carol: We don't know that since Snape's spell would have been nonverbal. And a Shield Charm (Protego) casts a wall around the caster that deflects the opponent's spell back onto him, exactly as Snape's Legilimens was deflected back onto him in OoP:. Here's the original description of the Charm when Harry is first trying to learn it: "He [Harry] was still having trouble with the Shield Charm, though. This was supposed to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that deflected minor curses" (GoF Am. ed. 608). What it does *not* do is knock the opponent off his feet--unless, of course, the opponent's curse would have knocked him off his own feet but was deflected onto the caster. So if Snape had cast a nonverbal Jelly-Legs, the effect would be for *Snape* to have wobbly legs. Look at the name--*Shield* Charm. It *shields* (protects) the person casting it ("protego" = "I protect") by creating an invisible wall that not only prevents the opponent's spell from striking its target but deflects it onto the caster--exactly as Voldemort's AK was deflected onto him by Lily's (inadvertent) ancient magic. (BTW, I've always thought that the scar was an eihwaz rune, which stands for defense or protection, and I'm still hoping for Luna or Hermione to figure that out in DH.) > Mike: > The *power* of love. In JKR's world, love is not just an emotion, > it's a power. It's in Harry's constitutional make-up, this power. And Harry has more of this *power* than any other witch or wizard, and > *that* is why Harry is more *powerfully magical* than anyone. Carol: I don't think that the power of Love, a particular form of ancient magic that IMO is diametrically opposed to the Dark magic of, say, the spells and potions that created Fetal!mort and restored Voldemort to his body, is the same as magical power in general. Voldemort is powerfully magical, more so, probably, than Harry except with regard to his own powers that Harry, and only Harry, acquired from him. Barty Crouch Sr. was "powerfully magical," but he authorized the use of Unforgiveable Curses by the Aurors, used one of those curses to control his own son, and was Imperio'd in his turn and AK'd by the son he had kept captive for twelve years. Not an example of the power of Love. Dumbledore, also extremely powerful and the greatest wizard of the age, understands the power of Love magic and uses it, but it is not what makes him innately powerful (as he clearly was even as a student given Professor Marchbanks's reaction to his OWLs and NEWTs). So I don't think that Harry is "more *powerfully magical* than anyone" despite the impression that the films create. I think he has some natural talents (his genetic heritage), courage, and the reactions of a natural athlete honed by Quidditch practice, but James, too, had these traits and they did not enable him to survive. Nor did Lily's ability to love, which Harry does not exactly share but reaped the benefits of, enable her to survive. Harry has their combined gifts or heritage, but more important, he has the powers that reside in his scar, powets unique to himself and Voldemort that forge a bond between them. Mike: This just struck me. Does anyone know if there is an old English usage of the word "mark" that might shed further light on the prophesy? When JKR said she worded the prophesy carefully, this could be one of those careful words. Carol: Interesting question! What immediately comes to my mind is the Mark of Cain: "And God placed a mark upon Cain lest any finding him should kill him" (Gen. 4:15). Granted, Cain was a murderer, but nevertheless, the mark, whatever it is, protects him from death. I don't think there's much in the etymology of "mark" as either a verb (Old English mearcian) or a noun (Old English mearc) that will help us. It just means a sign (originally marking a boundary). (Think of the Westmarch in LOTR or the Marcher lords who lived on the boundaries of Wales in the time of the Plantagenet kings of England.) However, if we think of "mark" as a synonym for "sign," perhpas Merriam-Webster's definition 6a for "sign" (n.) is significant: "something material or external that stands for or signifies something spiritual." The scar could be a sign of Harry's "spiritual" power, the power of Love, as well as whatever powers Voldemort (unwillingly and unwittingly) gave to Harry, the powers that will enable Harry, otherwise a mere "Everykid" with ordinary Wizard powers and no great aptitude for learning, to defeat him. At the very least, the scar *marks* Harry as, first, the Boy Who Lived and, now, as the Chosen One. It provides a mind link to Voldemort, but it also symbolizes that link as it symbolizes both his history and his destiny. Without the scar, Harry might as well be Neville for all the luck he would have in defeating Voldemort. Carol, sure that "the power to defeat the Dark Lord" is not innate but resides in the scar (but also sure that the scar is not a Horcrux, which can only be intentionally created) From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 5 19:06:02 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:06:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Ken: > I also disagree about the apparation. So I would argue that this is > another example of Harry being able to call upon his innate power to > do something at need that he had not been able to do otherwise. He > certainly had never acted as the "master" in a sidealong apparation. > That really was quite a feat. > > Mike: > OK, I'll buy that it was a good feat. I will say though, that if this > was Harry's big show of ability, at the end of his sixth year, then > it pales in comparison to his previous feats. > Ken: I certainly think it is fair to say that a disappointing amount of progress was made on many fronts in HBP. In the whole book we could only fine *one*, whoops, *NO* horcruxes? HBP convinces me that Harry won't be dealing with Voldemort or even Snape on an equal footing as a duelist, he will find other means. But your comments remind me of something and it could be that in some aspects we are being set up, not in an unnatural, contrived way, but set up none the less. When I was a young intermediate skier I had tremendous trouble learning to ski on the bumpy and rutted ski slopes packed with what are called moguls for some reason. Big moguls on a steep slope are a nightmare for those who have not learned to deal with them and books, friends, and many, many attempts could not teach me the art of mogul skiing. Then one day I was skiing at a resort in upper Michigan and after a morning of cruising the groomed slopes and trails I made my obligatory attempt at a moguled run. And suddenly it all clicked, I could look down one of these monsters and see what I had to do at each step, on the fly, and make up for minor missteps as I needed to. I could launch myself off the top of one and land on the back side of the next at will. I had it, moguls were no longer a terror for me. The last step was one that is impossible to teach, the ability to calm your mind so that it is free to lead your body through the gauntlet. I undoubtedly had possessed the physical skills I needed to do this for years, it was the mind that needed to let go and just do. Buddha would have been an awesome mogul skiier! This was not magic but it is an example of being able to dig down inside yourself and suddenly integrate odd bits of learning and practice into a skill you've never shown before. Ron Weasley can do it too, sometimes, in front of a Quidditch goal. Apparently our Chicago Bears quarterback can do it too, somewhat less reliably than Ron -- sigh. So we've seen Harry struggle with Occlumency, show signs of progress, and then fail. We've seen him succeed with some non-verbal spells but fail under stress. Even his ability to cast a Patronus isn't all that solid when faced with a real Dementor. But despite the lack of apparent progress in HBP I would not count on him to be unable to do any of those things when he needs to bad enough. Lord Voldemort might though. Ken From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jan 5 19:39:32 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:39:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163471 Steve/bboy: > Consequently, from Harry's internal to the story > perspective, he is out of excusses. Now everything falls > on him. He has lost the last of his great protectors and > now HE NEEDS TO LEARN TO PROTECT HIMSELF. > Yes, WE know that love is the answer, and to a limited > extent, Harry knows it, but how do you arm yourself for > battle with 'love'? The answer is, you don't. You work > long and hard to learn how to kick ass. Jen: Love IS Harry's protection though, not his weapon. Love protects him in the same way Dumbledore was protected on the tower: He was wandless, surrounded by the enemy, and yet he was never more an emodiment of love and mercy than that moment on the tower. Love in the form of mercy will likely save a young man from the 'terrible fate' of living his life as a Death Eater like his father. Love in the form of loyalty brought a man to his aid who was capable of salvaging a lost situation and saving the beloved students whose protection meant everything to Dumbledore. Harry can't be Dumbledore, but he *is* capable of showing mercy and mobilizing those loyal to him, and has proven many times the ability to call to him exactly what is needed to salvage lost situations. Those things might not save him from dying; so far they have been enough. I suppose it comes down to expectations, the idea doesn't disappoint me as you expressed you might feel, Steve, instead I think about the possibility and see Harry's greatest moment. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 20:28:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 20:28:03 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163472 bboyminn: > > Yes, but 'faith' and 'loyalty' are a two way street. > The Fidelius, or as I see it, the 'Fidelity' Charm is > based in trust. The Potter's trusted Peter with their > lives, and in accepting that trust, Peter is implying a > true and deep loyalty to the Potters. When Peter betrayed > the Potters, he betrayed their loyalty. He breached the > 'fidelity' of the Charm, and the Charm was broken. > > Clearly, Peter was neither 'faithful' or 'loyal', and > did not adhere strictly to his Vows and Promises. That > supreme act of IN-fidelity breached the Charm. Carol responds: This much I agree with. The fidelity of the SK is surely one crucial component of the Fidelius Charm, hence the name. If keeping faith weren't crucial, the identity of the SK wouldn't matter. The SK has to be a trusted person. (Just why the Potters would think that PP wouldn't break down and reveal the Secret to LV if he were tortured is beyond me. I guess they figured, like Sirius Black, that LV would never expect them to entrust the Secret to such an insignificant person. Alternatively, they thought that no one, including LV, would suspect that a Fidelius Charm had been cast. It doesn't seem to be a very common or well-known charm.) *If* the Charm could be broken by revealing the Secret to Voldemort (or a DE), it's because of a breach of faith. Just revealing the secret does not break the spell, but revealing it to an untrustworthy person, in particular the person from whom the Potters were hiding, might do so. *If* that were the case, and *if* DD had *not* been told the Secret but previously knew it because he had provided the Potters' hiding place in the first place, he would immediately know that the Potters had been betrayed and were in danger because he again knew where they were. He could immediately send Hagrid to the house in Godric's Hollow (not merely to the village of GH) to try to rescue Harry. The question in my mind is why he would send Hagrid, who is not exactly inconspicuous, is not a fully qualified wizard, is highly emotional, and is prone to botch things rather than going there himself. For that reason, I don't think that merely telling Voldemort the Secret broke the Charm. > But it works in my mind for the current status of > #12 Grimmauld Place. Regardless of whether the intent > was temporary, at this point in time (as far as we know), > Grimmauld Place is NOT the Headquarters of the Order, > meaning the secret as revealed to Harry is no longer > true. When that Secret became false, the Secret Keeper > Charm on Grimmauld Place was broken (in my view). Carol responds: In that case, Snape was lying to Bellatrix when he told her that he couldn't reveal the location of the Order HQ. ("You understand how the charm works? i cannot say the name of the place.") Even though I believe in DDM!Snape, I think that Snape was telling the truth here and that 12 GP was still the Order HQ and still protected by the Charm even though the Order temporarily moved out in case Bellatrix inherited the property. (Just how she'd be able to see it, I don't know. Maybe *not* being able to see it would give her the clue that it must be the Order HQ?) > bboyminn: > So, in my view, the Secret Keeper Charm can be broken > by two methods; 1.) A total and complete faithless > breach of fidelity 2.) when the Secret is no longer > valid or true. I believe the first case applies to > Godrics Hollow and the second case applies to > Grimmauld Place. Carol responds: I think that the 12 GP Secret is still in place and the Potters' Secret was no longer valid or true. If the deaths of two Potters didn't invalidate it, the destruction of the house did. "The Potters are hiding in [address] Godric's Hollow was no longer a valid secret because it was no longer true, even for Harry, who was not hiding, invisible, but was lying exposed to view of Muggle and Wizard alike, in the rubble of the ruined house. It's also possible that the Secret was breached and the Charm invalidated the moment that Voldemort could see the Potters. Certainly, it was pointless from that moment onward. > bboyminn: > If say Sirius gave Dumbledore a piece of paper with > the Secret on it, I think he would have taken it > back immediately after Dumbledore read it, or he would > have made sure it was immediately destroyed. He WOULD > NOT have allowed Dumbledore to keep the piece of paper. > > I do think a few people knew the Secret because I believe > the Potters needed a degree of support; news, friends, > food, etc.... So, reasonably some people knew, exactly > who knew is another matter. Certainly Dumbledore, but > who else is open to speculation. Carol responds: The Secret was in effect for only a week, not much time for anyone to learn about it. I agree with your (snipped) point that the Potters would not have been careless enough to have PP notify anyone of the Secret by owl post, but I also highly doubt that anyone, either Sirius Black or PP (as himself or polyjuiced to look like Black--when would he have had time to brew polyjuice, anyway?) would hand a paper with the Secret on it to Dumbledore, which could only arouse his suspicions. Why send PP if Black is the SK? Why, if Black is the SK, should Black not just tell him the Secret rather than writing it? The only reason that *Harry* was given the 12 GP Secret in writing was because it had to be delivered by Moody when DD could not be present. That reason does not apply in the case of the Potters and Godric's Hollow. I think that all of them--Black, PP, and the Potters--were in hiding. It was, after all, Black's decision to check on PP's safety that led him to conclude that the Potters were in danger. I don't think that anyone else, not even Lupin, knew the Secret. There was too little time and they didn't trust him. I'm not even sure that they trusted Dumbledore, or if they did, they had no safe way to tell him the Secret. (Or maybe they thought that he already knew it, assuming that he provided the house.) Their priority was staying safe, unseen, inside the house (which was not itself invisible, unlike 12 GP) and the fewer people who knew where they were, the better. I'm quite sure that, however the Charm was breached, it was indeed broken, and DD realized the Potter's danger as soon as he remembered their hiding place. As for how he knew that Harry, the Prophecy Boy, was not dead, I can only attribute that knowledge to Snape's showing DD his fading or faded Dark Mark, proof positive that Voldemort had lost his powers. And that could only mean that he had somehow been thwarted or defeated by a fifteen-month-old infant "born as the seventh month die[d]." And no doubt DD consulted those fancy silver instruments before sending Hagrid to rescue Harry. As for the MoM, the two successful AKs, at least, must have registered on their Unforgiveable Curse detectors. Why they weren't already there when Hagrid arrived, I don't know. Or maybe they were and Hagrid had some sort of authorization from DD to pick up Harry, and the Aurors were busy keeping Muggles away. As for Black, who must have arrived moments later, they would have no reason to suspect him--yet--as no one except the now-dead Potters themselves, Black, Vapormort, and a certain rat even knew that there had been a Fidelius Charm. Carol, unable still to account for the Missing 24 Hours but sure that DD was *not* told the Secret in writing or in person From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 20:54:53 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:54:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40701050912i582dae8dx18ef20674243248e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40701051254u55aa664aw41f51f5f6e2dc6b4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163473 > > > sherry wrote: > > > > > > I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter told > > > Voldemort where to find the Potters. Once the secret > > > keeper betrays the secret, I don't think the charm is > > > in effect any longer. > > > > Kemper now: > > I'm inferring you to mean that the Fidelius Charm works > > based on theloyalty of the Secret Keeper. ... It would > > take away the emotional power of the spell, making the > > spell's strength based on the Peter's loyalty to the > > Potters rather than the Potter's faith in Peter. > > > > ... the Potters made Peter their SK based on Sirius' > > suggestion. And they had every faith in him. > > > > bboyminn: > > Yes, but 'faith' and 'loyalty' are a two way street. > The Fidelius, or as I see it, the 'Fidelity' Charm is > based in trust. The Potter's trusted Peter with their > lives, and in accepting that trust, Peter is implying a > true and deep loyalty to the Potters. When Peter betrayed > the Potters, he betrayed their loyalty. He breached the > 'fidelity' of the Charm, and the Charm was broken. > > ... > > Clearly, Peter was neither 'faithful' or 'loyal', and > did not adhere strictly to his Vows and Promises. That > supreme act of IN-fidelity breached the Charm. > > ... So, in my view, the Secret Keeper Charm can be broken > by two methods; 1.) A total and complete faithless > breach of fidelity 2.) when the Secret is no longer > valid or true. I believe the first case applies to > Godrics Hollow and the second case applies to > Grimmauld Place. > Kemper now: The etymology of 'fidelis' (faithful) stems from 'fides' (faith). To be faithful is different than being loyal. One suggests a belief or trust in something/one, the other an obligation to something/one. Regardless, Peter was neither faithful nor loyal to the Potters at the time the charm was performed. "Some one close to the Potters" was passing information. So how complex can the charm be if Peter can fake it? Peter knew he would tell Voldemort the secret as it was being concealed inside him. The complexity comes from the Potters faith in Peter, not in Peter's loyalty to the Potters. Let me suggest another way of looking at it to help open your mind... Do you think the Fidelius Charm something that Voldemort would use? I don't think so because the spell is based on the virtue of trust/faith. If it was based on obligation then I would say Voldemort would use it. But I think Voldemort would use the Unbreakable Vow as it's based on obligation rather than faith. > > > Violet wrote: > > > I do believe that ... Lily and James wouldn't refuse > > > to have [Dumbledore] know about their whereabouts. > > > ... umbledore didn't hear the address directly from > > > the Secret-Keeper's mouth, but perhaps he read it ... > > > Having been handed the small piece of paper, he > > > showed Hagrid as well. ... > > > > > > > > > Sherry replied: > > > I don't think Dumbledore could have shown the paper > > > to Hagrid. ... if Hagrid wasn't meant to know, I > > > imagine he couldn't have read the paper. ... > > > > > > Kemper now: > > I'm not quite sure what you're saying, Sherry. > > > > It sounds like you are saying that if Dumbledore had a > > piece of paper with the Potter location written on it > > that Dumbledore /could not/ have shown the piece of > > paper to Hagrid because the secret was not written for > > Hagrid. > > If you are saying that Dumbledore /would not/ share > > the paper with Hagrid without explicit instruction to > > do so ... then I totally agree. ... > > > > bboyminn: > > You both seem to be laboring under the assumption that > any pieces of paper with the Secret on them would just > be laying around, or that they would be sent by a > means as unsecure as the mail (owl-mail). > > > If say Sirius gave Dumbledore a piece of paper with > the Secret on it, ... He WOULD > NOT have allowed Dumbledore to keep the piece of paper. Kemper now: Are you talking about me? You used 'both', but quoted three of us... If it was me, I was clearly addressing Dumbledore's character not a piece of paper. With regards to Sirius, I agree. But I think only Peter and Sirius (and maybe DD) would know the secret. Sirius would be the one to get the Potters their necessities: food, mail from their friends, news, etc. They seemed to want to isolate themselves, not wanting to kick it with any unknown traitor in the midst of their hideout. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jan 5 21:06:46 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:06:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163474 Steve: > Consequently, from Harry's internal to the story > perspective, he is out of excusses. Now everything falls > on him. He has lost the last of his great protectors and > now HE NEEDS TO LEARN TO PROTECT HIMSELF. Up to this > point, I can explain away Harry's action, but if he is > not going full force towards arming himself, then all > faith in the story will be lost for me. > > Yes, WE know that love is the answer, and to a limited > extent, Harry knows it, but how do you arm yourself for > battle with 'love'? The answer is, you don't. You work > long and hard to learn how to kick ass. Jen: Oops, sorry Steve, I didn't address your major point about inside the story vs. outside. Harry technically should be arming himself for battle and learning to protect himself now that he knows the last of his greatest protectors is gone. Part of the reason he doesn't is most of his examples of true power aren't magical skills so far, the 'lessons' he's learned the best are the intangible ones. Lily's sacrifice for instance, being about love and not magic. Or learning that his mercy to Peter may help him at some point. Another was understanding his loyalty to Dumbledore brought Fawkes to the Chamber or that his love and grief for Sirius expelled Voldemort from possessing him. In contrast Harry's actual magical skills and those he's seen others employ haven't actually worked all that well or rather, Harry understands there's a limit. He sees a show of magical power between Dumbledore and Voldemort and yet it wasn't enough in the end, it was just that, a show of magical power. A completely different power saved Harry from Voldemort, not Dumbledore's skill--he was at the limit of his skill. It doesn't seem that out of character to me for Harry not to work harder or bone up on strictly magical skills, Dumbledore keeps telling him that's not the power he holds. Harry accepts that Horcruxes are the most important thing instead of improving his skills because he tends to believe whatever Dumbledore thinks is important and DD doesn't stress learning more spells. From kaleeyj at gmail.com Fri Jan 5 23:22:28 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:22:28 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "kibakianakaya" wrote: > > > > > > > > sherry now: > > > > > > I believe the charm was broken, the moment Peter > > > told Voldemort where to find the Potters. > > > > > > > > Lilygale here: > > Interesting thought, but I'm having trouble buying it. > > A Secret Keeper obviously can let other people in on > > the secret. For example, that is how Harry found out > > that headquarters of the Order are at 12 Grimmauld > > Place. > > bboyminn: > > When Dumbledore tells Harry the location of the > Headquarters Order of the Phoenix, he is not betraying > anyone or anything. He is simply expanding the Secret > amoung those who would, should, and do need to know > the Secret. > > > Lilygale continues: > > > > Is there something about the Fidelius Charm itself that > > recognizes an enemy of the people for whom the Charm is > > cast? But if that were the case, how did the traitor > > Pettigrew become Secret Keeper in the first place? > > > > bboyminn: > > Is there something in the Secret Keeper Charm that > recognises an enemy? Well, yes, that 'something' is > called 'magic'. It is crystal clear that the greatest > threat to the Potters is Voldemort and those assisting > him. KJ now: Alright. But then, why would the charm not be broken as soon as it was cast? Peter IS assisting Voldemort. And he did NOT just up and decide one Friday night to go to the Dark Lord and hand the Potters over; he had been spying for Voldy Shorts for a /year/. How on earth could the charm NOT consider him an enemy? And furthermore, what would happen if someone in the Order who knew the secret about GP suddenly became a traitor of his/her own free will? Would the house just appear, the Charm completely dissolved? Granted, it is a good mark for DDM!Snape if this is actual the case for the charm and the house didn't appear, but that seems very very risky. The whole idea of the SK's actual loyalty coming into play in the dissolution of the charm doesn't float in this pond, sorry. I would like to propose a thought in this discussion. Steve mentioned that Dumbledore was 'expanding' the circle of people who knew the Secret about GP. If we pretend for the moment that the loyalty of the SK and anyone he/she tells, writes, etc is not connected with the dissolution (I like that word) charm, isn't is possible that Peter telling Voldy simply expanded the circle of people knowing about the Potters' hiding place (assuming that the intentions of the members of the circle don't come into play)? Yes, then we get into when the charm actually broke (which I think was with the destruction of the house, but I'm not arguing with anyone on that.) But isn't it possible that the charm is as simple as we all thought back when PoA was released? (what was it, '98?) ~KJ, enjoying good food for thought at my local wireless cafe From pennygbrooks at yahoo.com Fri Jan 5 23:03:48 2007 From: pennygbrooks at yahoo.com (Penny Brooks) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:03:48 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163476 After all these very serious discussions, I'm going to ask one that could be deemed kind of dumb. But, I've been thinking about it for 2 days now, and I'm stumped. Who does the laundry at Hogwarts? I've been rereading COS lately (for the 100th time), and it occurs to me, when Dobby mentions that his masters (at that time) can't even pass him a sock, for it would mean his freedom, that he can't pick up any clothes. I also thought about GOF, when Hermione's trying to knit all those hats, and the elves refuse to pick them up, and, seriously, they can't (and won't) pick up any pieces of clothes. So, who does the laundry? We never hear that there are any other servants in Hogwarts (I guess Filch could be one, but he's the only one apart from the staff). Or, is it a matter that they can do the laundry, if it's clearly understood that it's not being given to them? All the problems and issues going on in the world, and this is the matter that I get obsessed with. :) Penny From terrianking at aol.com Fri Jan 5 23:14:18 2007 From: terrianking at aol.com (terrianking at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:14:18 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163477 In a message dated 1/4/2007 7:19:49 PM Central Standard Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: But here is the curious aspect, Hermyone62442, and a person she references named Brandon, believe that the charm became obsolete when the Potters died. However, here are a few key quotes that make up the thrust of this post. "Brandon also reminded us that, undoubtedly, a full day had passed before Hagrid retrieved Harry from Godric's Hollow." "I think the Potters' murder did dissolve the Fidelius Charm, but - for some reason - it didn't end abruptly. It needed 24 hours to fully disappear." This particular NEW theory says that Harry lay in the rubble for 24 hours while they waited for the Secret Keeper Spell to disolve. That means Hagrid is coming directly from picking up Harry when he arrives at Privet Drive. That might have some merit if we can assume that Godrics Hollow is in southern Wales. I just can't picture Harry lying in the rubble with no food or water for 24 hours. That means that the mysterious Missing 24 hours that we have all speculated about is not missing at all. I think this essay may have so merit in speculating that the spell was broken, but I just can't accept the alteration to the standard assumed timeline. Any thoughts? Robert: FWIW: Lurker idea. Hagrid probably took Harry to Hogwarts, as someone else suggested. Harry was hit by a rebounding AK curse and has a scar as evidence. That means when Hagrid found him he must have been unconscious and bleeding from the wound. After talking to Sirius and filling him in on what Harry's condition was, he took him to Mdme. Pomfrey, or whoever was in charge of the school's infirmary, and there the wound was treated and closed until it was the scar DD and MM see at Privet Drive later. There had to be an open wound in order for there to be a scar. If it was me, I would have told Sirius to back off and taken that injured baby straight to a healer. And Sirius, the godfather, gave up his motorcycle so Hagrid could get there as fast as possible. Robert From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 00:18:51 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:18:51 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163478 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > Mike wrote: > I will disagree with Carol on this point; I do > > think Harry has *the power* irrespective of what > > Voldemort gave him on that fateful Holloween night. > > ... > > Carol responds: > > ... interpret the line in the Prophecy, "He will mark > him as his equal"? I take that to mean that the scar > both "marks" and holds within itself some of Voldie's > own powers, the powers that make Harry his equal.... > "the power the Dark Lord knows not" is surely the power > of Love, ... the result of Lily's sacrifice. ... Harry > has this "serendipitous confluence" of Love and Power. > No one but Harry has the scar that marks him as > Voldemort's equal. ... > > Mike: > > He isn't Superman, nor even Spiderman. He's much > > closer to Peter Parker. ... In this way I agree > > with Carol's characterization of "Everykid".... > > Carol: > Exactly. He's in some respects an ordinary Wizarding > kid, not excelling in most of his classes, struggling > to learn even some defensive spells despite DADA being > his forte. ... the only thing he can do well is fly... > ... an innate power, inherited from James. But the > rest, powers like Parseltongue that are rare in the WW > but shared by LV and Harry, are the heritage of GH, > and it's those powers, plus Love ... that will make > the difference in the final confrontation. ... > > ... > Mike: > Did you realize that Snape hadn't yet cast a spell > when Harry's "Protego" knocked him back? That was > Harry's power, not Snape's power rebounding. > > ... > > > Mike: > > The *power* of love. In JKR's world, love is not just > > an emotion, it's a power. It's in Harry's > > constitutional make-up, this power. And Harry has > > more of this *power* than any other witch or wizard, > > and *that* is why Harry is more *powerfully magical* > > than anyone. > > Carol: > I don't think that the power of Love, a ... form of > ancient magic that IMO is ... opposed to the Dark magic > ..., is the same as magical power in general. Voldemort > is powerfully magical, more so, probably, than Harry > ... Dumbledore, also ...powerful and the greatest > wizard of the age, understands the power of Love magic > and uses it, but it is not what makes him innately > powerful (...). > > ...I don't think ...Harry is "more *powerfully magical* > than anyone" .... I think he has some natural talents > (his genetic heritage), courage, and the reactions of > a natural athlete ..., but James, too, had these traits > and they did not enable him to survive. Nor did Lily's > ability to love, ... Harry has their combined gifts or > heritage, but more important, he has the powers that > reside in his scar, powers unique to himself and > Voldemort that forge a bond between them. > > ... > > Carol, sure that "the power to defeat the Dark Lord" is > not innate but resides in the scar (but also sure that > the scar is not a Horcrux,... bboyminn: I tried to trim this post down as much as I could, and I'm afraid what I left is still far more than I'm going to say, but I did my best. This is a tricky subject, on one hand, I agree with Mike in his assessment of Harry's innate power, but on the other hand, I agree with Carol's brilliant assessment of the /nature/ of Harry's power. Where I disagree with Carol though is on her assessment of Harry's natural innate ingrain in-born magical power. I think it is far more that she is giving Harry credit for. While Carol acknowledges Harry magical heritage, I don't think she is giving it enough worth. Harry isn't just the product of two talented wizards (wizard & witch), he is the product of what I believe to be two profoundly gifted people; way beyond-Hermione gifted. We have seen a few people in the series that stand out far from the crowd. The first and greatest is certainly Dumbledore whose 'magical IQ' I would rate approaching +200. His ability is beyond anything anyone in the wizard world can even comprehend. Next we have Tom Riddle, an absolutely brilliant magically gifted student, who was far and away above and beyond even the best students of his time. While I give that status to Tom, I don't necessarily give it to Voldemort, who I think has become so deluded by his own sense of infalibility and self-worth that his genius is severely compromised. Then we have James and Sirius, they wree also gifted far above and beyond the other students of their time. The intellectual IQ and Magical IQ certainly puts them in the profoundly gifted catagory. Again, we can use Hermione as the standard. We could even say that Hermione is an intellectual and magical genius, but she is not even remotely in the league of Tom, James, or Sirius. Now to Harry; Harry is basically a 'B' student, but grades (or marks if you prefer) are not a measure of true genius. Genius does not guarantee achievement. Albert Einstein was considered an idiot by his secondary school teachers. Now, I'm not sure that I am ready to push Harry up into the intellectual genius catagory; it could go either way. But certainly given that James and Lily were extremely talented, one can only assume that Harry also has inherited some degree of that talent. The son of two geniuses is very likely to be /smart/. So why doesn't Harry do better in school? Why hasn't he achieved things like the Marauder's Map or Animagus? I think part of it is Harry upbringing. To some extent, Harry has always had to suppress himself at the Dursleys. Standing out is /standing out/ and that means being noticed and being noticed means trouble at the Dursleys. Mush better, and much safer, to be quiet and unassuming. That type of conditioning from age one is very hard, nearly impossible, to break. This also accounts partly for Harry's reluctance to accept his 'Hero-Boy Who Lived' status. That much too high a profile for a suppressed, stay in the shadows conditioned person like Harry to accept. Ron would love it and play it for all it was worth. Draco would love it and play it for all it was worth. James would love it and play it for all it was worth. But they all had very different upbringings than Harry. They all had very supportive encouraging environments. So, through it all I see Harry constantly holding back, and I can understand that. I somewhat did that myself in high school. In the small town I grew up in, it wasn't good to stand out, so I just slide by as a 'B' student, never doing homework or studying. I regret that now, because I could have been and done so much more. But at the time, that was what I preceive to be the best method of surviving without conflict. Further, high school (or Hogwarts) does not really prepare you for life. It's just a basic set of information that all people should have. Note the achievement of Harry's classmate who we can assume are average to above average. Compared to Harry, Ron, and Hermione what have any of the other students done; intellectually or magically? Not much to my eyes. Yet, we have no reason to assume they will not grow to be competent magically powerful individuals. Just my opinion, but I think Harry has very substantial magical power all his own. Though with most above average students, you would not expect that to really come out until they are out in life specializing in what ever their field of choice is, and expanding their knowledge of magic based on their own immediate needs. Most of the extremely powerful wizards we see are quite old, and they have had many many years of experience and practice to hone their skills to an impressive level. I think it is unfair to compare Harry to these older more experienced wizards. I do agree that Harry's skill and talent is no match for Voldemort intellectual and magical genius, nor for his years of deep and intense magical practice. But there is a big difference. Voldemort is a self-absorbed egomaniac. Whereas Harry is a selfless, caring, uncompromising, compassionate, person with what I'm sure is a very substantial underlying magical power. That said, I once again agree with Carol in her assessment of the /nature/ of Harry's power. But I think she is very much shortchanging Harry in his own innate power, which I think is substantial, and which I think is yet to be fully realized. Einstein was a 'D' student, and he seemed to have turned out OK. Certainly Harry, a 'B' student, who has couragiously faced that Darkest of Wizards again and again, and lived to tell the tale, has magical power of his own. Now to one last aspect; when Voldemort is dead, will Harry's power leave him? That is will Voldemort's power leave Harry? I don't think so, I think the power of his mother's love, and the power transferred by Voldemort are now part of Harry. I don't think Harry is borrowing power from Voldemort through the connection. It's not like they have a magical/mental DSL line connnecting them through which Harry is siphoning Voldemort's power on an as-needed basis. I think what Harry has via his near death contact with Voldemort, is now innate to Harry. Call it magic or whatever, but I think that power is now part of Harry, and part of him forever. So Harry's own natural innate power has been fortified by a couple of sources as Carol so brilliantly explains, I say that that power is now his and is as much a part of him as round glasses, messy hair, and green eyes. Of course, that's just one man's exceptionally long winded opinion. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 00:51:00 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 00:51:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163479 --- "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Steve: > > Consequently, from Harry's internal to the story > > perspective, he is out of excusses. Now everything > > falls on him. He has lost the last of his great > > protectors and now HE NEEDS TO LEARN TO PROTECT > > HIMSELF. Up to this point, I can explain away Harry's > > action, but if he is not going full force towards > > arming himself, then all faith in the story will be > > lost for me. > > > > Yes, WE know that love is the answer, and to a limited > > extent, Harry knows it, but how do you arm yourself for > > battle with 'love'? The answer is, you don't. You work > > long and hard to learn how to kick ass. > Jen: > Oops, sorry Steve, I didn't address your major > point about inside the story vs. outside. Harry > technically should be arming himself for battle and > learning to protect himself now that he knows the last > of his greatest protectors is gone. > > Part of the reason he doesn't is most of his examples > of true power aren't magical skills so far, the > 'lessons' he's learned the best are the intangible > ones. Lily's sacrifice for instance, being about love > and not magic. ... bboyminn: Here's the thing, I agree with you and everyone who says that in the end, it will be love or some similar abstract concept that saves Harry, or if it doesn't save Harry, then at least saves the day. But I think that because I am on the outside looking in. Harry is on the inside looking out, and what he sees is dark and extremely dangerous and certainly DEADLY. Now let me use a real world analogy. If you know with absolute certainty that a group of soldiers are coming to kill you, and you are give a choice of two types of weapons; a heart shaped box of chocolates and a dozen roses, OR a machine gun, which are you going to choose? Now compound that with the concept that the outcome of your pending battle will determine the fate of your world. As repugnant as the thought of killing other people is, I can assure you that I am not going to go down holding a box of chocolates and some roses. I'm going to go down fighting, even if the fight is hopeless. And that seems to be Harry's attitude; he is going to go down fighting. Dumbledore is telling him figuratively that all he needs is a box of chocolates and some roses, but Harry sees the deadly and destructive forces of Voldemort and the Death Eaters, and I simply can't believe that Harry is convinced a few hug and kisses and a box of chocolates is going to do it, regardless of what Dumbledore said. Harry needs his machine gun; he needs his finely honed and deeply skilled magical power, and the only way to get that is to train long and hard. Now, I can excuse Harry up to this point, because he always had Dumbledore to fall back on; Dumbledore has a plan, Dumbledore will protect me, Dumbledore will tell me what to do, Dumbledore had the situation under control, but Dumbledore is gone, and NOW EVERYTHING falls on Harry. No More Excuses. So, up until now, I can excuse Harry not training with fierce single minded determination, but from this point on that excuse no longer cuts it. From Harry's perspective he is hopelessly out manned and out gunned, and if he has any chance of winning in his logical and rational eyes, he must bring himself up to as close to Voldemort's level of skill as he possibly can before the confrontation. He must do that even knowing that he can never reach that level. Again, if you place yourself in Harry's mind to do anything else is completely irrational. Consequently, if Harry is at least making an effort in the next book I will be satisfied, but if he plans to get by on Luck or boxes of chocolate or hugs and kisses, then all plausability has gone out of the story. It's Harry and only Harry from here on in, at least in Harry's mind. That means he has to meet Voldemort as close to Voldemort's level as he can get. That's from Harry's internal perspective. From the external perspective of a reader, I agree, some unforseen abstract force will help Harry win the day, but it is irrational for Harry to count on such a force and not prepare himself to the best of his ability. Like I said, Harry is insane if he proceeds as if 'hugs and kisses' are going to save the day, even though as a reader I know for a fact that 'hugs and kisses' will indeed save the day. This is why I keep insisting that we make a strong distinction between what is right INTERNAL to the story, and what we know is right EXTERNAL to the story. Steve/bboyinn From estesrandy at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 01:04:06 2007 From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 01:04:06 -0000 Subject: Interesting connection to Firenze Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163480 I stumbled across this site when looking for things about ancient manuscripts. This started with a search regarding the new info about the Archimedes manuscript up for auction. The name Firenze is listed in this website regarding an ancient manuscript. The Firenze manuscript specifically connects to John 12 verses 12-15. It so happens that these verses speak about Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey. Firenze was the Centaur that helped Harry escape Voldemorte in the Forbidden Forest by letting Harry ride on his back. http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html This is just another interesting name used by JKR. From scarah at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 01:29:09 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:29:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701051729s5148b7b9h5468ceb6bde92b8e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163481 Steve: > This is why I keep insisting that we make a strong distinction > between what is right INTERNAL to the story, and what we > know is right EXTERNAL to the story. Sarah: I definitely see your point, but I'm not sure if even Harry fools himself that he has hope of reaching a level of brute magical force anywhere near Voldemort's. I guess he might, he seemed pretty cocky at the end of HBP with regard to Snape who he just got done getting totally owned by. The thing is, Harry is internally armed with most of the same information that we have externally. He knows the contents of the prophecy, the stuff Dumbledore told him about the locked room and all that, his experience of destroying the diary (the method to do so just popped into his head out of the sky), and all of the times he's faced Voldemort so far and lived to tell the tale. Externally, we can hope he smells the coffee, instead of trying to fashion himself into some sort of battle machine (I keep picturing a Rockyesque montage). He does have the information to internally glean this. If he doesn't figure it out, that path leads to the Dark Arts. He must think there's something to them, since he's attempted to use them in the last two books even though it never works. If he really takes some time to think about this, maybe he'll internally wise up. I'm still hoping for some twist on the contents of the locked room, other than vanilla "love." Too bad about Bode, since he'd probably be able to shed some light on it. Sarah From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sat Jan 6 02:22:37 2007 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 21:22:37 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Characterization Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163482 In a message dated 1/5/2007 6:05:47 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: Again, if you place yourself in Harry's mind to do anything else is completely irrational. Consequently, if Harry is at least making an effort in the next book I will be satisfied, but if he plans to get by on Luck or boxes of chocolate or hugs and kisses, then all plausability has gone out of the story. It's Harry and only Harry from here on in, at least in Harry's mind. That means he has to meet Voldemort as close to Voldemort's level as he can get. That's from Harry's internal perspective. From the external perspective of a reader, I agree, some unforseen abstract force will help Harry win the day, but it is irrational for Harry to count on such a force and not prepare himself to the best of his ability. A few unrelated points: If Harry goes wand blazing alone against anyone (and I am worried about his animus towards Snape, whether Snape is good, bad or indifferent) he is very likely to get killed. But the entire point of having love on his side is that he will not do anything alone. Harry knows several wizards who will lay their lives for the sake of himself and his mission, especially Ron and Hermione. In contrast to Voldemort, who has no truly loyal followers, only excepting an insane, sadistic deluded girl who cannot be trusted. Harry's job for most of book 7 will be to seek out and destroy Horcruxes. He needs to stay out of the way until this mission is accomplished. I even wonder, along with RedHen and several other theorists, whether Harry will be the one to actually kill Voldemort. The prophecy after all, says "vanquish" not kill. And Dumbledore's preparation: did he train him in defensive spells and charms? No. The greatest witches and wizards of the age, who likely used every spell in the book (I'm sure Amelia Bones did not go down without a fight) ultimately lost their battles, one by one. Instead, Dumbledore shows Harry Voldemort's true weak spots, not spells or potions or curses (he knows them all)...but the Horcruxes, his checkered past, his empty longing after things instead of the love of others, his lack of any emotional bond with anyone. I'm quite sure Harry is capable of driving a metaphorical sharp knife into all of them, and to do it with the pity and understanding of which even Dumbledore (bless his heart) was incapable. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 02:39:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:39:23 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163483 Robert wrote: > > Hagrid probably took Harry to Hogwarts, as someone else suggested. Harry was hit by a rebounding AK curse and has a scar as evidence. That means when Hagrid found him he must have been unconscious and bleeding from the wound. > > After talking to Sirius and filling him in on what Harry's condition was, he took him to Mdme. Pomfrey, or whoever was in charge of the school's infirmary, and there the wound was treated and closed until it was the scar DD and MM see at Privet Drive later. There had to be an open wound in order for there to be a scar. If it was me, I would have told Sirius to back off and taken that injured baby straight to a healer. And Sirius, the godfather, gave up his motorcycle so Hagrid could get there as fast as possible. Carol responds: FWIW, it was Voldemort who was hit by the rebounded curse, not Harry, who was hit by the actual AK, which was deflected onto Voldemort (very much like a Protego spell, only Protego doesn't work for Unforgiveables. And Harry's head was still cut open, not healed into a scar, when Hagrid brought him to Privet Drive: "Under a tuft of jet-black hair over his forehead they could see a curiously shaped cut, like a bolt of lightning" (SS Am. ed. 15). I happen to believe that the cut was caused by the spell bursting *out* of Harry's head because of Lily's sacrificial Love magic. An incoming AK does not make a mark of any kind. I also happen to believe, though I can't prove it, that Dumbledore took Harry not to Madame Pomfrey but to someone who knew a lot more about Dark Magic and how to heal it than she does, someone who would make sure that little Harry was not possessed or otherwise suffering ill effects from the failed AK: Severus Snape. I think that whatever Snape did that night is the reason Dumbledore trusted Snape completely and the reason Hagrid found it so difficult to believe that Snape had killed Dumbledore. I doubt, BTW, that Hagrid filled Sirius Black in on Harry's condition or anything else about that night. All he knew was that DD had sent him to rescue Harry, that he was not to give him to anyone but Dumbledore, that James and Lily were dead. Black could see that much with his own eyes (perhaps somee Voldiebits, too), and he had a lot clearer idea than Hagrid did as to what had really happened. When Hagrid refused to hand over Harry, Black did what he thought was the next best thing: he sought revenge on the traitorous Wormtail. He didn't need his motorcycle because he knew he'd be on the run from DEs or Aurors or both and the motorcycle would be too easily spotted. He might as well give it to Hagrid. (Originally, JKR wrote "Young Sirius Black lent it [to] me," but that was apparently changed after readers pointed out inconsistencies between SS/PS and PoA.) Carol, who got sidetracked by a fanfic about the young Marauders, Lily, Severus, and (oops!) Lucius, all age fifteen, reading the first chapter of SS/PS in detention--and I never read fanfic! http://www.angelfire.com/wizard/guests/gMST01.htm Carol, agreeing that the scar resulted from an open wound but seeing the rest of the picture rather differently From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 02:34:12 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:34:12 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Penny Brooks" wrote: > Who does the laundry at Hogwarts? zanooda: I think that, to be freed, an elf needs to recieve clothes from his master's hands, not just pick them up from somewhere (the floor? a hamper?). They seem to be allowed to handle clothes. Remember, in CoS one of the twins says their mother wishes they had a house-elf "to do ironing"? In GoF Fake!Moody summons Dobby to the staffroom "to collect some robes for cleaning". What's more, at Hogwarts most of the laundry must come from the students, and *their* clothes cannot free the elves, because the students are not masters to the elves. That's why I believe Hermione's hats and socks were just big waste of time and wool. Even if the elves took the hats, they wouldn't get free, IMO. As for whoever is considered the Hogwarts elves master (the headmaster and maybe the teachers?), well, he/they just have to be careful not to pass any of their clothing directly to any elves and they'll be fine. Always put your clothes away in the hamper! :-) You know, Penny, we had a short discussion on a similar topic not very long ago. I would like to give you a link, but there is something wrong with my "search" button (or, maybe there is something wrong with my computer skills) and I couldn't find it. If you want to try, the name of the thread was either "Hogwarts elves" or "Dobby and Winky sitting in a tree" IIRC (and it's a big "if"). Good luck! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 6 03:26:03 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:26:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163485 > > bboyminn: > > But from an internal perspective, we have a very different > view. We must ask ourselves 'what should Harry reasonably > do under the circumstance', not how will the story resolve > itself. From Harry's internal perspective, he is the > hopeless underdog, and THAT is truly something he must do > something about. From his perspective he needs to gain > many skills and do so very quickly. In my opinion, to do > otherwize is irrational. Pippin: Do you remember Fake!Moody's advice in GoF? "Play to your strengths?" Harry and Dumbeldore know that's what Harry has to do. Harry's strength is not as a duellist. Unfortunately, after a promising start, Harry hit a brick wall with occlumency. This time the problem wasn't a lack of confidence, motivation, or anything else that Harry or his teachers could address. It was, according to JKR, a lack of ability. As Snape demonstrated at the end of HBP, without occlumency, one can only be a mediocre duellist. So that's that, and Harry will have to seek to defend himself and defeat his opponents in other ways. What Harry does have are his immense spiritual gifts and his ingenuity. They will enable him to understand Voldemort much better than Voldemort understands him, and to take advantage of Voldemort's mistakes. That is what Dumbledore was trying to show with his little history lessons, IMO. Harry doesn't need to learn to 'kick ass' and he knows it, though he tends to forget in his rage at his losses. The WW's graveyards are full of kickass wizards who owe their presence there to Voldemort. Pippin From kaleeyj at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 03:53:09 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 03:53:09 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163486 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Penny Brooks" > wrote: > > > Who does the laundry at Hogwarts? > > > zanooda: > > I think that, to be freed, an elf needs to recieve clothes from his > master's hands, not just pick them up from somewhere (the floor? a > hamper?). They seem to be allowed to handle clothes. Remember, in CoS > one of the twins says their mother wishes they had a house-elf "to do > ironing"? In GoF Fake!Moody summons Dobby to the staffroom "to > collect some robes for cleaning". KJ now: Or even more simple: an elf can be freed only if it wants to be freed. If the elf doesn't want to be free, he/she can take any clothing they wish. I would imagine that Winky did the laudry for the Crouches all those years. I don't see Crouch Jr. as much of a house keeper, being under the imperius and all, and Barty Sr. would have been too busy ridding the magical world of all things dark artsy to bother with washing socks. So Winky did the washing, happy as a clam. When Crouch Sr. gives her clothes in GoF, it is more symbolic than "Here, fold these." The clothes are actually a sign of dismissal. Dobby, on the other hand, was desperate for any reason to get away. He was able to leave the Malfoy family even after Lucius absentmindedly tosses a sock away and Dobby /catches/ it. He didn't even actually /give/ it to him, Dobby just caught it after Master handled it. (This could be a loophole; I think Dobby got away on a technicality, more than anything.) I promise you, either Draco or Narcissa is /really/ good with fabric softener. Note also (Penny is quite the little sleutgh, digging up those references!) that Kreacher makes off with Orion Black's trousers (Sirius's father) in OotP. They are allowed to touch clothes without a doubt. It depends mostly on the elf's view of the clothes (are they a sign of dismissal) and the intent of the person doing the giving. FWIW, I think that the Elves at Hogwarts were avoiding Hermione's hats because of 1) principles, and 2) because it would free them since she saw it that way. But Dobby takes them because he is technically a free agent (he is employed, not enslaved, though some of us 40-hour-week folks might argue there's no difference) and he wouldn't see them as a dismissal. In summary: If Dumbledore gives a sock to any one of the elves intending to free them, then that elf is free. If the elf wants to be freed, and Dumbledore gives them a sock, then that elf is free (a la Dobby and Malfoy). Master's thoughts don't matter. If the elf does not want to be free, but Dumbledore does, then the elf is free (a la Winky and Crouch). Elf's thoughts don't matter. If Dumbledore gives any of the elves a sock, not intending the elf to be freed, and the elf doesn't want to be free, then the elf isn't free (a la Molly's dream elf). I think... ~KJ From scarah at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 03:43:37 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 19:43:37 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701051943y6cd2f90eh2316469670ce724a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163487 Pippin: Unfortunately, after a promising start, Harry hit a brick wall with occlumency. This time the problem wasn't a lack of confidence, motivation, or anything else that Harry or his teachers could address. It was, according to JKR, a lack of ability. Sarah: That's exactly why (while I don't see eye to eye on every detail of the Snape debacle with Alla, or probably with anyone else, heh) I agree with Alla that Snape is not dispensing useful hints to Harry at the end of HBP. Since Harry is doomed never to master Occlumency, there is no way a "reveal" can happen where Harry realizes "Oh, Snape was totally right." He's never going to learn it, so Snape's appearance of taunting is not misdirection since it cannot be later proved correct. Sarah From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Jan 6 04:05:24 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:05:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Laundry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <459F2004.6050709@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163488 Penny Brooks wrote: > Who does the laundry at Hogwarts? One of the first lessons they learn in Charms is "Ajaxio" (although some prefer "Dynamo"). Bart From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 06:23:23 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:23:23 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bex" wrote: > FWIW, I think that the Elves at Hogwarts were avoiding Hermione's hats > because of 1) principles, and 2) because it would free them since she > saw it that way. zanooda: I was really sorry to snip your post, it was so funny, and I agree with most of it, except for this point. How can Hermione free the elves if they don't belong to her? You can't just go around freeing someone else's slaves. If this was the rule, Harry could have given Dobby the sock himself, he wouldn't need to trick Lucius Malfoy into it. The elves don't touch the hats because even Hermione's intent is insulting to them, not because they are afraid it will really free them, IMO. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jan 6 06:36:27 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:36:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) References: Message-ID: <005701c7315c$ff238a60$269e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163490 Steve: > Again, we can use Hermione as the standard. We could even > say that Hermione is an intellectual and magical genius, > but she is not even remotely in the league of Tom, James, > or Sirius. > > Now to Harry; Harry is basically a 'B' student, but > grades (or marks if you prefer) are not a measure of > true genius. Genius does not guarantee achievement. > Albert Einstein was considered an idiot by his > secondary school teachers. Now, I'm not sure that I > am ready to push Harry up into the intellectual genius > catagory; it could go either way. But certainly given > that James and Lily were extremely talented, one can > only assume that Harry also has inherited some degree > of that talent. The son of two geniuses is very likely > to be /smart/. Magpie: To me it seems a lot simpler to just accept that although we're told about certain people being geniuses in the HP world, the world's not about intellectual genius ("books and cleverness"). The magical system isn't written in a way that much allows for it. It's all just hocus pocus--especially if you're supposed to be one of the geniuses, who seem to me to only be maybe Dumbledore and Flamel because they study stuff like Alchemy. Mostly what you've got is physical ability and cleverness, which is often described in terms of intellect when it really isn't. Very little of anything studied is exactly intellectual, yet we understand that Hermione is supposed to be brainy because she can wave her wand the right way on the first try. That seems to me where most of the good students fall--they're skilled, not brainiacs. Snape is the one who shows signs of heading more in Dumbledore's direction with his ability to seemingly create improvements on things, but of course we can't really follow that because it's all just made up. I can imagine Harry growing up to be like Sirius, but that to me does not equal Harry revealing himself to be an intellectual giant. More like Harry growing up to be an expert swordsman. Steve: > So why doesn't Harry do better in school? Why > hasn't he achieved things like the Marauder's Map or > Animagus? I think part of it is Harry upbringing. To > some extent, Harry has always had to suppress himself > at the Dursleys. Magpie: We've been living in Harry's head for 6 years and if he were hiding Einstein in there I think we'd know it--and not necessarily from his grades. I see no more reason to come up with reasons why Harry is really a genius only he's never shown it because of the Dursleys than I do to come up with reasons why sweet and fluffy Snape never gives hugs because it would blow his cover. Harry does fine in school, and isn't a genius or an idiot. Steve: Standing out is /standing out/ and > that means being noticed and being noticed means trouble > at the Dursleys. Mush better, and much safer, to be > quiet and > unassuming. Magpie: Harry isn't always quiet and unassuming. He's got no problem becoming a Quidditch star when he discovers he's a great flyer. He likes flying and he likes Quidditch; he practices and he competes. He likes winning. He also threatens to go into a bit of a snit when he's not made Prefect. Steve: > So, through it all I see Harry constantly holding back, > and I can understand that. I somewhat did that myself > in high school. In the small town I grew up in, it > wasn't good to stand out, so I just slide by as a 'B' > student, never doing homework or studying. I regret > that now, because I could have been and done so much > more. But at the time, that was what I preceive to be > the best method of surviving without conflict. Magpie: But where has this ever been presented in Harry's thought processes when he'd rather play Quidditch than study or have intellectual thoughts? Especially at times when his grades really count or when he's worried over his grades? I don't think his taking more interest in school would make him stand out all that much--he already spends a good amount of time on his work and seems to be giving it his best effort most of the time. He doesn't mind it in sixth year when he's really making himself stand out and enjoying appearing like a better student than he is in Potions. He doesn't seem to connect to the HBP at all on the intellectual level. He neither knows nor cares why the Prince's improvements work. >From what I got from Carol's post, she seemed to be saying that he was a perfectly fine student, but that what he's really known for and what his strengths are lie elsewhere. Einstein may have gotten D's, but that doesn't mean getting D's makes you Einstein. I've no doubt Harry will grow up to be a perfectly competant wizard, even though here, at practically the end of his schooling, he seems hopelessly behind all the other adults. But I don't see him turning into a somebody else even if that someone were a genius. -m From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 07:41:55 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:41:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hogwarts Laundry Message-ID: <855498.20623.qm@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163491 Pennybrooks asks: Who does the Hogwarts Laundry? Apparently House-elves can do all loundry but socks and not be freed.So I suppose that the only Laundry students do is socks. Which means each week your scougify a pile of socks. Not the hardest chore in the world. House-Elves just don't do socks. DA Jones __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 08:16:52 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:16:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163492 --- "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > But from an internal perspective, we have a very > > different view. We must ask ourselves 'what should > > Harry reasonably do under the circumstance', not > > how will the story resolve itself. From Harry's > > internal perspective, he is the hopeless underdog, > > and THAT is truly something he must do something > > about. From his perspective he needs to gain many > > skills and do so very quickly. In my opinion, to do > > otherwize is irrational. > > Pippin: > Do you remember Fake!Moody's advice in GoF? "Play to > your strengths?" Harry and Dumbeldore know that's what > Harry has to do. Harry's strength is not as a duellist. > ... As Snape demonstrated at the end of HBP, without > occlumency, one can only be a mediocre duellist. > > So that's that, and Harry will have to seek to defend > himself and defeat his opponents in other ways. What > Harry does have are his immense spiritual gifts and > his ingenuity. They will enable him to understand > Voldemort...That is what Dumbledore was trying to > show with his little history lessons, IMO. > > Harry doesn't need to learn to 'kick ass' and he knows > it, though he tends to forget in his rage at his > losses. The WW's graveyards are full of kickass wizards > who owe their presence there to Voldemort. > > Pippin > bboyminn: Again, I think you are mixing the internal and external perspective, though less so as this conversation goes on. I have already acknowledged that it will not be Harry's dueling skills that matter /in the end/, but we are not /in the end/, we are, in a sense, at the beginning. Also, remember that Dueling is only one of the many magical skills that Harry needs to win the day. He also needs to find, gather, and destroy the Horcruxes and he is thoroughly UNequiped to do so. He needs magical detections skills, he needs curse breaking skills, and it is going to take time to learn those. Keep in mind, that with Dumbledore gone, Harry's world has gotten very serious, and I expect him to mature immensely over the course of this next book, and I expect that /maturity/ to come on many fronts; magical, emotional, intellectual, etc.... We can't take Harry at the beginning of the book and transpost that person to the end of the book, nor can we take the Harry we will find at the end and transport him back to the beginning; something has to happen in between. A transition has to occur. So, Harry will grow older and wiser as the book goes on. He will gather new information and skills. With that new information and those new skill, he will evaluate the situation differently. Certainly, he must start putting the pieces of the puzzle together, but they are not going to fall in place until the very end. The real question is what should Harry be doing at the START of the next book? What should his long term priorities be? He has skill that he absolutely must learn. He knows he is going to have to fight a battle with Voldemort; it's unavoidable. Further he knows both intellectually and from experience that he is not going to get the pick the battle himself. It will come when Voldemort decides and no sooner or later. Given that the final battle will certainly be thrust upon Harry, he must be as ready for it as possible. In the mean time, he must gather his skills and resources for the Horcrux hunt. That is a lot of skill across a broad range of magic, and if Harry is not seeking out those skills then, as I said, all plausability in the storyline is lost. He has a great battle ahead, and he has to be ready, or as ready as he can be for it when it comes. Of course, he will never be ready enough. He can never meet Voldemort at Voldemort's level, but he's Harry, and he will do the best he can with what he has, but at the same time, any rational person is going to make sure they have as much as they can when the time comes. Ultimately, it will not be dueling skills that will save Harry or defeat Voldemort, but Harry really doesn't have any way of knowing that at this point in time. He may come to realize it to some degree, but that comes much later; very near the end. Personally, I think the Horcruxes are the ultimate McGuffin. They are simply the /thing/ Harry will focus on and struggle with as he learns the things he really needs to know to defeat Voldemort. It is the process of fighting smaller battles and struggling to overcome the Horcruxes that are going to take Harry on his path to intellectual, emotional, and magical maturity. In the end, that maturity combined with his other strengths and some new realization about Voldemort that are going to be what save the day. But in the beginning, he has magical trails and a great battle ahead of him. To not prepare long and hard for that is utterly insane. As I said, in the past, I can explain away Harry's inaction. But those excuses aren't working any more. Now it all falls on Harry, and he has to perpare himself to take on that burden. However, ultimately, in the end, it will not be the preparation that saves him, but what he gains from the /process/. What he gains from the growing maturity and wisdom, and from the realizations that wisdom brings. Yet, I say once again, /in the beginning/, it is completely insane, irrational, and storyline unblievable for Harry not to see the great need for his training, and take action based on that need. Remember the next book will not be static. We will see a great transition in Harry as it plays out; more than any other books. He will go from courageous but frightened little boy, to a fully grown, wise, and powerful wizard. Starting at the beginning of the next book as Harry looks forward in time and plans, how can he not see that he is greatly lacking in the necessary skills, and not attempt to correct that short fall? Now undoubtedly by the end of the book, it is going to be a whole new ballgame, but we have to start at the beginning and move forward. I'm not disagreeing that magical skills are not the key. I'm not disagreeing that, in some form, in the end, love will conquer all. What I am saying that the road between now and then is a long and hard road, and I really don't think at the beginning of the next book Harry is going to see any way, shape, or form in which he can practically apply the force of 'love'. At that point he will only be able to see and understand trained magical power and skill. Hey, I'm just saying.... Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 09:12:35 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:12:35 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: <005701c7315c$ff238a60$269e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163493 --- "Magpie" wrote: > > Steve: > > Again, we can use Hermione as the standard. We could > > even say that Hermione is an intellectual and magical > > genius, but she is not even remotely in the league > > of Tom, James, or Sirius. > > > > Now to Harry; Harry is basically a 'B' student, but > > ... Genius does not guarantee achievement. ... James > > and Lily were extremely talented, ... The son of two > > geniuses is very likely to be /smart/. > > Magpie: > To me it seems a lot simpler to just accept that > although we're told about certain people being geniuses > in the HP world, the world's not about intellectual > genius .... The magical system isn't written in a way > that much allows for it. ... > > Mostly what you've got is physical ability and > cleverness, .... Very little of anything studied is > exactly intellectual, yet we understand that Hermione > is supposed to be brainy because she can wave her wand > the right way on the first try. ... I can imagine Harry > growing up to be like Sirius, but that to me does not > equal Harry revealing himself to be an intellectual > giant. More like Harry growing up to be an expert > swordsman. > > Steve: > > So why doesn't Harry do better in school? Why > > hasn't he achieved things like the Marauder's Map or > > Animagus? I think part of it is Harry upbringing. To > > some extent, Harry has always had to suppress himself > > at the Dursleys. > > Magpie: > We've been living in Harry's head for 6 years and if > he were hiding Einstein in there I think we'd know it-- > ... Harry does fine in school, and isn't a genius or an > idiot. > > ... > > Magpie: > But where has this ever been presented in Harry's thought > processes when he'd rather play Quidditch than study or > have intellectual thoughts? ... > > From what I got from Carol's post, she seemed to be > saying that he was a perfectly fine student, but that > what he's really known for and what his strengths are > lie elsewhere. ... > > -m bboyminn: Apparently I've created the very misconception I intended to disspell. Note in the very first paragraph above, I mention TWO types of genius; intellectual and MAGICAL. They are not one in the same. Harry is above average intellectually. Again, a reminder that genius and achievement don't go hand in hand. But I think, and while I believe it firmly, I admit I have no direct evidence, that Harry has immense untapped magical power. I think he is a far above average wizard independant of his grades. Again, compare his achievements with that of other students. As Carol, or someone pointed out, the graveyards are full of very competent wizards who went up against Voldemort. Now Hermione on the other hand, has both intellectual and magical genius. Though my point was that on both fronts, she is on the low end of genius. Far and away above the other students, but still no where near Tom, James, or Sirius in a magical or intellecual talent. The books imply to us over and over that Harry is a very magically powerful wizard, and intellectually, I don't think he is a slouch even if his grades are only above average. In making this particular arguement, all I am saying is that Harry has vast untapped magical potential, and that when and if he lives to be 100, he will be considered a great and powerful wizard. Certainly, not even remotely in the league with Dumbledore, but so very very very few are in his league. I'm saying that people are underestimating Harry's magical potential. Certainly Tom, James, and Sirius had both intellect and magical potential. Harry has moderate intellect, but that doesn't diminish his magical potential in my book. Take the Twins for example, they are a classic case of underachieving geniuses. They do poorly in school, yet are able to apply magic with great skill. Their skill is certainly far above average; it even impresses Hermione. My point here is that genius and achievement, especially academic achievement, don't go hand in hand. Yet, in the end, when sufficiently motivated, underlying magical power comes forward. Harry's problem is that he is so very rarely sufficiently motivated, and what motivation he does have is twisted by his upbringing. You can't deny that living with the Dursleys has adversely affected Harry. That it has shaped his personality. Others may not see it, but I see it in everything that Harry does whether outgoing or introverted. And I see it in his struggle in his school work, but I also sense the underlying power that is not getting out. So, in summary, I was not intending to speak of intellectual genius, I was using magical genius as a metaphor for underlying magical power, something I think Harry has. Again, this is hinted at in the books, but it is never clearly demonstrated to a large degree. Harry does have his achievements; the Patronus for one. Even Viktor Krum said he was impressed by Harry's skill. So, it is certainly there struggling to get out. I think in the final book, we will see Harry grow tremendously. I think we will get a much truer sense of Harry's real underlying magical power. So, in short (if that's still possible), I was merely saying that I think people are magically underestimating Harry. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From Aixoise at snet.net Sat Jan 6 10:39:34 2007 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 05:39:34 -0500 Subject: Dueling was Re: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <025201c7317e$f5082320$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163494 bboyminn wrote: I have already acknowledged that it will not be Harry's dueling skills that matter /in the end/, but we are not /in the end/, we are, in a sense, at the beginning. Also, remember that Dueling is only one of the many magical skills that Harry needs to win the day. He also needs to find, gather, and destroy the Horcruxes and he is thoroughly UNequiped to do so. He needs magical detections skills, he needs curse breaking skills, and it is going to take time to learn those. Stacey now: (Apologizing profusely for 1) interrupting a very interesting discussion, 2)assuming this point hasn't already been made without a mad search of the archives and 3) changing the subject slightly).. Bboymin's post brought to mind a thought about dueling in the wizarding world. I wonder if during a true battle (i.e. the MOM scene in OotP, the battle at Hogwarts in HBP and what we might expect in the DH) dueling even has a place. Perhaps it is just semantics but to me, the idea of dueling actually has this GentleWizard/ GentleWitch connotation about it with large amounts of formalities that one usually forgoes in the midst of battle for dominance, murder or protection from either. Dueling in my mind conjures images of fair play, decorum and honor all things that I would imagine being seen as a complete waste of time during any of the great battles. If my memory is not too clouded by the images of the movie, in the cemetery scene in GOF, Voldemort does tend to the niceties of a duel but IMO this is only to patronize Harry and further humiliate him before (what Voldermort thinks will be) Harry's demise. It seems to me that this toying with Harry was part of the reason Harry was able to escape (with some much needed help from his parents of course) and I doubt that Voldemort will make the same mistake twice. In short, I do not believe that dueling will have any part in what will certainly amount to the most vicious and deadly (deathly?) of battles we shall ever "witness" in the books. Stacey (who's currently enjoying her first read of the series in French but is missing the wittier plays on words of the English Version) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 6 13:50:13 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 13:50:13 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163495 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Penny Brooks" wrote: > > After all these very serious discussions, I'm going to ask one that > could be deemed kind of dumb. But, I've been thinking about it for 2 > days now, and I'm stumped. > > Who does the laundry at Hogwarts? > > I've been rereading COS lately (for the 100th time), and it occurs to > me, when Dobby mentions that his masters (at that time) can't even pass > him a sock, for it would mean his freedom, that he can't pick up any > clothes. I also thought about GOF, when Hermione's trying to knit all > those hats, and the elves refuse to pick them up, and, seriously, they > can't (and won't) pick up any pieces of clothes. So, who does the > laundry? We never hear that there are any other servants in Hogwarts > (I guess Filch could be one, but he's the only one apart from the > staff). Or, is it a matter that they can do the laundry, if it's > clearly understood that it's not being given to them? > > All the problems and issues going on in the world, and this is the > matter that I get obsessed with. :) > > Penny Geoff: I think that a number of members who have responded to Penny's post have either misread or misinterpreted what has been written in the books about house-elves gaining their freedom. Here is what Dobby actually says: 'He blew his nose on a corner of the filthy pillowcase he wore, looking so pathetic that Harry felt his anger ebb away in spite of himself. "Why d'you wear that thing, Dobby?" he asked curiously. "This, sir?" said Dobby plucking at the pillowcase. "'Tis a mark of the house-elf's enslavement, Dobby can only be freed if his masters present him with clothes, sir. The family is careful not to pass Dobby even a sock, sir, for then he would be free to leave their house for ever."'' (COS "The Rogue Bludger" p.133 UK edition) In other words, any item of wear could do the trick... I wonder if this implies that if they drop a piece of clothing on the floor, it is not being "presented" to him? I can't visualise Narcissa even waving a wand to cast a Scourgify spell! From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 6 14:03:20 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:03:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163496 > bboyminn: > I have already acknowledged that it will not be Harry's > dueling skills that matter /in the end/, but we are not > /in the end/, we are, in a sense, at the beginning. > > Also, remember that Dueling is only one of the many > magical skills that Harry needs to win the day. He also > needs to find, gather, and destroy the Horcruxes and > he is thoroughly UNequiped to do so. He needs magical > detections skills, he needs curse breaking skills, and > it is going to take time to learn those. Pippin: Well, that would make a rather dull book, IMO. We're well into the climax of the series, and the time for charging through the swamp with his mentor in a backpack is past. So it's a good thing Harry *doesn't* have to learn all that stuff, IMO. Already he knows, that which he needs -- or his friends do.:) I imagine JKR can wring a chapter or two out of Harry angsting about his ignorance. But Bill already knows cursebreaking. Fred and George can probably come up with magical detection gadgets -- they managed to get the map working, after all. Harry doesn't have to tell anyone what it's all about, just that it will help him against Voldie. Harry's already made his way through a number of magical obstacle courses. He's already destroyed one horcrux without any harm to himself. That could be one of his special abilities, though if I were Harry I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. Still, the horcruxes don't have to be destroyed as soon as they're found. Grab 'em all, *then* chuck 'em through the veil, for example. I agree with you that Harry has gotten serious and that he will mature immensely. But it's crunch time -- any further growth will come as an epiphany, not a slow maturation of skills. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 6 14:23:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:23:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: <3202590701051943y6cd2f90eh2316469670ce724a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163497 > Sarah: > That's exactly why (while I don't see eye to eye on every detail of > the Snape debacle with Alla, or probably with anyone else, heh) I > agree with Alla that Snape is not dispensing useful hints to Harry at > the end of HBP. Since Harry is doomed never to master Occlumency, > there is no way a "reveal" can happen where Harry realizes "Oh, Snape > was totally right." He's never going to learn it, so Snape's > appearance of taunting is not misdirection since it cannot be later > proved correct. > Pippin: But Snape *is* totally right. Harry will be blocked until he masters occlumency, ie always, so the answer is to choose another form of battle. Going head to head with a more advanced wizard can only be Harry's last resort, not his first. For example, Harry could have set Buckbeak free himself if he'd thought of it. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 16:42:45 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:42:45 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163498 > > Sarah: > > That's exactly why (while I don't see eye to eye on every detail of > > the Snape debacle with Alla, or probably with anyone else, heh) I > > agree with Alla that Snape is not dispensing useful hints to Harry at > > the end of HBP. Since Harry is doomed never to master Occlumency, > > there is no way a "reveal" can happen where Harry realizes "Oh, Snape > > was totally right." He's never going to learn it, so Snape's > > appearance of taunting is not misdirection since it cannot be later > > proved correct. > > > > Pippin: > But Snape *is* totally right. Harry will be blocked until he masters > occlumency, ie always, so the answer is to choose another form > of battle. Going head to head with a more advanced wizard > can only be Harry's last resort, not his first. For example, > Harry could have set Buckbeak free himself if he'd thought of it. Alla: Except nowhere near in this scene Snape even implies IMO that Harry's answer is to go different way completely. If Snape is dispensing **useful advise** to Harry ( which as I said I do not think he is, I think it is either taunting that Harry is uncapable of using Unfogivables, or quite idiotic advise), that means that he is subtly encouraging Harry to learn Occlumency, not to learn something else entirely, no? Yeah, me thinks Snape would be mightily surprised when Voldie would be brought down by something similar to what happened in OOP and not by Harry packing away his emotions. JMO, Alla From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Jan 6 16:43:40 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:43:40 -0500 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163499 I think the master's intent is important. If one hands garments to a house-elf with the intent that s/he clean them and return them, that is one thing. If one hands a garment with the intent of getting rid of it, then that is another. That is why Lucius' throwing Harry's dirty sock and Dobby's catching it freed Dobby--Lucius DIDN'T WANT the sock back. 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 stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jan 6 17:03:06 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:03:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163500 > bboyminn: > Harry is on the inside looking out, and what he sees is > dark and extremely dangerous and certainly DEADLY. Jen: It's a good idea to consider this from Harry's perspective, so I'm looking through his eyes when answering, discovering where that leads. bboyminn: > And that seems to be Harry's attitude; he is going to > go down fighting. Dumbledore is telling him figuratively > that all he needs is a box of chocolates and some roses, > but Harry sees the deadly and destructive forces of > Voldemort and the Death Eaters, and I simply can't > believe that Harry is convinced a few hug and kisses and > a box of chocolates is going to do it, regardless of what > Dumbledore said. Jen: Harry is not convinced that love can help him, that's true. 'I know!' said Harry impatiently. 'I can love!' It was only with difficulty he stopped himself from adding, 'Big Deal'. Harry does realize he wants Voldemort gone and he wants to be the one to kill him, and not just because the prophecy 'forces' him to be the Chosen One. Harry accepts doing so will mean one of them will kill the other in the end. Dumbledore gives a very thorough explanation for why he believes Harry is protected from Voldemort and how he is 'marked as his equal', and then he and Harry come to an understanding of why Harry *will* be the one and not because he's forced by the prophecy. But Dumbledore doesn't resolve the dilemma of how point A and point B connect, and Harry doesn't ask. Okay, so this is the last real talk about how to proceed before Dumbledore dies. bboy: > Harry needs his machine gun; he needs his finely honed > and deeply skilled magical power, and the only way to > get that is to train long and hard. Now, I can excuse > Harry up to this point, because he always had > Dumbledore to fall back on; Dumbledore has a plan, > Dumbledore will protect me, Dumbledore will tell me what > to do, Dumbledore had the situation under control, but > Dumbledore is gone, and NOW EVERYTHING falls on Harry. > No More Excuses. Jen: After Dumbledore dies, Harry remembers Dumbledore talking about fighting evil, and fighting again....then he realizes the last and greatest of his protectors is gone and he feels very alone. We hear Harry's plan: hunt horcruxes and kill Voldemort. I do agree with you more here, now that I consider this from Harry's perspective. At least with the Horcruxes Harry has an idea of how to proceed, not a great idea, but he has an idea of the items he's hunting and knows he's destroyed one before. Killing Voldemort, though....Harry's never killed anyone, never come close, doesn't know how and he's facing killing the most powerful dark wizard *ever*. Right, that's a problem. bboy: > >From Harry's perspective he is hopelessly out manned and out > gunned, and if he has any chance of winning in his logical and > rational eyes, he must bring himself up to as close to Voldemort's > level of skill as he possibly can before the confrontation. He > must do that even knowing that he can never reach that > level....Again, if you place yourself in Harry's mind to do anything > else is completely irrational. Jen: Here's the point where Harry's internal perspective and yours diverge. Harry doesn't always think logically and rationally, he's heart and emotion. The above is more how Snape would think if he were the Chosen One. It's the way Hermione *does* think in HBP: 'I wonder what he'll teach you, Harry? Really advanced defensive magic, probably...powerful counter-curses...anti-jinxes....' There needs to be a discussion about how Harry will kill Voldemort, the trio was conveniently interrupted from discussing this in HBP. They will ponder the power, and Hermione will likely suggest exactly what you propose--skills training. Or one of the Lupin/Moody/Arthur trio will put two and two together about the Chosen One information and figure out they need to help train Harry now that Dumbledore is gone. But I see Harry refusing this course of action, rational or no. He's come too far, placed far too much trust in what Dumbledore has told him. He's taking this on faith, not rational, logical thought. That's just pure Harry to me, he isn't a planner, he's spontaneous, he doesn't always take the logical course of action.... From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:15:25 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:15:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163501 Alla: > > Except nowhere near in this scene Snape even implies IMO that Harry's answer is to go different way completely. *(snip)* Yeah, me thinks Snape would be mightily surprised when Voldie would be brought down by something similar to what happened in OOP and not by Harry packing away his emotions. Ceridwen: I think you're right: Snape will be surprised. But that doesn't mean that Snape thinks there's another way besides his. He could very well believe that the only way to beat Voldemort is the way he's been fooling him all this time, given DDM!Snape, of course. No matter how I read that scene, though, it just strikes the wrong chord to be taunting. Just my opinion, of course! Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 17:26:32 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:26:32 -0000 Subject: Dueling was Re: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: <025201c7317e$f5082320$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163502 --- "Stacey Nunes-Ranchy" wrote: > > > > bboyminn wrote: > > I have already acknowledged that it will not be Harry's > dueling skills that matter /in the end/, but we are not > /in the end/, we are, in a sense, at the beginning. > > Also, remember that Dueling is only one of the many > magical skills that Harry needs to win the day. ... > > > > > Stacey now: > > (Apologizing profusely for ... interrupting ... > > Bboymin's post brought to mind a thought about dueling > in the wizarding world. I wonder if during a true > battle ...dueling even has a place. Perhaps it is just > semantics but to me, the idea of dueling actually has > this GentleWizard/ GentleWitch connotation ... > > Stacey bboyminn: Apologies for my own slightly off topic reply. You are absolutely right, 'Dueling' occurs on many levels; Sport or Competition Dueling, Grudge-resolution Dueling, and what we are talking about 'Combat Dueling'. Really, 'Combat Dueling' is somewhat improper because in active combat there are no gentlemenly rules that are obeyed. It's kill or be killed, everyman for himself. But as with all subjects, we tend to find a shortcut way of expressing a concept, and in this case 'dueling' is our way of expressing a skill at engaging in and surviving combat that includes accuracy (something Neville greatly needs to practice), a thorough knowledge of effective curses and /counter curses/ and other spells. I think counter curses are important, more than once someone has been disabled by a curse that could be quickly removed if only someone had remembered the counter curse. I think a basic compliment of First Aid curses would go along way toward people surviving a combat engagement. My point is that I don't think it is reasonable for Harry not to start out obssessed with improving his skill in this area. Even having a desire to learn every dark and dangerous curse he has ever encountered. But as the books progresses I think people with cooler calmer minds and more experience will get him off the 'dark and dangerous' path. In his mind, what Harry knows right now is that he will have to find and destroy the Horcruxes then face Voldemort in a head-to-head to-the-death fight. And I have to reasonable believe /that he believes/ he will need to be as ready for that has he possibly can be. At this stage, I just can't see any other reasonable path. Even as I say that I know 'fighting and other magical skill' will not be the key in the end, I honestly don't think Harry is wise enough to see that from his perspective at this point in time. It is not what will matter to the story in the end that is important; it is what will matter to Harry when the next book starts, and I say the only rational thing is to start the long and hard preparation for the tasks ahead. In the end, things will change completely, but in the beginning, I just don't see any way Harry can take a passive approach even given what we know he knows. Fortunately, JKR has given Harry all the resources he needs to draw on to bring his skills up to speed; Bill, the Twins, Mad-Eye, and many others. I believe at some point Harry will even strike a deal with the Ministry to draw on their resources; though I am confident Harry will strike a deal that is extremely one sided and very much in his own favor. Just a few more thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jan 6 17:01:48 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:01:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) References: Message-ID: <004701c731b4$5b20a990$db8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163503 Steve: > I think in the final book, we will see Harry grow > tremendously. I think we will get a much truer sense of > Harry's real underlying magical power. > > So, in short (if that's still possible), I was merely > saying that I think people are magically underestimating > Harry. Magpie: That I can believe may definitely true. I guess for me I just had problems with considering all these people geniuses of any kind, because it really doesn't seem to interest Rowling. It's really a tangent to what you're describing. Like I said, when it comes to magical knowledge and prowess to me it seems like there's just no "there" there. There's nothing to learn, because Rowling hasn't worked it out. MWPP didn't create the Marauders Map because they are presented as amazingly genius characters, they did it so Harry could get this object for plot purposes and it would tie into them. The Twins are kind of the equivalent of game developers in our world--they have a talent in their area that would make them successful and they can be really creative about these things that interest them. But there's no real sense to it, because sometimes they sell things that don't go together. It's like instead of having someone be a believable game developer they also churn out cold remedies and weapons and sonnets--all the same way they make video games, because there's not really any method to it. And then the world is dumbed down so that whatever they create has never been created before, or not this well. So always the pinnacle is the smart kid in high school. So while I do agree especially with your thoughts on how within the story it's unrealistic for Harry to not want to work on his skills, my doubts about it come more from wondering just what there would be for him to learn. Even when he taught the DA it came down to, as usual, pointing your wand and saying the word (of a basic spell, because they cover most things you need to do) and when you got it right it would work. When you get up to what the books, imo, presents as the genius level--Dumbledore and Voldemort--it gets even vaguer. Voldeore puts a signature in his magic? You can read signatures in magic? How? It's so "advanced" we can't even begin to get how it works because the magic we've seen doesn't seem to work that way. Which is not to say that Harry couldn't, as you say, be exceptionally powerfully magically. He could. I just don't think he's got the stuff in his world for us to really follow him on a training course. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 17:32:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:32:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization/ Snape teaching Harry or taunting him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163504 > Ceridwen: > I think you're right: Snape will be surprised. But that doesn't mean > that Snape thinks there's another way besides his. He could very well > believe that the only way to beat Voldemort is the way he's been > fooling him all this time, given DDM!Snape, of course. No matter how I > read that scene, though, it just strikes the wrong chord to be taunting. > > Just my opinion, of course! > Alla: Right, as I was just telling you even though I truly believe that the possibility that Snape was taunting Harry that he is uncapable of using unforgivables is there, I can totally see that Snape believes that this is the way to get rid of LV ( closing his mind, shutting emotions, whatever) if he is DD!M of course. What I do not buy **at all** that this is an advise Harry has to follow, that this is wise advise, that unless Harry does as Snape says, he is **doomed**. I have a feeling that given all that we see - Harry's powers as emotionally based IMO, hints at Love as power, etc, Harry will have to do the exact opposite of what Snape says and of course that would lead to Snape dearest being surprised and boy, am I looking forward to that scene, if it is to come :)) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jan 6 17:55:00 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 17:55:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization/ Snape teaching Harry or taunting him In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163505 Alla: > Right, as I was just telling you even though I truly believe that the possibility that Snape was taunting Harry that he is uncapable of using unforgivables is there, I can totally see that Snape believes that this is the way to get rid of LV ( closing his mind, shutting emotions, whatever) if he is DD!M of course. Ceridwen: I think Snape is written to be seen as smart. He's been shown to be detailed on his essay questions on the O.W.L.s, he's been shown to have made improvements in his Potions book and to have invented his own spells. But smart doesn't mean he knows everything. I can so completely see him actually believing that, in beating LV, his way is the only way. This could be foreshadowed by Harry's disagreement with his way of dealing with Dementors. Alla: > What I do not buy **at all** that this is an advise Harry has to follow, that this is wise advise, that unless Harry does as Snape says, he is **doomed**. Ceridwen: Right. I think that's what this thread has evolved into. From Harry's point of view and that of others, Snape's advice may come across as the only way to do it, from a rational standpoint. How do you beat a powerful opponent? Become more powerful. Alla: > I have a feeling that given all that we see - Harry's powers as emotionally based IMO, hints at Love as power, etc, Harry will have to do the exact opposite of what Snape says and of course that would lead to Snape dearest being surprised and boy, am I looking forward to that scene, if it is to come :)) Ceridwen: Yes, everything we've been told by Dumbledore goes against what someone might logically think is the way to do it. So part of the fight in DH will be to go against logic. It's counter-intuitive. Steve, I think, or maybe it was Ken, had an example of fighting soldiers with either a gun or with candy and flowers. I think candy and flowers might have been just a little off. The analogy that would make more sense, *to me*, would be a choice between a gun and a good meal. The soldiers chasing you might be hungry and out of rations. The meal, to them, would be more effective. Snape created the logic problem in PS/SS. But Dumbledore's challenge was to just have the stone come to whoever wanted it without wanting to use it. Their approaches are very different in those protections, and they're different in the way they see as the right one to fight LV. They both work, but Hermione was the one to crack Snape's puzzle; Harry was the one to retrieve the stone. Ceridwen. From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 6 18:12:01 2007 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 18:12:01 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163506 Penny Brooks" wrote: > > Who does the laundry at Hogwarts? > > I've been rereading COS lately (for the 100th time), and it occurs to > me, when Dobby mentions that his masters (at that time) can't even pass > him a sock, for it would mean his freedom, that he can't pick up any > clothes. I also thought about GOF, when Hermione's trying to knit all > those hats, and the elves refuse to pick them up, and, seriously, they > can't (and won't) pick up any pieces of clothes. So, who does the > laundry? We never hear that there are any other servants in Hogwarts Some possibilities: Maybe their are other (human) servants but we don't hear about them, since they are not important to the story. People could do their own laundry, possibly by magic. Maybe Peeves loves to do laundry. (joke) lone_white_werewolf From davep747 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 6 19:35:47 2007 From: davep747 at yahoo.co.uk (davep747) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:35:47 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163507 > In a message dated 1/4/2007 7:19:49 PM Central Standard Time, > bboyminn at ... writes: > > > But here is the curious aspect, Hermyone62442, and a person she > references named Brandon, believe that the charm became obsolete when the Potters died. However, here are a few key quotes that make up the thrust of this post. > > "Brandon also reminded us that, undoubtedly, a full day had passed > before Hagrid retrieved Harry from Godric's Hollow." > I'm a bit baffled at the reason why a whole day would have passed. Just because Wormtail was the secret keeper. Does not mean that many others knew where the potters were at. There is a secret keeper for #12 GP, but all in the OOTP know about it and where it is. Why then is it not known by the Old OOTP where they are. As soon as the deed happened both DD and SB knew something was wrong. DD sent Hagrid. Nothing to say that Hadrid wasn't sent by DD via portkey. He and SB arrived at the same time. Black went to find Wormtail and gave up his cycle. In this way Harry could have only been there a short while. I do like the idea that Hadrid took Harry to get medical attention first. The portkey could have sent Hadrid, Harry and the cycle back to Hogwards at the same time. Then Hadrid could have used the cycle to get Harry to #4 GP. davep747 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 22:39:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 22:39:45 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163508 zanooda wrote: > > I think that, to be freed, an elf needs to recieve clothes from his > master's hands, not just pick them up from somewhere (the floor? a > hamper?). They seem to be allowed to handle clothes. Remember, in CoS one of the twins says their mother wishes they had a house-elf "to do ironing"? In GoF Fake!Moody summons Dobby to the staffroom "to > collect some robes for cleaning". > > What's more, at Hogwarts most of the laundry must come from the > students, and *their* clothes cannot free the elves, because the > students are not masters to the elves. That's why I believe > Hermione's hats and socks were just big waste of time and wool. Even > if the elves took the hats, they wouldn't get free, IMO. > > As for whoever is considered the Hogwarts elves master (the > headmaster and maybe the teachers?), well, he/they just have to be > careful not to pass any of their clothing directly to any elves and > they'll be fine. Always put your clothes away in the hamper! :-) Carol responds: I agree that this explanation is both simplest and most likely. Someone does laundry at Hogwarts and that someone (or "someones," if that's a word) is certainly not the students or the teachers. It has to be the house-elves, who clean the common room when it doesn't have Hermione hats in it. (Dobby does it when the other elves won't.) If simply touching a student's or a teacher's clothes freed a house-elf, all the house-elves would be Dobbys, free but working at Hogwarts by choice. And Dobby would have been free from the Malfoys long before. I think that the elf's master (or mistress) has to hand him (or her) clothes. Normally, they would do so with the intent of firing or freeing the elf. Picking up clothes lying on the floor or sent down the laundry chute wouldn't free the elf even if they belonged to the master/mistress of the house (or the headmaster in the case of Hogwarts). Dumbledore doesn't wash all those star-spangled robes he wears. Or his much-loved socks. Carol, wondering why Orion Black, a pureblood, owned trousers, a Muggle garment per the MoM officials at the TWT From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jan 6 22:50:47 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:50:47 EST Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163509 Mike: > So what happened to that boy in HBP? In every other book, Harry's > magical abilities are the lynchpin to the end results of the > penultimate or ultimate conflict of the book. > > What did he do in HBP? Well ... he apparated back to Hogsmeade. Wow, > what a show of magical ability. He couldn't even handle an > untransformed Greyback without help, much less land a single spell on > Snape. Remember, while he's chasing them through and out of the > castle, Harry thought stopping Snape was the key to rescuing > Dumbledore. He wasn't thinking revenge as he was catching up to Snape > and Draco. In his mind was the thought that he could somehow reverse > events if he stopped Snape from escaping. So where was that inate > magical ability when *Harry* thought he needed to do something? It > wasn't there, was it? What happened? How come a year older Harry's > power has failed him? I hate to think it was all for the storyline, > but I hasve no other explanation. This is my grievance with HBP, the > book. As a true DDM!Snape believer, I suggest that it's because *Snape* is powerfully magical and an integral part of the plan to defeat LV, and that Snape knew -- *really* knew -- what he had to do, and it wasn't to be captured by Harry. Annemehr Julie: Remember too that JKR has stated the last two books are really structured like one story (one book), so HBP ended right in the middle of that story. Thus the conflict at the end of HBP between Snape and Harry wasn't the final, nor the penultimate conflict of this story (or of the book if HBP and DH are essentially two parts of one book). That does make it hard to compare HBP with the previous five books in terms of story structure, but JKR did deliberately plan it this way. As for why Harry's magical ability failed him this time, it's because he wanted to do the undoable. What possible power is going to reverse Dumbledore's fate? A time-turner might do the trick, but not any power inherent within Harry or any other wizard. And by the time Harry caught up to Snape he was thinking about revenge. He was fighting wildly, without focus. I think that made the difference, and that's why Snape was right when he told Harry to "shut his mouth and close his mind." What he really meant was without some control Harry won't be able to focus his power--wizardly or emotional--neither to protect himself nor to defeat Voldemort. All he'll do is flail, impotently, as he did against Snape. Julie, who thinks Snape doesn't see Harry clearly (and vice versa) but does know how uncontrolled emotion/passion can lead one down a destructive path. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 23:06:12 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:06:12 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: <004701c731b4$5b20a990$db8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163510 --- In HPforGrownups/message/163490, "Magpie" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > To me it seems a lot simpler to just accept that > > although we're told about certain people being geniuses > > in the HP world, the world's not about intellectual > > genius .... Mike: Right, the HP world is about *magic*. However much this story is about Harry the everykid/man, the story first and foremost is about wizards and witches and their ability to do magic. The great protaganist Voldemort, is *that* because he is "powerfully magical", not just because he's a sadistic psychopath. Harry survived GH because of magic, not just because his mother loved him but because his mother could turn that love into *magical* protection. How and why someone is "powerfully magical" is not explained, but it exists in this world and to deny the impact is to deny a major storyline. And I'm not saying anyone is denying it, I'm saying downplaying it because it doesn't sound interesting enough is a mistake of ommission. Whatever Harry's final solution to the Voldemort problem will be, magic will have to be included in the solution. But, as Steve has already pointed out, just to get there, just to get to the final showdown, Harry will have to avail himself of some interesting and some banal magical solutions. IOW, to find and destroy the Horcruxes (whether they are McGuffins or not, that's where Harry is headed at the beginning of DH), to just survive until the endgasme, Harry needs to arm himself with as much magical ability he can. --- In HPforGrownups/message/163493, "Steve" wrote: > > Steve: > > I think in the final book, we will see Harry grow > > tremendously. I think we will get a much truer sense of > > Harry's real underlying magical power. > > > > So, in short (if that's still possible), I was merely saying > > that I think people are magically underestimating Harry. > Mike: Exactly! I'll even stick my neck out here to predict that Harry's final solution will involve his usage of that *magical* quality that he and only he brings to the table. Whatever the power of love is, *if* that's where JKR is going, Harry will demonstrate the ability to harness it like no other wizard has before him. --- In HPforGrownups/message/163503, "Magpie" wrote: > Magpie: > > Like I said, when it comes to magical knowledge and prowess to me > it seems like there's just no "there" there. There's nothing to > learn, because Rowling hasn't worked it out. Mike: I'm not sure from where you base this on. I read somewhere that JKR has introduced at least 10 new spells in each book, not counting the spells we see (from Harry's pov) but don't know what they are or what they do. There are surely more spells that Harry could learn, like the ones used by the Order in the MoM battle. Deciding that new magical spells would be mundane (someone wrote that, can't remember who), would be removing much of the *excitement* from the book. One of the reasons JKR and Harry Potter is such a phenomenon is because she got *boys* to read again. Take the magic out and where is she with that readership? But beyond that, she has shown Harry to produce prodigious feats of magic, besides his ability to remain clear and quick thinking under pressure, right up to OotP. IMO, he seems to regress slightly in HBP. She needs to continue that storyline, imo, advance Harry's magical knowledge if for no other reason than to be true to her own story. --- In HPforGrownups/message/163503, "Magpie" wrote: > Magpie: > So while I do agree especially with your thoughts on how within the > story it's unrealistic for Harry to not want to work on his skills, > my doubts about it come more from wondering just what there would > be for him to learn. Mike: It's not so much *what* he needs to learn, there are a lot of *whats* available to Harry even if we don't know them because JKR hasn't told us (or, as you have rightly suggested, JKR hasn't invented them). It's more of Harry should be shown as trying to advance himself in this area. IMO, he should have started before book/year 7. --- In HPforGrownups/message/163503, "Magpie" wrote: > Magpie: > Which is not to say that Harry couldn't, as you say, be > exceptionally powerfully magically. He could. I just don't > think he's got the stuff in his world for us to really > follow him on a training course. Mike: You have to think of it the way Steve said earlier; the internal pov of Harry vs. the external pov that we have reading the story. Right now, I think you're mixing those two in a way that won't allow you accept the more "mundane" magical preparation. I'll try to analogize it this way. Say a mob boss is after you, the top guy, with a lot of muscle, both physical and political. Now your mentor gives you a special gun that will kill this guy if you can get close enough to him. Problem is, you don't know where to get the bullets for this special gun and your mentor forgot to tell you how to fire it. Do you arm yourself in the meantime with regular and maybe some hightech weapons that you can get and can learn how to use to defend yourself? Remember, it's not just the top guy you have to worry about, he has all these minions that you've already had run-ins with. Wouldn't you want to make sure that his cronies can't neutralize you before you figure out how to work your special gun? IMO, that's where Harry is at. He may even have stepped out of his immediate pov to realize that the *power of love* will save him and defeat Voldemort. Fine. How does he get from here to there? Are there spells for breaking curses if he finds another Horcrux guarded like the ring was? Is there a healing spell, in case something else demands a blood payment? Is there an anti-apparation spell, to stop someone (cough, Mundungus, cough) from escaping before you can get some information or thing from them? Is there a drying spell, in case you have to wade through frigid water again? (Was there anything more pathetic than the visual of Harry standing in the outer cave shivering while watching Dumbledore?) Hell, he generated some force, like an electric shock, which caused Vernon to release him in OotP. Could he maybe figure out how he did that? Sure, Harry will get help from his friends. Is that a valid excuse for not learning *some* of this himself? I hope Harry has "learned more than he realizes", and will display this knowledge in DH. I just wish he would have shown some flashes of this knowledge/ability in HBP. Mike From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 6 23:20:49 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:20:49 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: <700201d40701051254u55aa664aw41f51f5f6e2dc6b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163511 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: Kemper: > The etymology of 'fidelis' (faithful) stems from 'fides' (faith). > To be faithful is different than being loyal. One suggests a belief > or trust in something/one, the other an obligation to something/one. > > Regardless, Peter was neither faithful nor loyal to the Potters at the > time the charm was performed. "Some one close to the Potters" was > passing information. So how complex can the charm be if Peter can > fake it? Peter knew he would tell Voldemort the secret as it was > being concealed inside him. Geoff: I think you are splitting hairs here and that your argument is not really valid. My Latin dictionary gives "fides" as: faith; trust; confidence; belief; credence; loyalty; honesty; allegaince; promise; security; protection. While the English-Latin section gives "Fides" for both "loyalty" and "faith" and in both cases the adjective form is "fidelis". My usual English dictionary gives: "faithful > adjective 1 remaining loyal and steadfast....." and under "loyal" gives one synonym as "faithful". I see no obligation or compulsion implicit in either of the words and personally would use them interchangeably. Hence, I don't see precisely where your divergence in meanings is leading..... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 6 23:23:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 23:23:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163512 > Julie, who thinks Snape doesn't see Harry clearly (and vice versa) but does > know > how uncontrolled emotion/passion can lead one down a destructive path. Alla: Actually, I really really doubt that Snape knows anything about that. I have a feeling that we will learn that in the past Snape did exactly that - stopped wearing his heart on his sleeve (I of course agree that Snape little speech in OOP was about him), but I do think that it did not do Snape much good, in a sense that he did not act on his best emotions when he should have done so. Don't ask me about details of course :) I am convinced that to win Harry will have to do just that - act with his heart. Of course I think it is pretty much a given that to tap in his full potential, Harry will have to be more focused, but I am not sure that it will have anything to do with closing his mind and heart, I am thinking the opposite. And yeah, it may be that Harry's power will manifest itself a little uncontrollably, instinctively, like I don't know - Harry doing some good deed and being able to do some spell after that? We shall see, hehe. Alla, rambling one. From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Sat Jan 6 23:25:14 2007 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:25:14 +1100 Subject: Taunting/teaching - was Re: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <298EBFBA-9DDD-11DB-9436-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 163513 As I have been reading this thread my own point of view has not really been expressed. (I do think that Snape is DD's man, FWIW.) Snape is angry, frustrated, grieving and trying to finish a job which has taken all his inner resources to complete. Now the kid is making it more difficult (as usual). Snape just wants him out of the way. He's not allowed to kill him - the kid bears all their hopes - and the stupid moron WON'T TAKE A HINT! I think Snape expresses his own opinion. He says what he really thinks, which can be summarised as 'Stop being a moron, kid, and learn some skills. Now get out of my way; I am having a BAD DAY!' I think the fact that Harry isn't dead or badly injured is pretty good evidence of Snape's allegiance. Jocelyn From scarah at gmail.com Sat Jan 6 23:40:09 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:40:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701061540r3a384253k3c2e67a13c5e8e68@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163514 > Alla: > > > > Except nowhere near in this scene Snape even implies IMO that Harry's > answer is to go different way completely. *(snip)* > > Yeah, me thinks Snape would be mightily surprised when Voldie would be > brought down by something similar to what happened in OOP and not by > Harry packing away his emotions. > > Ceridwen: > I think you're right: Snape will be surprised. But that doesn't mean > that Snape thinks there's another way besides his. He could very well > believe that the only way to beat Voldemort is the way he's been > fooling him all this time, given DDM!Snape, of course. No matter how I > read that scene, though, it just strikes the wrong chord to be taunting. Sarah: The question is whether Snape figured out from the lessons what JK expressed in the TLC/Mugglenet interview. Snape might think it's his way or the highway, but it's hard to believe he really harbors any delusion of Harry learning to become a great Occlumens. It's telling that Dumbledore's given up on it too as of HBP. If he held out any hope for Harry's Occlumency, he'd never drop it, and why wouldn't he hold out hope, unless it was because of what he heard from Snape? The strange part is the two parts of the rant together. The part about not using Unforgivables is true and good advice, even if he really just means "Ha ha you are worthless at the Unforgivables." The fact that the part about Occlumency comes right along with it causes a tendency to read it in the same way, except that as readers we know it's useless advice, and I think Snape knows that too. Sarah From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jan 7 00:19:39 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:19:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: <3202590701061540r3a384253k3c2e67a13c5e8e68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163515 Sarah: > The question is whether Snape figured out from the lessons what JK expressed in the TLC/Mugglenet interview. Snape might think it's his way or the highway, but it's hard to believe he really harbors any delusion of Harry learning to become a great Occlumens. *(snip)* Ceridwen: It's funny to think of the characters reading JKR's interviews. Like words from their Creatrix. :) I don't think Snape thinks Harry would be a great Occlumens. He would need to be to do what Snape does, and it would have helped during OotP when LV was trying to trick him about Sirius, but even a rudimentary knowledge of Occlumency would have made it easier to distinguish between his own honest emotions and the emotions LV was sending his way. OotP is over, and LV has closed, at least temporarily, the connection between himself and Harry. Your mileage may vary on that. If Harry would try to fool LV, as Snape does, and as we are led to believe that Draco might try after his talk with Snape at Christmas, then yes, he would need to be much better than Draco, whose attempt is obvious. But during a duel, all Harry would only need to block his opponent from seeing which spell he was planning to use. Basic, obvious Occlumency would work serviceably. Which is why I see a large discrepancy between the way Snape sees the upcoming confrontation and the way Dumbledore must have seen it. Snape thinks there will be a showdown where Occlumency will make a difference. Dumbledore said he didn't think it was necessary. So, Harry will have to do things a different way than Snape, and he will get different results. His mission is different. Since Snape, in my opinion, can't or won't see that there is a different way, he is really straining to get his opinion heard and possibly followed, given DDM!Snape, of course. Just my opinion. Ceridwen, whose fingers aren't working tonight, and whose brain isn't doing that well, either. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jan 7 00:42:01 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 19:42:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) References: Message-ID: <00ac01c731f4$a5f42290$db8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163516 >> Magpie: >> >> Like I said, when it comes to magical knowledge and prowess to me >> it seems like there's just no "there" there. There's nothing to >> learn, because Rowling hasn't worked it out. > > Mike: > I'm not sure from where you base this on. I read somewhere that JKR > has introduced at least 10 new spells in each book, not counting the > spells we see (from Harry's pov) but don't know what they are or what > they do. Magpie: Yes, she works out the spells that she's using in the plot--I'm not denying that whatever happens has to be magical. If it's love, it will be love that manifests in a magical way against Voldemort magic--just as Harry defeated him in GoF through the magical wand connection etc. What I'm saying that JKR doesn't work out is detail beyond so that it's always something we can see Harry study. We usually basically get: here is a new magical thing and here is how it works. For instance, Horcruxes were introduced in HBP. They are soul pieces incased in objects and you have murder someone to make one. But it's not like Harry studies the magical science of Horcruxes. Portkeys are introduced in GoF and used again later. It's introducing a device. So there's plenty of things Harry's going to have to try to do, but the mechanics of it usually seem pretty straightforward. That's how JKR introduces things--and always before they're used in the plot. Mike: > There are surely more spells that Harry could learn, like the ones > used by the Order in the MoM battle. Magpie: So I'm honestly curious--do those seem to you to be important to learn? Because they didn't seem always so different than the ones Harry and his friends know. It's a variation on doing something physical to a person to make them fall down or otherwise be incapacitated. That's what the DA did too. Harry run --it's like when he practices Accio throughout GoF and then does it when he needs it. It gives him something to work on and you know he'll use it. The ending surprise magic seems to me to usually be about it being a surprise for Harry as well. It doesn't remove the magic--it's just not magic that Harry's rehearsed. Sydney wrote about this once before, how the Voldemort scenes tend to bring Harry into a more of a dream-reality where things happen symbolically. That's what Lily's magic was as well. She didn't prepare her protection spell, it was just a mother protecting her child and choosing to die and the magic took care of itself. I don't know if she herself would even have to be the most powerful witch. If Harry brings out some important magic in the end, as I think he will, I don't think it will be something that he's prepared for at all. Mike: > But beyond that, she has shown Harry to produce prodigious feats of > magic, besides his ability to remain clear and quick thinking under > pressure, right up to OotP. IMO, he seems to regress slightly in HBP. > She needs to continue that storyline, imo, advance Harry's magical > knowledge if for no other reason than to be true to her own story. Magpie: I wouldn't be surprised if, after the first half of the story in HBP, Harry makes a lot more of that kind of progress in DH. Ironically, it's when he leaves school that he seems ready to get serious about this kind of thing. But it makes sense too, in a way. > Mike: > You have to think of it the way Steve said earlier; the internal pov > of Harry vs. the external pov that we have reading the story. Right > now, I think you're mixing those two in a way that won't allow you > accept the more "mundane" magical preparation. Magpie: No, I agree with Steve's point there and definitely accept the idea. All Harry's got next year is a mission to destroy the Horcruxes and kill Voldemort, and I there could be plenty of magic lessons to prepare for that. I suspect there might be more compelling stuff involved in getting all the chess pieces into the right place, though, like with finding out about Regulus Black, and something happening with Snape and Draco, etc. Mike: > I'll try to analogize it this way. Say a mob boss is after you, the > top guy, with a lot of muscle, both physical and political. Now your > mentor gives you a special gun that will kill this guy if you can get > close enough to him. Problem is, you don't know where to get the > bullets for this special gun and your mentor forgot to tell you how > to fire it. Do you arm yourself in the meantime with regular and > maybe some hightech weapons that you can get and can learn how to use > to defend yourself? Remember, it's not just the top guy you have to > worry about, he has all these minions that you've already had run-ins > with. Wouldn't you want to make sure that his cronies can't > neutralize you before you figure out how to work your special gun? Magpie: Yes, I completely already agree with the logic of this. I'm not sure it will be the focus of the book, even for Harry. But that's only because I don't think I predict what JKR will do. I see the logic in everything you're saying here, though. He's got to do *something* regardless of what it is--I don't think he can just wait around for something to happen. Mike: > Are there spells for breaking curses if he finds another Horcrux > guarded like the ring was? Is there a healing spell, in case > something else demands a blood payment? Is there an anti-apparation > spell, to stop someone (cough, Mundungus, cough) from escaping before > you can get some information or thing from them? Is there a drying > spell, in case you have to wade through frigid water again? (Was > there anything more pathetic than the visual of Harry standing in the > outer cave shivering while watching Dumbledore?) Hell, he generated > some force, like an electric shock, which caused Vernon to release > him in OotP. Could he maybe figure out how he did that? Magpie: Sure, like the way she'd mention them learning a certain spell in school that would then get used later. (That's of course a danger when it comes to the suspense--we wouldn't want it to just become like another videogame where Harry gains all sorts of powers that we then know he's going to use at the correct time.) Hermione's probably got a lot of these kinds of spells already, but as I think someone else said, I think Harry's got a lot to do in the next book without spending too much page time doing this. Mike: > Sure, Harry will get help from his friends. Is that a valid excuse > for not learning *some* of this himself? I hope Harry has "learned > more than he realizes", and will display this knowledge in DH. I just > wish he would have shown some flashes of this knowledge/ability in > HBP. Magpie: Yup, that makes sense. But it might also be a sign of things to come, that after a book more focused on learning with OWLS (which even so didn't have Harry learning all that many spells), and Harry being good enough to teach others with stuff he learned before fifth year, JKR didn't think it was odd to give Harry practically a year off. Though to be fair, he *did* do the kind of thing you're describing--he learned a spell to keep people from eavesdropping, and a spell to flip them up in the air, and a spell to cut them as with a sword. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 00:45:31 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:45:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: <3202590701061540r3a384253k3c2e67a13c5e8e68@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163517 --- Scarah wrote: > > > Alla: > > > > > > Except nowhere near in this scene Snape even > > > implies IMO that Harry's answer is to go > > > different way completely. *(snip)* > > > > ... > > > > Ceridwen: > > I think you're right: Snape will be surprised. But > > that doesn't mean that Snape thinks there's another > > way besides his. ... No matter how I read that > > scene, though, it just strikes the wrong chord to > > be taunting. > > Sarah: > The question is whether Snape figured out from the > lessons what JK expressed in the TLC/Mugglenet interview. > Snape might think it's his way or the highway, but it's > hard to believe he really harbors any delusion of Harry > learning to become a great Occlumens. > > It's telling that Dumbledore's given up on it too as of > HBP. If he held out any hope for Harry's Occlumency, > he'd never drop it,... The fact that the part about > Occlumency comes right along with it causes a tendency > to read it in the same way, except that as readers we > know it's useless advice, and I think Snape knows that > too. > > Sarah bboyminn: Some seem to think that Snape and Harry's conversation at the end of that previous book (HBP) was a special rant reserved just for Harry. But /I/ am very confident that Snape's statements are exactly what he would have told any student in Harry's situation. Like it or not, Harry has a big fight ahead of him. If he expects to win, then he needs to be far better than he is (from the point of view of any of the characters). Every student is expected to become proficient in non- verbal spells; it was required in every 'spell' oriented class taught at Hogwarts in 6th year. If Harry has any hope of winning then he needs to quit whining and LEARN HIS LESSONS. Most wizards have the luxury of many years to gradually gain skill in Occlumency and Legilimency. Harry needs to know it NOW. He will go up against some of the most vicious and skilled wizard in the wizard world. He needs to learn to give himself very possible advantage IF HE EVEN REMOTELY HOPES TO WIN. Now, JKR said Harry would never be /good/ at Occulmency, but I don't think he is hopeless at it. He has shown skill at resisting the Imperius Curse, and he has shown that when he truly does not want his thoughts seen, he can stop them one way or another. So, I believe he does have some skill in this area that he can apply when he is desperate. So, why didn't it work when Snape cornered him after he curse Draco in the bathroom. I think it is because Harry was racked with guilt over having harmed Draco so drastically. He knew he didn't want his source of that spell seen, but he also knew that he was guilty of something terrible. I think his conscience more than anything brought forth the thought of his Potions Book. Harry can't use Unforgivables, or he will descend to Barty Crouch Sr.'s levels. He will become the very thing he is fighting. Everything Snape told Harry was true and sound advice, and advice that Snape would have given anyone in Harry's shoes. Harry needs skill if he expects to survive. He needs to block his thoughts if he has any hope of battling far better wizards. He would certainly be at an advantage if he could muster a bit of Legilemency too. He needs to learn to fight effectively, and in my view as much as Harry did not want to hear it from Snape; Snape gave Harry the best possible advice anyone could have given him. Which I will summerize as 'quit whining, get up off you ass, and start preparing yourself with the skills that any fool can see that you need'. That's not taunting, that is good advice expressed with a very valid degree of annoyance and frustration. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 00:58:57 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:58:57 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163518 > >>Mike: > Right, the HP world is about *magic*. However much this story is > about Harry the everykid/man, the story first and foremost is about > wizards and witches and their ability to do magic. > > How and why someone is "powerfully magical" is not explained, but > it exists in this world and to deny the impact is to deny a major > storyline. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, actually, I completely disagree with you here, Mike. I think magic is a stage dressing more than the *foundation* of JKR's world. Otherwise, there'd be a lot more information on how the magic actually works: logic, theory, etc. IMO, anyway. Instead it's sort of pasted into the world. Do X and Y happens, but we see nothing to show the *why*. It's pretty and glittery and can stand in beautifully for real world things (a mother's love physically saving her child from harm for example) but it's not a story line, it's a prop. > >>Mike: > I'll even stick my neck out here to predict that Harry's > final solution will involve his usage of that *magical* quality > that he and only he brings to the table. > Betsy Hp: I agree that the end game will involved something special Harry brings to the table, but I doubt it will be some sort of specific magical quality or even ability. We've already seen Harry in action when he destroyed Tom's diary. And that didn't have any special *magical* skill behind it. It was Harry's instinctual use of the Basilisk fang, which is magical in a way but not specifically. (I think more can be made of the irony of Harry's choice than the magical understanding it took.) I think it's also important to note that both the magically powerful Dumbledore, and plain old 12 year old Harry have destroyed a horcrux; and Harry did the better job. > >>Magpie: > > Like I said, when it comes to magical knowledge and prowess to > > me it seems like there's just no "there" there. There's nothing > > to learn, because Rowling hasn't worked it out. > >>Mike: > I'm not sure from where you base this on. I read somewhere that JKR > has introduced at least 10 new spells in each book, not counting > the spells we see (from Harry's pov) but don't know what they are > or what they do. > Betsy Hp: Right, but there's not an underlying logic to the magic. (I'm not sure if this is what Magpie meant, I'm speaking for myself, as usual .) Is it a pagan based thing like harnessing powers from various god-like beings? Is it a science based thing like using physical forces of the earth's magnatisim only folks with a certain genome can tap into? We've yet to see Harry taught an underlying magical truth he can use to build his own magic on. It's all rote and memorization. Frankly, because I think JKR could really care less about the magic. She has fun coming up with the names of spells, but she's not into figuring out a methodology. > >>Mike: > One of the reasons JKR and Harry Potter is such a phenomenon is > because she got *boys* to read again. Take the magic out and where > is she with that readership? Betsy Hp: Cheering madly as Harry outflies a dragon? > >>Mike: > But beyond that, she has shown Harry to produce prodigious feats of > magic, besides his ability to remain clear and quick thinking under > pressure, right up to OotP. Betsy Hp: Really? I don't recall that at all. I mean, not that Harry's an idiot, or a Hogwarts failure or anything. But I don't recall Harry demonstrating amazing magical ability to defeat his foes. About the only thing that comes to mind is his Patronus in PoA, and that was a cheat of a sort (the time-turner was a big help). Again, not to undermine Harry at all. But he learns very specific skills that aren't excessively amazing in and of themselves. He defeats the GoF dragon with his flying ability and an accio, not his understanding of tranfiguration pushed to a new level. > >>Mike: > IMO, he seems to regress slightly in HBP. She needs to continue > that storyline, imo, advance Harry's magical knowledge if for no > other reason than to be true to her own story. Betsy Hp: Keeping in mind that HBP is part one Harry is right where he usually is: failing miserably at a specific magical skill he needs to learn. So yeah, I expect he'll figure out non-verbal skills (and be very good at them) in DH. But it won't be (I think) a sudden understanding of everything magical (ala Dumbledore, Snape and Voldemort). It will be a very specific and limited skill. > >>Magpie: > > So while I do agree especially with your thoughts on how within > > the story it's unrealistic for Harry to not want to work on his > > skills, my doubts about it come more from wondering just what > > there would be for him to learn. > >>Mike: > It's not so much *what* he needs to learn, there are a lot of > *whats* available to Harry even if we don't know them because JKR > hasn't told us (or, as you have rightly suggested, JKR hasn't > invented them). > It's more of Harry should be shown as trying to advance himself in > this area. IMO, he should have started before book/year 7. Betsy Hp: Oh, Harry should have started in PS/SS quite frankly. I mean, he knows Voldemort is after him specifically (though not exactly why) in his first year. And yet he still doesn't focus in on becoming a wizard to match Voldemort. Heck, while swearing revenge on Sirius in PoA his big study effort is a means to improve his quidditch game. But Harry still manages to prevail in all of his challanges without being a magical prodigy (mainly, I think, with his ability to accept help). I doubt this last book will be any different. > >>Mike: > > Sure, Harry will get help from his friends. Is that a valid excuse > for not learning *some* of this himself? I hope Harry has "learned > more than he realizes", and will display this knowledge in DH. I > just wish he would have shown some flashes of this > knowledge/ability in HBP. Betsy Hp: Harry will depend on his friends, that's his MO. And he'll call on his specific skill set. And yes, he'll learn a bit (or make use of stuff he's had difficulty learning in HBP). But there's not going to be (I think) a major skill gaining session in the opening of DH. It's not that there isn't a logical reason for Harry to embark on a heavy duty training regimen, it's just out of character, for both Harry and JKR. I expect more book study than spell study. (Though I do think Harry will work on his non-verbals.) Betsy Hp (noticing Magpie's already answered this post, but darn it, I'm posting this anyway .) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 01:29:11 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:29:11 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163519 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > > Mike previously: > > So what happened to that boy in HBP? In every other book, > > Harry's magical abilities are the lynchpin to the end results > > of the penultimate or ultimate conflict of the book. > > > Julie: > Remember too that JKR has stated the last two books are really > structured like one story (one book), so HBP ended right in the > middle of that story. Thus the conflict at the end of HBP between > Snape and Harry wasn't the final, nor the penultimate conflict of > this story (or of the book if HBP and DH are essentially two > parts of one book). That does make it hard to compare HBP with > the previous five books in terms of story structure, but JKR did > deliberately plan it this way. Mike: You know Julie, this might be the best explanation I've read. Of course, it does mean that JKR did omit or regress Harry's magical advancement for purposes of storyline. If this is the answer, I don't like it, I believe it, but I don't like it, not one bit. > Julie: > As for why Harry's magical ability failed him this time, it's > because he wanted to do the undoable. What possible power is > going to reverse Dumbledore's fate? Mike: My point was that Harry did not start out after Snape with revenge on his mind. He even started the whole encounter with a "Stupefy", an attempt to stop Snape. After that the whole encounter went downhill for Harry. And that's when he attempts the "Crucios", Sectumsempras", etc. Why? How does he go from savior mode to a revenge minded, attempting to hurt, firing off (well.. trying to) UFs and dark spells. It all goes pear-shaped for Harry when Snape stops and turns around to face Harry. I guess that's my answer. Until Harry saw Snape's face, it was all a concept, mis-guided as you said it was. After looking at Snape's face, Harry lost whatever objectivity he may have had in this pursuit. Re-reading helps :-) > Julie: > And by the time Harry caught up to Snape he was thinking about > revenge. He was fighting wildly, without focus. Mike: Or I could've just read your post further down. > Julie: > I think that made the difference, and that's why Snape was > right when he told Harry to "shut his mouth and close his mind". > What he really meant was without some control Harry won't be > able to focus his power--wizardly or emotional--neither to > protect himself nor to defeat Voldemort. All he'll do is flail, > impotently, as he did against Snape. > > Julie, who thinks Snape doesn't see Harry clearly (and vice > versa) but does know how uncontrolled emotion/passion can lead one > down a destructive path. Mike, who has no comments for Julie's closing, just liked her analysis and think it deserved to be repeated. From fourpawsg at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 01:52:25 2007 From: fourpawsg at gmail.com (Lois) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 01:52:25 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163520 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Penny Brooks" wrote: > > After all these very serious discussions, I'm going to ask one that > could be deemed kind of dumb. But, I've been thinking about it > for 2 days now, and I'm stumped. > > Who does the laundry at Hogwarts? Hi Penny, Hummm, Now that is a good question! I didn't read in any of the books how their Laundry gets done, unless it is sent to the Parents of the Childrens Homes and done that way, then sent back. MO. Just as good as anybodies ideas. Lois From fourpawsg at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 02:03:13 2007 From: fourpawsg at gmail.com (Lois) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 02:03:13 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163521 Hello I Believed right from the Beginning that Snape was going to be a Nasty actor, then knew it by the time I read the second Book "The Secret Chamber". So I wasn't surprised by time I read "The Halfblood Prince" He would go back to Voldamort. Harry Knew all along but could not get anyone to listen to him. Not even his closest friends, or Dumbledore. When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? Lois/fourpawsg From Ajohnson5 at oh.rr.com Sun Jan 7 02:52:01 2007 From: Ajohnson5 at oh.rr.com (April Johnson) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:52:01 -0500 Subject: Hogwarts Laundry References: Message-ID: <002601c73206$ce5ef270$6601a8c0@april> No: HPFGUIDX 163522 Penny Brooks wrote: > > After all these very serious discussions, I'm going to ask one that > could be deemed kind of dumb. But, I've been thinking about it > for 2 days now, and I'm stumped. > > Who does the laundry at Hogwarts? April writes now: I think its more of an intent thing. JMO, no canon support. The laundry is the property of the students and isn't intended for the houseelves. They are just doing a job cleaning them and returning them to their owners. Where, Hermiones hats are intended for them. So maybe its the intent behind it that makes the 'freedome contract'. April_,_._,___ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From scarah at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 02:54:38 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 18:54:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701061854x505235f7oa110b2315344f1ef@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163523 Lois: > When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? Sarah: I think we still haven't figured it out yet. Sarah From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Jan 7 03:14:01 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 19:14:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163524 Lois wrote: I Believed right from the Beginning that Snape was going to be a Nasty actor, then knew it by the time I read the second Book "The Secret Chamber". So I wasn't surprised by time I read "The Halfblood Prince" He would go back to Voldemort. Harry Knew all along but could not get anyone to listen to him. Not even his closest friends, or Dumbledore. When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? Sherry now: Actually, you'll discover that most people on this list still don't believe Snape is bad. For me, I believed that he was a mean, rotten, cruel and sadistic bastard, but essentially on the good side, right up till he murdered Dumbledore. I hated his guts, but I believed that for whatever reason, he was against Voldemort and was working for Dumbledore to bring down Voldemort. However, that all ended when he took out his wand and blasted Dumbledore off the tower. I don't know if I think he supports Voldemort or was just being a coward and saving his own skin, in true Slytherin style. After all, Phineas Nigelus said that a Slytherin would save his own skin first. But again, for whatever reason, I believe he murdered Dumbledore in cold blood. No excuse, no redemption scene will ever minimize or justify that for me. Only if it turns out that Dumbledore died of something else and Snape was just masking that death and pretended to use the killing curse. But I don't expect that to happen. If the story ends up that DD was dying or died from the potion in the cave, the potion that Harry forced him to drink, and Snape faked the AK to cover that up, I'll want to throw up. That would make Snape too heroic for me, and I'd be borrowing lupinlore's wood chipper to destroy my audio and braille books. LOL. I was truly shocked during the tower scene, because, as I said, I hated Snape but believed he would save DD and prove his loyalty. Nothing can ever redeem him now for me. Sherry From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 7 04:46:20 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:46:20 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163526 > Lois/fourpawsq > When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? Potioncat: ?? Snape is bad? No birthday cake for you this Tuesday. Why do you suppose herself wishes Severus Snape a happy birthday each year? (I don't know either....but I have my hopes.) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 04:47:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:47:32 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163527 Re: Snape, a Deatheater. > Sherry now: I don't know if I think he supports > Voldemort or was just being a coward and saving his own skin, in true > Slytherin style. > After all, Phineas Nigelus said that a Slytherin would save his own skin > first. Alla: Heee, you know that our feelings about Snape are pretty much identical and I certainly think that Snape being a coward on the Tower and saving himself from consequences of UV that he got himself into is a strong possibility. I am just thinking that I am not sure how much Phineas words truly reflect Slytherin profile, so to speak. I am saying it because of Regulus' actions we are now aware of. Him snitching Horcrux from Voldemort does not look like saving his skin first action to me, but more like heroic defiance a la Gryffindor style. I mean, it is possible of course that Regulus would be portrayed as exception from Slytherin profile, just as Peter is an exception from Gryffindor. Just saying. Sherry: If the story ends up that DD was > dying or died from the potion in the cave, the potion that Harry forced him > to drink, and Snape faked the AK to cover that up, I'll want to throw up. > That would make Snape too heroic for me, and I'd be borrowing lupinlore's > wood chipper to destroy my audio and braille books. LOL. Alla: Gah, I am weak Sherry. I would not be very happy of course if this scenario would come true, even worse for me would be Heroic Noble Martyr Snape revealing his true allegiances and making Harry to see the light. As if the man did not torment him enough through the books, I do not want to watch Harry humiliated and hurt again. I mean, I know that he would be hurt by Voldemort again, that is for sure. I don't want him being hurt by Snape again. But, but, but the only way JKR would lose me as a reader ( and even then I would not burn the books, just never come back to them and certainly would not recommend them to the kids in my family - too hopeless) would be if Harry dies. If Snape is revealed as noble martyr, who killed DD on his orders, well, I would just hope that Harry would move on with his life and that his kids would never get the misfortune to have Snape in their life. I would hope that even if Snape is DD!M, Hogwarts would never ever let the man who murdered one of the most beloved Headmaster back to teaching. In any event, I think happiness that Harry would survive his ordeals would make it possible for me to overcome being sick if scenario you described would come true. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 04:52:08 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:52:08 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163528 > > Lois/fourpawsq > > When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? > > > > Potioncat: > ?? > Snape is bad? > > No birthday cake for you this Tuesday. > > Why do you suppose herself wishes Severus Snape a happy birthday each > year? > > (I don't know either....but I have my hopes.) > Alla: LOLOL. Because she wants to sweeten his life without parole sentence in Azkaban just a little bit. Hence a Happy Birthday wish. ;) From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jan 7 04:59:57 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 23:59:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, a Deatheater. References: Message-ID: <010c01c73218$aefe1700$db8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163529 > Sherry now: I don't know if I think he supports > Voldemort or was just being a coward and saving his own skin, in true > Slytherin style. > After all, Phineas Nigelus said that a Slytherin would save his own skin > first. Magpie: So do you believe he was somehow saving his skin when he took the UV? Because to me taking a UV and always choosing to save your own neck are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that whenever you start to think about Snape making the decision to kill Dumbledore you've got to go all the way back to Spinner's End, because that's when it becomes inevitable if Snape is going to live. I honestly don't see anywhere near the amount of pressure on Snape in Spinner's End to think he was forced into the Vow. He seems to take that of his own free will--and I should mention I've always thought that he knew exactly what task he was vowing to complete as well. It seems impossible to me that he's bluffing throughout the scene (it also seems to make the UV into a pretty much a comedy). So I can never see Snape saving his own skin by killing Dumbledore in terms of the UV only because he's the one who placed the UV on himself, if that makes sense. There has to be some further explanation, whichever flavor of Snape you prefer. Because any way you look at it, the UV is a suicidal gamble. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 05:39:59 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 05:39:59 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: <00ac01c731f4$a5f42290$db8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163530 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > Magpie: > So I'm honestly curious--do those seem to you to be important to > learn? Because they didn't seem always so different than the ones > Harry and his friends know. It's a variation on doing something > physical to a person to make them fall down or otherwise be > incapacitated. That's what the DA did too. Harry run --it's like > when he practices Accio throughout GoF and then does it when he > needs it. It gives him something to work on and you know he'll use > it. Mike: Like I said before, it's not the *what* that Harry needs to learn, imo, he needs and needed to be shown as learning, advancing his magical knowledge/ability. The Order's MoM spells are just an example of the available *whats*. I think it was you that said earlier that Harry's magical advancement is a metaphor for Harry's maturation (my apologies if it wasn't you). To me, it's confirmation of JKR's committment to make the story interesting for the young male readership and, for me, it's a continuation of the process that she began in PS/SS. To me, JKR would be breaking an implied promise, if she stopped moving Harry inexorably down the path towards... well, if not greatness, then at least exceptional magical prowess. > Magpie: > That's what Lily's magic was as well. She didn't prepare her > protection spell, it was just a mother protecting her child and > choosing to die and the magic took care of itself. I don't know if > she herself would even have to be the most powerful witch. If Harry > brings out some important magic in the end, as I think he will, I > don't think it will be something that he's prepared for at all. Mike: I'm confident that you are right in this assessment. I'm starting to realize that I'm concentrating on Harry's past performances and airing my disappointment in his HBP performance. In this exchange, you are drawing from Harry's characterization and projecting to the final confrontation. IOW, I'm not sure we're on the same playing field. > Magpie: > I wouldn't be surprised if, after the first half of the story in > HBP, Harry makes a lot more of that kind of progress in DH. > Ironically, it's when he leaves school that he seems ready to get > serious about this kind of thing. But it makes sense too, in a way. Mike: OK, you returned to my playing field. :) > Magpie: > > I suspect there might be more compelling stuff involved in getting > all the chess pieces into the right place, though, like with > finding out about Regulus Black, and something happening with Snape > and Draco, etc. Mike: And every piece of information regarding Snape's backstory? You bet, I'll be eating that stuff up with a spoon, just like everyone else on this list. > Magpie: > Sure, like the way she'd mention them learning a certain spell in > school that would then get used later. (That's of course a danger > when it comes to the suspense--we wouldn't want it to just become > like another videogame where Harry gains all sorts of powers that > we then know he's going to use at the correct time.) Hermione's > probably got a lot of these kinds of spells already, but as I think > someone else said, I think Harry's got a lot to do in the next book > without spending too much page time doing this. Mike: Oh, I agree, I do see a very busy Trio in the next book. So now you understand my lament that Harry didn't bother to learn any of these most-probably-useful spells, before now. What's Harry's (read JKR's) excuse for not learning at least the spells he already knew about? Will they help him defeat Voldemort; no. Should he find them servicable; he already would have. And now I ask myself, does he know many of these spells already and JKR just didn't have any place to show he knew them? Maybe he does, and maybe all the shipping noise drove the magical advancement off- page. If that is the case, I'll just have to accept that JKR felt she needed to tell that story. > Magpie: > Though to be fair, he *did* do the kind of thing you're > describing--he learned a spell to keep people from eavesdropping, > and a spell to flip them up in the air, and a spell to cut > them as with a sword. Mike: Yes, that is fair. I just didn't feel like it was enough. It may seem simplistic to you , but JKR promised a story about witches, wizards and magic, and I'm going to hold her to that promise. :P Harry has something that can't be quantified in his world, much less in ours. I want to see that played out, with Harry fulfilling all the potential JKR has hinted at. **************************************************************** In HPforGrownups/message/163518 - "BetsyHP" wrote: > > Mike previously: > Right, the HP world is about *magic*. However much this story is > about Harry the everykid/man, the story first and foremost is about > wizards and witches and their ability to do magic. Betsy Hp: Hmm, actually, I completely disagree with you here, Mike. I think magic is a stage dressing more than the *foundation* of JKR's world. It's pretty and glittery and can stand in beautifully for real world things (a mother's love physically saving her child from harm for example) but it's not a story line, it's a prop. Mike: Oh well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then Betsy. :-) Let me expound, anyway. PoA: When Harry reaches out his hand and softly says, "Prongs". The connection with his father is a most poignant moment for me, and many others I'm sure. GoF: When the echo of Lily comes out of the wand and Harry describes his feelings, thinking about her , I almost couldn't take the emotion. JKR is able to bring me to that emotional level because of the magical world she set up. Harry sitting alone in his bed, reminiscing about his parents wouldn't do it for me. It was the magic that makes it, well... Magical. It's the magic that makes it profound. I understand that the magic is, as you put it, standing in for real world things. But that is the beauty of the story, JKR using magic to make the story more personal, more alive, and more exciting. And she gets to bring people back to life, even though she told us that in her world dead is dead. Lily and James were alive in those scenes, for me, in a way she couldn't have accomplished without magic. I think that makes magic more than a prop or stage dressing. It becomes integral with the way she tells the story. It *does* become a foundation upon which she builds. It allows her to accomplish things that wouldn't have the impact if they were, say, a dream sequence. Not for me anyway. So for me, magic is more than just fun, it's basic to the story and essential for the effectiveness. > > Mike previously: > One of the reasons JKR and Harry Potter is such a phenomenon is > because she got *boys* to read again. Take the magic out and where > is she with that readership? Betsy Hp: Cheering madly as Harry outflies a dragon? Mike: You mean Harry flies a broom without magic :P Dragons, dragons .... hmmm, you mean Komodo dragons, right? Cause, no magic... no flying, fire-breathing, horned-tailed dragons, right? Betsy Hp: But I don't recall Harry demonstrating amazing magical ability to defeat his foes. About the only thing that comes to mind is his Patronus in PoA, and that was a cheat of a sort (the time-turner was a big help). Mike: Okay, they weren't all prodigious. Guilty as charged. :) Other than the Patronus, the rest of them could better be classified as subtle. (won't repeat them all again). But producing a Patronus was prodigious even if he wouldn't have done it without the time-turner. I don't think that makes it a cheat, that's magical production with the help of a magical prop. Betsy Hp: It's not that there isn't a logical reason for Harry to embark on a heavy duty training regimen, it's just out of character, for both Harry and JKR. I expect more book study than spell study. (Though I do think Harry will work on his non-verbals.) Mike: Do you mean you expected, past tense? Or do you think there is more book study to come for Harry? Seems unlikely to me. I mean, what book knowledge other than spell knowledge are you expecting Harry to go looking for? Betsy Hp (noticing Magpie's already answered this post, but darn it, I'm posting this anyway .) Mike, noticing that though Betsy's post came after Magpie's, it's threaded above Magpie's. How does that happen? PS - Betsy, you're an elf so I'll ask you. If you start a post before midnight local, but finish after midnight local, which day does it count towards your five max? I'm such a slow typist, it feels like I started this yesterday. Wait... I did, shoot. :( From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 05:59:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 05:59:55 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: <010c01c73218$aefe1700$db8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163531 Magpie: > So do you believe he was somehow saving his skin when he took the UV? Because to me taking a UV and always choosing to save your own neck are mutually exclusive. Carol responds: Up to this point I agree with you. Magpie: It seems to me that whenever you start to think about > Snape making the decision to kill Dumbledore you've got to go all the way back to Spinner's End, because that's when it becomes inevitable if Snape is going to live. Carol: I'm confused here. I don't think that Snape made the decision to kill DD at Spinner's End even though he agreed to the third provision. He was at least as likely to die as Dumbledore, and I think he believed that he and DD together could prevent the vow from being activated. Granted, it was possible that he'd have to do it, and when he realized what Narcissa was going to ask, his hand twitched, but I think that once he heard the way it was worded, he thought there might be a loophole. After all, Dumbledore was the greatest wizard in the world. Surely, he could avoid a showdown with a sixteen-year-old boy. But inevitable that Snape is going to live? I certainly don't see it that way. It's not inevitable until he makes his decision on the tower after hearing DD plead and looking into his eyes. And the circumstances on the tower--a greatly weakened, helpless, wandless, probably dying Dumbledore, Death Eaters brought into the castle despite all their precautions, and Harry in his Invisibility Cloak, could not have been anticipated. Nothing inevitable about it that I can see. Unless, perhaps, I'm misunderstanding you. > Magpie: > I honestly don't see anywhere near the amount of pressure on Snape in Spinner's End to think he was forced into the Vow. He seems to take that of his own free will--and I should mention I've always thought that he knew exactly what task he was vowing to complete as well. Carol: Yes and no. He mulls it over and chooses to take the vow as Narcissa proposes it, to help and protect Draco. "Help" he can interpret in his own way (as in putting Crabbe and Goyle in detention) and in any case, the UV as worded only asks him to watch over and protect Draco, as he would have done in any case. But the third provision seems to me unanticipated. Narcissa didn't mention it when she asked him to take the UV, so he is not initially agreeing to it. And the hand twitch also indicates that it's unanticipated. He takes it, maintaining his self-control and not betraying his emotions, but I'm not sure he has any choice. His wand hand is already bound to Narcissa's by ropes of fire. Even if Bellatrix, standing over him with her wand pointed at him, didn't kill him, or even if she didn't find a way to report him to Voldemort as disloyal (refusing to kill Dumbledore) without incriminating herself, desperate Narcissa, who's already said there's nothing she won't do, might have threatened him or even killed him. And he wants her trust, as he also wants to reduce (though he can't eliminate) Bellatrix's suspicions. He takes a calculated risk--and, IMO, he loses, thanks to the circumstances on the tower. Magpie: It seems impossible to me that he's bluffing throughout the scene (it also seems to make the UV into a pretty much a comedy). Carol: I hope you mean that bluffing would make the UV a comedy, not that the scene reads as one to you. It certainly doesn't to me even though I believe that he's telling a lot of half truths (not bluffing about knowing the task, at least the part about killing DD, but certainly not letting them know his role in sending the Order to the MoM or healing DD's injury or the nature of that injury, to name a few). But to me, the imagery at the end of "Spinner's End" is anything but comic--ropes of fire, also described as chains, *binding* Snape. I can almost feel the DADA curse falling into place as he's trapped by his own cleverness in agreeing to take the vow. He's very much in control, even on his knees holding Narcissa's hand during the first two, anticipated, provisions, but I felt the bottom drop out of my world when she stated the third one. "Bellatrix's astounded face glowed red in the blaze of a third tongue of flame, which shot forth from the wand, twisted with the others, and bound itself thickly around their clasped hands, like a rope, like a fiery snake." (HBP Ame. ed. 37). Red, blaze, flame, shot, twisted, bound, rope, fiery, snake. How much more ominous can a single sentence be? Magpie: > So I can never see Snape saving his own skin by killing Dumbledore in terms of the UV only because he's the one who placed the UV on himself, if that makes sense. There has to be some further explanation, whichever flavor of Snape you prefer. Because any way you look at it, the UV is a suicidal gamble. Carol: Now here I agree with you completely. And my "further explanation" is that at the very moment Narcissa proposed the third provision, Slughorn had accepted the Potions position, making Snape the DADA teacher. The DADA curse fell into place at exactly that moment. But, yes, it was a suicidal gamble and it was wholly inconsistent with self-preservation as his motive on the tower. In both cases, the UV and the tower, he was saving Draco. And, IMO, he was saving Harry on the tower as well. Only by killing DD and fulfilling the vow could he have saved both boys and gotten the DEs out of Hogwarts. And that's what those ropes of fire, still, perhaps, burning him as we see his agony in "Flight of the Prince," signify to me. Carol, wondering what the new member who asked when we realized that Snape was "bad" thinks of us now! From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 7 06:22:40 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 06:22:40 -0000 Subject: Heart/CAPSLOCK/clock/NotBully!Harry/Choice/Buried/HP'sCareer/Neville/badSNAPE Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163532 Lorel wrote in : << However, on the same day, the same party also registered these titles: "The Deadly Veil" (not Deathly) and "The Heart of Ravenclaw." >> Luna Lovegood is the heart of Ravenclaw. All those other kids are the brains of Ravenclaw. Lilygale wrote in : << OotP Harry [at] times Harry was a rage-driven teenager. His rage resulted from IMO, post-traumatic stress disorder combined with a year of stress that most adults would have difficulty in handling. >> This is a forbidden 'I agree' post. Like Alla, I think it unrealistic that all the anger and PTSD vanished in the month between OoP and HBP, especially since Sirius's death was a whole new trauma. Kelly signed off from with: << whose 6 children MADE her a Mrs. Weasley Clock for Christmas. >> With the hands for their names or pictures permanently stuck at 'Being Good'? kat7555 wrote in : << Once Harry was out of the Dursley household he could have become a bully like Dudley but he chose a different path. >> It would have been terribly likely, statistically, for Harry to have become a bully like Dudley or, more likely, a bully like Snape -- one propelled by his own inner damage. It was lucky for Harry and the good guys and the readers that Harry instead feel compassion (most clearly stated in the Pensieve-dive to Snape's schoolboy suffering) and an urge to rescue people. I think that means I agree with you? There is some disagreement as to how Harry learned compassion when he never saw examples in his childhood home with the Dursleys. Some say he was born with it, maybe due to genetics. Some say he saw enough examples on TV and in books to decide he'd rather be the 'goody two-shoes' and 'sucker' at whom Vernon and Dudley sneered and demanded to change the channel. I think it was part of Lily that she magically left with her son; thus, "Lily's eyes". I think Lily was able, with her magic, to put an image of herself in her baby's mind, that would be like an 'imaginary mum' (by analogy with 'imaginary friend') who would cuddle Harry and tell him that he's a good kid who doesn't deserve Dursley abuse and tell him about how decent people behave, thus being that one caring adult said to be necessary to even a 'resilient' child's survival of serious abuse... I kind of think Lily used her last magic to put this image in his head intentionally, instead of using her last magic in one last attempt to escape Voldemort. That is the heroic self-sacrifce that canon credits her, accepting her own death because it was more important to her to give her baby this protection of her love. I admit I don't know why she would do that if she really believed that he would be dead seconds after she was. When Harry resisted the Imperius Curse, the Curse's Moody-voice in his head told him to jump up on the desk, and "another voice had awoken in the back of his brain. Stupid to do, really, said the voice." I believe that that other voice is what's left of the image-Lily after all these years; she doesn't appear often, she appears as Harry's voice instead of her own, but she still is caring for Harry -- and still has free will. In addition, so far we've always seen Harry wondering and trying to find out about his father, and not about his mother. Some say that's a plot device because JKR is saving some big surprise about Lily, and some say it's normal because Harry is 11 to 16 so far, puberty and adolescence, and much more concerned about a male image to identify with. But *I* say that he doesn't search so much for Lily because, unknown to himself, he already has her with him. Much of this comment was written before OoP and HBP, in which Harry did learn some more about Lily. But in OoP, he thought more about James bullying than Lily stopping him, and in HBP, he listened to Slughorn praising Lily without asking any questions for information about her. Bruce replied in : << Yes, he CHOSE. That is the point. What was it that the late, lamented Headmaster said about choices? >> As above, I don't think he CHOSE. I think he followed his nature. Even tho' we have canon for him enjoying a fantasy of torturing Snape, when he saw the real thing in that Pensieve, witnessing it was an unpleasant experience for him. Avoiding doing something that one finds unpleasant is 'the pleasure principle' and Harry usually dis-enjoys bullying. (The exception was being glad when he saw that Hedwig had pecked Ron and Hermione, which bothered me.) Speaking of what the late Headmaster said about choices: he said our choices 'show' what we are, not that they 'make us' what we are. This was beautifully discussed in a long-ago post: ------------------------------- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/23598 From: "Aberforth's Goat" Date: Sat Aug 4, 2001 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Calvinism << Not so fast! The CoS passage actually has some of the most "Calvinistic" passages in the canon. In fact, it was that passage that got me thinking about this. Let's pull it out for exegesis: * "Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which * makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, * Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." * Harry sat motionless in his chair, stunned. "If you want proof, * Harry, that you belong in Gryffindor, I suggest you look more * closely at this." [....] * * "Only a true Gryffindor could have pulled that out of the hat, * Harry." So: Harry's choices *reveal* something--they peel the layers off the onion--they show us the person he actually is. His true identity, his soul, his platonic essence. And that person is, fundamentally, a Gryffindor. He may not even have known it, but there's a white hat in his soul and when it comes to a crisis, he'll wear it. ------------------------------------------- Finwitch wrote in : << Well, Headmaster/Headmistress indeed. So who ELSE is being buried at Hogwarts? I'd say that Godric Gryffindor, Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw must be. Not Salazar Slytherin, who left the place, though. >> Surely at least one, possibly all, of the Founders were Headmasters/ Headmistresses. Other than that, I like the idea of bringing Salazar's skeleton (mummy? ashes?) to lie with the other three Founders, perhaps causing the Chamber of Secrets to transform itself into an only normally grand mausoleum, or maybe a library. But wouldn't that require demonstrating that Salazar had either been a good guy or repented his evil? Alla wrote in : << If DD did not bring Slughorn, Harry carreer prospects could have been effectively ruined. >> Inconvenienced, but not ruined. If Harry and Ron still wanted to be Aurors after finishing Hogwarts without taking NEWT Potions, they could have found some other potioneer to teach them privately and kept taking the NEWT Potion test until they passed. Because, as some listies used to keep saying and saying, NEWTs are based on A-levels which are run by the government, not the school, and can be taken on a Royal Navy ship with an officer as monitor as well as a number of other places. Even in the case of people who hadn't saved the world from Voldemort before finishing school, the Auror authority might be favorably impressed by such a show of commitment. Not to mention, it was almost a whim that Harry said he wanted to be an Auror. He might be better off as a professional Quidditch player, which doesn't require any NEWTs. Sunnylove wrote in : << Why does Neville even come out of this episode alive and unhurt? I would expect a sadist like Bella to use the baby as a lever over Alice and Frank. Why doesn't she? >> Maybe his parents had thrown an Invisibility Cloak over him so Bella & friends didn't know he was there. Lois/fourpawsg wrote in : << When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? >> Meow or woof woof ? I had to laugh at your question because I knew how many people on this list think Snape is good -- you've already gotten some of the replies saying so. Since the end of PS/SS, I would prefer to believe that Snape is on the good guys's side even tho' he is a nasty piece of work. On first reading the graveyard scene of GoF, I had no idea who were the DEs who left forever, was a coward, is LV's faithful servant at Hogwarts. I thought the three were Bagman, Karkaroff, and Snape, and maybe it was Bagman as coward, Karkaroff as left forever, and Snape as faithful servant, which was a very frightening thought. But at the end of GoF, where Snape showed his Dark Mark to Fudge to try to prove LV's return, I felt confident that Snape was on the good side. But when he killed Dumbledore and fled the Tower -- I shouted out: "Rowling is good! Even after Snape killed Dumbledore, we still don't know which side he's on!" From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 08:39:57 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:39:57 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40701051254u55aa664aw41f51f5f6e2dc6b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40701070039i239a0fbemab1cfb4b53fe27bf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163533 > Kemper earlier: > > The etymology of 'fidelis' (faithful) stems from 'fides' (faith). > > To be faithful is different than being loyal. One suggests a belief > > or trust in something/one, the other an obligation to something/one. > > > > Regardless, Peter was neither faithful nor loyal to the Potters at the > > time the charm was performed. "Some one close to the Potters" was > > passing information. So how complex can the charm be if Peter can > > fake it? Peter knew he would tell Voldemort the secret as it was > > being concealed inside him. > > Geoff responded: > I think you are splitting hairs here and that your argument is not really > valid. My Latin dictionary gives "fides" as: faith; trust; confidence; belief; > credence; loyalty; honesty; allegaince; promise; security; protection. > While the English-Latin section gives "Fides" for both "loyalty" and "faith" > and in both cases the adjective form is "fidelis". > > My usual English dictionary gives: "faithful > adjective 1 remaining loyal > and steadfast....." and under "loyal" gives one synonym as "faithful". I see > no obligation or compulsion implicit in either of the words and personally > would use them interchangeably. > > Hence, I don't see precisely where your divergence in meanings is leading..... Kemper now: What I'm hearing you say is that I recognize the nuances in the English language. What some define as 'splitting hairs' others might define as 'subtlety'. You may use either interchangeably if you aren't concerned with being as clear as you can or want to be with your listener/reader. As this was brought off-topic instead of off-list, I'll bring it back... If you were following upthread, you will have noticed that bboy was saying that: "The Potter's trusted Peter with their lives, and in accepting that trust, Peter is implying a true and deep loyalty to the Potters." I read this to mean that bboy believes the Fidelius Charm works (in part) by the loyalty Peter feels of the Potters. I disagreed because I don't believe that Peter was loyal to the Poters at the time of the charm. Therefore, IMO, the charm must not rely on the loyalty (from Old French /loial/, from Latin 'legalis' /legal/, from 'lex' /law/) of the Secret Keeper. Rather, it relys on the faith (from Old French 'feid', from Latin 'fides' /trust, belief/) of the Secret Teller. Peter has the Potters' faith, not the Potters' loyalty. Two words diverged in a linguistic root and glad that I could now use both and expand my vocabulary, long I checked etymology, a word's history, to detect more meaning in my language; Two words diverged in a root, and I-- I used the one to best clarify, and that has made all the difference. Kemper, who wonders if your Latin dictionary would have been more accurately labeled a thesaurus From chrusokomos at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 14:38:59 2007 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 14:38:59 -0000 Subject: JKR's Rubbish Bin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163534 Hi, I was just wandering through JKR's site and I saw a few details in the Rubbish Bin section which I don't understand..it's probably nothing, but isn't the rubbish bin a perfect place to hide significant stuff (Sherlock Holmes' theory and all that)? So I'd like to know what means the shattered sentence just below the bin - saying, if you don't want to have a look there now: ring / tap / times /five / within / in. / you / I am/ and / no / get / Here ..and I'd also like to know why she keeps some memory tiles there, I don't know if my woring is right - you know that game in which you have to switch tiles and find the matching ones? They look like it, at any rate. There is a spider, a lizard, a snake, a unicorn, and three very very strange symbols: something that looks like the giant squid, a three- headed line that could be a multiple-headed snake or some sort of candelabra, and above all what mystifies me most (being a student of classical archaeology): the outline of the protection eyes you find on some Greek drinking vessel. Now, ok for coincidences, but...plus, there are seven of them...seven books, seven horcruxes, seven Weasley brothers...looks like LV isn't alone in believing that seven is a powerfully magical number. :D Any idea about the sentence and those tiles? From fourpawsg at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 06:00:50 2007 From: fourpawsg at gmail.com (Lois N.) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:00:50 -0800 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57b30d050701062200s647568c1yf253825e4a392451@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163535 Sherry: > That would make Snape too heroic for me, and I'd be borrowing > lupinlore's wood chipper to destroy my audio and braille books. > LOL. I was truly shocked during the tower scene, because, as I > said, I hated Snape but believed he would save DD and prove his > loyalty. Nothing can ever redeem him now for me. Hi Sherry, Oh please don't do that! you still have #7 to read! I am not even going to hazard a guess as to what might happen there. As for Snape saving his own skin, I don't think so, remember the unbreakable Vow Snape made with Draco Malfoys Mother? I think he was trying to save Draco, I really do believe he killed DD. I think Snape will be in for a heck of a shock, because remember, Harry has Powers he even does not know about. So I think Draco, Snape and the Dark Lord are all in for a shock. What Floors me is that now Harry doesn't have the most powerful wizard standing beside or behind him. It is kind of hard to say what might happen from this point on. Lois From dsnylnd55 at aol.com Sun Jan 7 09:20:00 2007 From: dsnylnd55 at aol.com (Cathy) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 09:20:00 -0000 Subject: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163536 Anders: > Even if Jo does the most wonderful, surprising, awe-inspiring, all- > questions-answered ending, and all the threads are tied up just as > I'd like, it's still an end to something we'll likely never see again > in our lifetimes. I want it to last. I want to savor it, page by > page, as though it were rich dark chocolate melting across my tongue > like velvet. When it's done I want to gently close the book, with a > smile on my face as I gently nod and say, "Yeah. It's finished. > Thanks, Jo." Until then, Anders Dsnylnd55 here: I too Anders am looking forward to savoring book 7. I have many mixed emotions about wanting it soon; on the one hand, I want to read, savor, enjoy each morsel of information; however, this is the end of a wonderful literary experience. I feel a bit like "Sybll" in that I want to read book 7 and have all my questions answered, but I don't want to read the book because then I know there will be no book 8 and the fantastic journey that is Harry Potter will be over. From fourpawsg at gmail.com Sun Jan 7 06:29:54 2007 From: fourpawsg at gmail.com (Lois N.) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:29:54 -0800 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: <57b30d050701062200s647568c1yf253825e4a392451@mail.gmail.com> References: <57b30d050701062200s647568c1yf253825e4a392451@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <57b30d050701062229u2d3b2dfcp90007bd273c2e7bc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163537 Magpie: > I honestly don't see anywhere near the amount of pressure on Snape > in Spinner's End to think he was forced into the Vow. He seems to take > that of his own free will--and I should mention I've always thought > that he knew exactly what task he was vowing to complete as well.> Hi Magpie, Yes, I agree with you, Snape was not forced to make the UV, he chose to (I think) to set Narcissa at ease. Yes, He did know exactly what task it was, that was to get Dumbledore out of the way so the Dark Lord could do his Dasterdly deeds without interference from DD. But I still think he has underestimated HP. By a mile. At least this is my wish. Lois From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Jan 7 15:58:13 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 08:58:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Rubbish Bin References: Message-ID: <00c901c73274$a3452000$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 163538 chrusotoxos wrote: > I was just wandering through JKR's site and I saw a few details in the > Rubbish Bin section > which I don't understand..it's probably nothing, but isn't the rubbish bin > a perfect place to > hide significant stuff (Sherlock Holmes' theory and all that)? > > So I'd like to know what means the shattered sentence just below the bin - > saying, if you > don't want to have a look there now: > ring / tap / times /five / within / in. / you / I am/ and / no / get / > Here Some of the fan sites tell you what to do with these clues. You get to unlock secret goodies on her site- the best of them are her drawings made before the books were published! One day I'd like to see the books republished with Rowling's original drawings included. These words you showed are a jumbled clue: It says tap 5 times and you find a ring within. There is a ringbox hidden in the bookcase, I believe. You do what the clue tells you to do. It's been a long time since I did that clue, but this site is worth exploring and figuring out the clues. Almost nothing on her site is "nothing"; she uses them from time to time. Be sure to listen to the radio- Toots, Shoots and Roots is one that my kids love to hear again and again. Honking daffodils indeed! Shelley From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 7 15:09:17 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (ANGIE) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 15:09:17 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: <3202590701061854x505235f7oa110b2315344f1ef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163539 > Lois: > > When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? > > Sarah: > I think we still haven't figured it out yet. Angie: I don't think we can judge yet on Snape. His double spy character is still too complex to be able to 100% say he is or is not bad. I think in the last book we will be very surprised at what happens between Sanpe and Harry. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jan 7 16:56:14 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 16:56:14 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater./The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163541 > Magpie: > It seems to me that whenever you start to think about >> Snape making the decision to kill Dumbledore you've got to go all > the way back to Spinner's End, because that's when it becomes > inevitable if Snape is going to live. > > Carol: > I'm confused here. I don't think that Snape made the decision to kill > DD at Spinner's End even though he agreed to the third provision. He > was at least as likely to die as Dumbledore, and I think he believed > that he and DD together could prevent the vow from being activated. Magpie: This is complicated when I try to explain it...but I was speaking specifically to the idea that Snape killed Dumbledore to save his own skin in taking the vow. If one believes that Snape killed DD to save himself from the UV and he always wants to protect his own life, then I think one has to say that Snape basically made that decision back in Spinner's End when he decided to make keeping his own life dependent on DD. I, personally, think that Snape possibly did have other ideas in mind than killing DD when he took the Vow, but that being a realist he was accepting that once you take a UV you've committed yourself to doing something with dire consequences if you don't. So if Snape had no intention of killing DD, even if he thought he could keep the Vow from detonating, he would know he was risking dying himself if it didn't work. Carol: But > inevitable that Snape is going to live? I certainly don't see it that > way. It's not inevitable until he makes his decision on the tower > after hearing DD plead and looking into his eyes. And the > circumstances on the tower--a greatly weakened, helpless, wandless, > probably dying Dumbledore, Death Eaters brought into the castle > despite all their precautions, and Harry in his Invisibility Cloak, > could not have been anticipated. Nothing inevitable about it that I > can see. Unless, perhaps, I'm misunderstanding you. Magpie: I hopefully explained it more in the above paragraph, but again I was going from the OP's idea that Snape's priority is saving his own skin- -like Peter, for instance. If one assumes that this is Snape's character and so why he killed DD, and he takes a Vow that says he'll die if he doesn't kill DD, then Snape's killing Dumbledore seems to become pretty inevitable. (If you think of it in a straightforward way and don't imagine any unexpected things happening, which OFH! Snape would have had to consider.) > Magpie: >> I honestly don't see anywhere near the amount of pressure on Snape > in Spinner's End to think he was forced into the Vow. He seems to take > that of his own free will--and I should mention I've always thought > that he knew exactly what task he was vowing to complete as well. > > Carol: > Yes and no. He mulls it over and chooses to take the vow as Narcissa > proposes it, to help and protect Draco. "Help" he can interpret in his > own way (as in putting Crabbe and Goyle in detention) and in any case, > the UV as worded only asks him to watch over and protect Draco, as he > would have done in any case. But the third provision seems to me > unanticipated. Narcissa didn't mention it when she asked him to take > the UV, so he is not initially agreeing to it. And the hand twitch > also indicates that it's unanticipated. He takes it, maintaining his > self-control and not betraying his emotions, but I'm not sure he has > any choice. His wand hand is already bound to Narcissa's by ropes of > fire. Magpie: I guess this unfortunately comes down to knowing how UV's work and we can't look that up anywhere outside the book.:-) To me I guess it just seems like he does have the ability to not accept any Vow he likes. He could just say, "No" and then the Vow would have been sealed with the two provisions--otherwise someone could trap a person in the ropes and force them to Vow to anything they added on. Also storywise I think Snape making the decision himself is important, but that's a personal preference again. Snape does a lot of things reluctantly, but I think his important decisions are all still his own. Carol: Even if Bellatrix, standing over him with her wand pointed at > him, didn't kill him, or even if she didn't find a way to report him > to Voldemort as disloyal (refusing to kill Dumbledore) without > incriminating herself, desperate Narcissa, who's already said there's > nothing she won't do, might have threatened him or even killed him. Magpie: I don't see Snape in any real danger from the two women. He seems in control in the scene, and if either of them threatened to kill him, based on his attitude in the scene, I can't see him being that threatened. I don't think he's in much danger from Bellatrix reporting him either, since she'd be reporting him for refusing to do something for her and Narcissa, not Voldemort. If Snape refused to kill Dumbledore on Voldemort's orders that would be disloyal, but not on Narcissa's orders. The other DEs are all under orders to make sure it's Draco who does it. Carol: > And he wants her trust, as he also wants to reduce (though he can't > eliminate) Bellatrix's suspicions. He takes a calculated risk--and, > IMO, he loses, thanks to the circumstances on the tower. Magpie: That sums up the way I see it. I've no doubt Snape has good reasons for taking the Vow that we don't understand in full yet. But I think he's making the decision himself as a strategic move. > Magpie: > It seems impossible to me that he's bluffing throughout the scene (it > also seems to make the UV into a pretty much a comedy). > > Carol: > I hope you mean that bluffing would make the UV a comedy, not that the > scene reads as one to you. It certainly doesn't to me even though I > believe that he's telling a lot of half truths (not bluffing about > knowing the task, at least the part about killing DD, but certainly > not letting them know his role in sending the Order to the MoM or > healing DD's injury or the nature of that injury, to name a few). But > to me, the imagery at the end of "Spinner's End" is anything but > comic--ropes of fire, also described as chains, *binding* Snape. I can > almost feel the DADA curse falling into place as he's trapped by his > own cleverness in agreeing to take the vow. He's very much in control, > even on his knees holding Narcissa's hand during the first two, > anticipated, provisions, but I felt the bottom drop out of my world > when she stated the third one. "Bellatrix's astounded face glowed red > in the blaze of a third tongue of flame, which shot forth from the > wand, twisted with the others, and bound itself thickly around their > clasped hands, like a rope, like a fiery snake." (HBP Ame. ed. 37). > Red, blaze, flame, shot, twisted, bound, rope, fiery, snake. How much > more ominous can a single sentence be? Magpie: I agree--I didn't think it was a comedy at all. I meant that if Snape didn't actually know what he was doing it becomes absurd because now he's done all this and he's running around trying to find out, "Draco, sweetie, could you give me a hint just what I've agreed to die if I don't do? I didn't get that memo..." Even the UV scene, to me, loses a lot of its weight if Snape doesn't know what he's committing to. Right now it's written in a way that's ominous because everyone's talking about this awful deed that's to be done. If Snape's just bluffing then his lines are all fakes. "He means me to do it in the end," has no significance beyond Snape tap dancing to pretend he knows what he's talking about when he doesn't. I felt that bottom drop too when Snape agreed to the third provision, but if Snape doesn't know what he's doing it puts off that bottom dropping out until he finds out what he's done. And--snipping the rest but connected to it--if you look at Snape's character it's consistent for him to be putting himself in danger this way. He's a double agent, and I think that's of his own volition as well. There's a reason, imo, that "If you are ready...if you are prepared..." is such a memorable line in the series. Dumbledore isn't forcing Snape to play any dangerous games with Voldemort either. At the end of GoF Snape is committing himself to a dangerous situation as well. I'm sure if Snape refused at the end of GoF DD would probably offer him protection without insisting he be a double agent. This is the kind of thing Snape does.:-) It's also, I think, something Rowling might find compelling, the idea of pushing the forgiveness into active attempts to do better in the forgiven. Regulus, as it turns out, didn't just try to run, he died in an act of defiance against Voldemort. Snape didn't just give up the DEs, he became what seems to be Dumbledore's most valuable worker. Mike: Like I said before, it's not the *what* that Harry needs to learn, imo, he needs and needed to be shown as learning, advancing his magical knowledge/ability. The Order's MoM spells are just an example of the available *whats*. I think it was you that said earlier that Harry's magical advancement is a metaphor for Harry's maturation (my apologies if it wasn't you). To me, it's confirmation of JKR's committment to make the story interesting for the young male readership and, for me, it's a continuation of the process that she began in PS/SS. To me, JKR would be breaking an implied promise, if she stopped moving Harry inexorably down the path towards... well, if not greatness, then at least exceptional magical prowess. I'm starting to realize that I'm concentrating on Harry's past performances and airing my disappointment in his HBP performance. In this exchange, you are drawing from Harry's characterization and projecting to the final confrontation. IOW, I'm not sure we're on the same playing field. Magpie: I think I do get it now--I think we really were on different playing fields before.:-) I also do definitely get the appeal of the hero growing in his abilities. I think JKR's often been in a bind there because on the one hand JKR's writing a school story where magic is just a stand in for subjects in school, and so she has Harry treat this stuff the way a kid might treat algebra if he's not particularly interested in it. But given Harry's situation and type of school, he really can't say "When am I ever going to use this in real life?" If I can quote someone else who said this to me recently, "Harry doesn't feel like he's a powerful wizard at the beginning, but we know that he's facing a conflict, direct or indirect, with a powerful wizard at the end, so his progress in his studies is potentially important to the plot in the way that, say, Tom Brown's progress in Latin is not." Plus, being good at magical spells is sexy. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 17:51:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:51:34 -0000 Subject: "Fidelius" etymology (Was: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory) In-Reply-To: <700201d40701070039i239a0fbemab1cfb4b53fe27bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163542 Kemper wrote: > bboy was saying that: > > "The Potter's trusted Peter with their lives, and in accepting that > trust, Peter is implying a true and deep loyalty to the Potters." > > I read this to mean that bboy believes the Fidelius Charm works (in part) by the loyalty Peter feels of the Potters. I disagreed because I don't believe that Peter was loyal to the Poters at the time of the charm. Therefore, IMO, the charm must not rely on the loyalty (from Old French /loial/, from Latin 'legalis' /legal/, from 'lex' /law/) of the Secret Keeper. Rather, it relys on the faith (from Old French 'feid', from Latin 'fides' /trust, belief/) of the Secret Teller. > > Peter has the Potters' faith, not the Potters' loyalty. Carol responds: Sorry to snip your Frost parody or whatever you want to call it, but I think it's the Latin, not the English, etymology that's relevant here, not so much "fides" (faith) as fidelis -e [trusty , steadfast, faithful]; m. as subst., esp. pl., [confidants, faithful friends]. Adv. fideliter, [faithfully; securely, without danger]. fidelitas -atis f. [faithfulness, trust, fidelity]. http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=fidel&ending= While I believe that the Fidelius Charm was broken when the Secret no longer existed, certainly by the time the house was destroyed (when two Potters were dead and the other was lying in the rubble), hence "The Potters are hiding at [address] Godric's Hollow" was no longer true, it's possible that the moment they were revealed to Voldemort was the moment that the charm was broken because at that moment the Secret no longer existed--the person they were hiding *from* could see them. If that's the case, PP's breaking the faith imposed in him, broke the charm. To be sure, he was never "trusty, steadfast, faithful," or at least he had ceased to be so long before the Secret was concealed in him, but revealing the Secret to Voldemort, the enemy from whom the Potters were hiding, was a breach of fidelitas (faithfulness, trust, fidelity), the trust the Potters placed in him. Far from acting "faithfully" and enabling the Potters to live "securely, without danger," he destroyed their safety and security by his breach of confidence and trust. So the betrayal itself, the revelation of the Potters in their hiding place (I'm sure that PP brought Voldemort to the spot, said something like "There they are; that's their house," and transformed into a rat to watch the action) may have been enough to break the Fidelius Charm (and alert Dumbledore to their danger). What I'm sure of is that the Charm was broken, enabling DD not only to know where they were but to inform Hagrid of the address, either by the betrayal or by the deaths of the adult Potters and the exposure of Harry to danger, or by the destruction of the house. By the time Voldemort had exploded, taking the house with him, there was no Secret to keep. Etymology suggests that it was the betrayal that broke the charm. Carol, not really arguing with Kemper but trying to understand how the charm works in relation to its name From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 7 18:01:25 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 7 Jan 2007 18:01:25 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/7/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1168192885.36.16044.m41@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163543 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 7, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 7 18:37:58 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:37:58 -0000 Subject: The Snape Whisperer Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163544 I don't know how many of you are familiar with Cesar Milan. He is a dog trainer who specializes in rehabilitating problem animals, especially aggressive, dangerous dogs. In reading his book, _Cesar's Way_ I couldn't help relating his theories to the way Dumbledore dealt with Snape and Harry. Milan says it is no good to discipline an aggressive animal if the underlying cause of the aggression is anger or fear. If the anger or fear is not addressed you may frighten the animal into submission but you will never be able to trust it. I think this theory is an elegant explanation of why Dumbledore sometimes appeared to be taking a hands off approach with Snape and others. Milan also explains his use of a controversial technique called 'flooding'. This consists of desensitizing an animal to an undesirable emotion, such as a phobia, by allowing it to become overwhelmed. While this is regarded as too cruel by some, Milan feels that it is far more effective than trying to comfort the animal when it is frightened, which in his view often leads to reinforcing the very behavior one is trying to discourage. I have to wonder if Dumbledore had a similar rationale for leaving Harry to be overwhelmed by his feelings after Cedric's death. Harry has received so little comfort in his life that to have it given to him after Cedric's death might have set up an undesirable association. As it was, Harry went through a miserable six weeks at the Dursleys, but he does seem to have become somewhat desensitized to survivor guilt, enough so that he could deal with the loss of Sirius without plummeting into the severe depression he experienced after losing Cedric. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 7 18:41:12 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:41:12 -0000 Subject: Snape Poll (was Re: Snape, a Deatheater.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163545 Lois/fourpawsg > I Believed right from the Beginning that Snape was going to be a Nasty > actor, then knew it by the time I read the second Book "The Secret > Chamber". So I wasn't surprised by time I read "The Halfblood Prince" > He would go back to Voldamort. Harry Knew all along but could not get > anyone to listen to him. Not even his closest friends, or Dumbledore. > > When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? Potioncat: Actually, this thread reminded me of a poll that SSSusan ran after HBP first came out. It's looking at our opinions of who or what Snape really is. Does anyone know if there was a thread that discussed the poll's outcome? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1916317 As I was looking for this poll, I found one asking "Who is the Half Blood Prince?" 22 voters thought it would be Snape, (3%) Potioncat From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 7 18:43:06 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:43:06 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163546 Forget Harry's grades, life is the ultimate IQ test. I've posted this list before, it's the times Harry has shown exceptional magical ability. The retort is always in the form of "yes but Harry only has this ability because of this reason"; explaining why someone is powerful does not make him less powerful. 1) Harry is the only one to receive the AK curse and live. Well OK Voldemort did too but Harry just got a minor cut on his forehead while Voldemort nearly died with far more serious injuries. 2) At age eleven with no instruction Harry could fly better than anyone his age and better than most wizards of any age. 3) In all of recorded history only 3 wizards have been able to speak Parseltong. Harry is one of them. 4) Harry could produce a Patronis at a extraordinary young age but more important it was so powerful it awed even Hermione, because the only other wizard she knew who could repel a hundred Dementors was Dumbledore. 5) Harry could easily overcome the Imperious Curse, something even formidable wizards like the real Moody and Crouch junior and senior found extremely difficult to do. For example, Crouch junior struggled against it for over a decade and even then was only partially successful, Harry could triumph over it in just a few minutes. 6) I can't think of a better demonstration of pure raw power than the scene in GoF where Harry engages man to man in magical arm wrestling with the most powerful dark wizard in a thousand years and wins. Harry forced those beads of light into Voldemort's wand not the other way as the dark lord wanted. 7) Voldemort was able to possess Ginny and even a defense against the dark arts teacher for months but when he tried to do the same thing to Harry he had to retreat in defeat after just a few seconds. 8) The greatest Dark Wizard of all time, the best student ever to attend Hogwarts beating even Dumbledore, tried to kill Harry 5 times and failed 5 times, nobody is that lucky. Eggplant From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 18:56:08 2007 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:56:08 -0000 Subject: Heart/CAPSLOCK/clock/NotBully!Harry/Choice/Buried/HP'sCareer/Neville/badS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163547 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Kelly signed off from > with: > > << whose 6 children MADE her a Mrs. Weasley Clock for Christmas. >> > Catlady's response: > With the hands for their names or pictures permanently stuck at 'Being > Good'? > Kelly responds: The hands move around quite often, though I don't know how, usually pointing at "HOME, SCHOOL, WORK or TRAVELLING". Occassionally someome would find themselves in "MORTAL PERIL or LOST" but only for a few hours. Thankfully no one has been in "PRISON or the HOSPITAL". For general information: "BEING GOOD" is not a position on the clock. > kat7555 wrote in > : > > << Once Harry was out of the Dursley household he could have become a > bully like Dudley but he chose a different path. >> > >SNIP of beginning of Catlady's response, continuing with: > I think it was part of Lily that she magically left with her son; > thus, "Lily's eyes". I think Lily was able, with her magic, to put an > image of herself in her baby's mind, that would be like an 'imaginary > mum' (by analogy with 'imaginary friend') who would cuddle Harry and > tell him that he's a good kid who doesn't deserve Dursley abuse and > tell him about how decent people behave, thus being that one caring > adult said to be necessary to even a 'resilient' child's survival of > serious abuse... I kind of think Lily used her last magic to put this > image in his head intentionally, instead of using her last magic in > one last attempt to escape Voldemort. That is the heroic self-sacrifce > that canon credits her, accepting her own death because it was more > important to her to give her baby this protection of her love. I admit > I don't know why she would do that if she really believed that he > would be dead seconds after she was. > > When Harry resisted the Imperius Curse, the Curse's Moody-voice in his > head told him to jump up on the desk, and "another voice had awoken in > the back of his brain. Stupid to do, really, said the voice." I > believe that that other voice is what's left of the image-Lily after > all these years; she doesn't appear often, she appears as Harry's > voice instead of her own, but she still is caring for Harry -- and > still has free will. > > In addition, so far we've always seen Harry wondering and trying to > find out about his father, and not about his mother. Some say that's a > plot device because JKR is saving some big surprise about Lily, and > some say it's normal because Harry is 11 to 16 so far, puberty and > adolescence, and much more concerned about a male image to identify > with. But *I* say that he doesn't search so much for Lily because, > unknown to himself, he already has her with him. > >SNIP Kelly adds: Has anyone ever thought that the Scar came from Lily and not Voldemort? Some sort of Charm that caused the curse to bounce off. Just a thought ... >SNIP > > Sunnylove wrote in > : > > << Why does Neville even come out of this episode alive and unhurt? > I would expect a sadist like Bella to use the baby as a lever over > Alice and Frank. Why doesn't she? >> > > Catlady responds: >Maybe his parents had thrown an Invisibility Cloak over him so Bella & > friends didn't know he was there. Kelly adds: If Neville was even there, Bella didn't care about anything but finding Voldemort. I'm sure that she knew that Frank and Alice told her all that they knew while she was Imperiousing them. Using the baby Neville would be pointless. Now if Bella had heard about the prophecy... what would have happened then? > Lois/fourpawsg wrote in > : > > << When did you all figure out when Snape was Bad? >> > Catlady'd response: > Meow or woof woof ? > I had to laugh at your question because I knew how many people on this > list think Snape is good -- you've already gotten some of the replies > saying so. SNIP > I felt confident that Snape was on the good side. But when he killed > Dumbledore and fled the Tower -- I shouted out: "Rowling is good! Even > after Snape killed Dumbledore, we still don't know which side he's on!" > Kelly: I sure hope we find out if Snape is one or the other. I don't know if I can live with nagging questions on Snapes loyalties. I for one think that Snape and only Snape can help Harry defeat Voldemort now that Dumbledore is dead. The question is how long will it take for Harry to realise this? Kelly, hoping the wait for "Deathly Hallows" is shorter than I think it will be. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 7 18:52:22 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 18:52:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163548 . > > Alla: > > Except nowhere near in this scene Snape even implies IMO that > Harry's answer is to go different way completely. If Snape is > dispensing **useful advise** to Harry ( which as I said I do not > think he is, I think it is either taunting that Harry is uncapable > of using Unfogivables, or quite idiotic advise), that means that he > is subtly encouraging Harry to learn Occlumency, not to learn > something else entirely, no? Pippin: Can you explain why, if Snape meant to sneak advice to Harry under the guise of taunting him, Snape would want to make it obvious? What would the scene be like if Snape had said nothing? Would Harry immediately understand why his attacks were failing? Was it not useful for Harry to know? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 20:38:37 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:38:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar and Lily/Snape questions (Was: a whole lot of topics a la Catlady) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163549 Kelly wrote: > Has anyone ever thought that the Scar came from Lily and not > Voldemort? Some sort of Charm that caused the curse to bounce off. Carol responds: As I said in another post, the AK does not mark its victims. IMO, the open cut that turned into a scar had to be caused by the AK bursting outward as the result of Lily's self-sacrificial Love magic. The shape of the scar, which JKR has said is not *the most* significant thing about it (meaning, IMO, that the shape is less important than the Voldie-link and/or the powers that the scar gives Harry), may be somewhat important--that is, it could resemble a rune, marking or symbolizing the Love magic. In fact, it just occurred to me that the rune shape (eihwaz for defence/protection) could be what clued in Dumbledore to the nature and power of Lily's sacrifice and caused him to realize that he could use that same protection to keep Harry safe from harm at the Dursleys. I used to believe that Lily, whom I suspect to have been good at Charms based on Ollivander's comment in SS/PS about her first wand ("Nice wand for Charm work"), placed a protective charm on Harry before Godric's Hollow, maybe even tracing an eihwax rune on his forehead as part of the charm (compare the sign of the cross on the forehead of a baptized baby), and that the charm could only be activated by Lily's self-sacrifice, but JKR has said that Lily didn't know that she was going to die. I think we're supposed to believe that her self-sacrifice alone, in essence trading her life for Harry's, activated or invoked the Love magic. Still, JKR has said that we don't know everything about Lily's sacrifice. Some people (many, actually) seem to think JKR means that Voldemort had a reason for wanting Lily to live, but his words to her ("Stand aside, you silly girl!" etc.) don't sound that way to me. I think he just wanted her out of the way so that he could kill the Prophecy Boy, his goal in coming to GH in the first place. It's also possible that he didn't want to murder Lily because he wanted to use the soul fragment caused by Harry's murder, not hers, in his final Horcrux. Still, though, I think it's Lily we'll learn more about in DH, not Voldemort, who has already been studied in depth in HBP. So I still think that Lily *could* have cast a protective Charm on Harry, even accompanied by a potion--the antithesis of Wormtail's Dark magic, also involving incantations and a potion, to resurrect Voldemort in GoF. Maybe that charm/potion, in combination with her self-sacrifice, is what caused the love magic, apparently unique in the history of the WW, and recognized as such by DD because of the rune-shaped scar. (I'm not saying that's what happened, only pointing out that it's possible. JKR had Hermione mention the eihwaz rune in OoP, and take classes in Ancient Runes, for a reason. And Ollivander's reference to Lily and Charms is unlikely to be coincidental, given that he mentions a connection between James's wand and Transfiguration in the next paragraph, and we know where that led.) Kelly wrote: I sure hope we find out if Snape is one or the other. I don't > know if I can live with nagging questions on Snapes loyalties. I for > one think that Snape and only Snape can help Harry defeat Voldemort > now that Dumbledore is dead. The question is how long will it take for Harry to realise this? Carol: I agree with you. But I don't think we'll have any question about Snape's loyalties at the end of DH. The whole of HBP was about him, even when he was offpage. He's been important in some way in every book (if it weren't for Snape, Harry wouldn't know about Bezoars and neither he nor Draco would have known how to cast Expelliarmus, just to mention two "small" things.) Harry has been asking questions about him--and getting partial answers suitable to his age and experience, in DD's view or none at all--since SS/PS (e.g., "What made you think he'd really stopped supporting Voldemort, Professor?" GoF Am. ed. 604, to which DD responds that that's between him and Professor Snape). Harry asks a whole series of Snape-related questions in GoF: "What was it that Snape had done on Dumbledore's orders, the night that Voldemort had returned? And why . . . *why* . . . was Dumbledore so convinced that Snape was truly on their side? He had been their spy, Dumbledore had said so in the Pensieve. Snape had turned spy against Voldemort, 'at great personal risk'. Was that the job he had taken up again? Had he made contact with the Death Eaters, perhaps? Pretended that he had never really gone over to Dumbledore, that he had been, like Voldemort himself, biding his time?" (720-21) The mere fact that Harry would ask such questions makes them important to him and, by extension, to the reader. We get partial answers in HBP, but unlike Harry, we understand that they're partial, and that he's distorting the facts when he reports Dumbledore's answers to Lupin, the Weasleys, Hermione et al. We know, more or less, what Snape was doing when he returned. We know even in OoP that it's his job to report to DD what Voldemort is telling his Death Eaters. We know (or think we know) that he can use Occlumency to lie to the Dark Lord without detection. But we still don't know the answer to the key question, why DD was so convinced that Snape was on their side, or whether his remorse is real, or why he joined the DEs in the first place. We may never get an answer to that last question, but I'll bet my collection of HP books that we get answers to the rest. Snape is too important a character for JKR to leave us in any doubt about his loyalties and motives. And I hope we hear from Snape himself what went through his mind on the tower and what, if anything, he saw in Dumbledore's eyes. Carol, agreeing with JKR that Snape is "a gift of a character" and sure that she won't forgo the pleasure of writing scenes for him in DH despite his no longer being Harry's teacher From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 20:46:18 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 20:46:18 -0000 Subject: "Fidelius" etymology (Was: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163550 Mike: I think Lilygale might have hit on something. Before I get there I'd like to put forth my understanding of the mechanics of the "Fidelius Charm". The Potters themselves were the (attempted) object of the charm, that is, their location was to be the secret. As long as they had propriety over the location of their hiding place, they could cast the charm to hide themselves there. After the charm is cast (if done properly) the Potters would be hidden, not the house they are hiding in. Only the Secret Keeper could reveal *where the Potters are hiding", thereby allowing that person or persons to see the Potters. These same person or persons could always see the house the Potters were in, they just could not see the Potters in it until the secret was revealed to them. On a side note; 12 GP is not hidden by the "Fidelius", imo it was hidden by the charms that the elder Blacks placed on the location. Dumbledore hid the location of the HQ of the OotP, that's why Snape cannot speak the location to Bella. Sirius, as owner of the house, gives Dumbledore the propriety to establish HQ there and thereby gives Dumbledore the authority to reveal the houses location and existance to whomever he chooses. Bella probably knew and knows where the Blacks lived, but she doesn't and won't know where the HQ was and is hidden. FWIW, I think the Blacks protections excluded Bella along with everyone else from entering the house, once they realized what was going on with Voldemort and realized what a rabid supporter Bella had become. There is a subtlety, which I love, to this charms application. Now, for what inspired this response. --- In HPforGrownups/message/163461, "Lilygale" wrote: > > > Is there something about the Fidelius Charm itself that > recognizes an enemy of the people for whom the Charm is cast? > But if that were the case, how did the traitor Pettigrew become > Secret Keeper in the first place? --- In HPforGrownups/message/163542, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > > To be sure, [PP] was never "trusty, steadfast, faithful," or at > least he had ceased to be so long before the Secret was concealed > in him, > Far from acting "faithfully" and enabling the Potters to live > "securely, without danger," he destroyed their safety and > security by his breach of confidence and trust. Mike now: What if Lilygale is right? What if part of the "Fidelius" requirement includes the faithfulness/loyalty of the SK to exist for the charm to *take hold*? Maybe the "Fidelius" never took, maybe the Potters were never hidden, they just thought they were. In fact everyone thought they were hidden. PP thought he was revealing the secret to Voldemort when in fact he was only revealing an unhidden but not well known location of the Potters. Voldemort thought he was receiving SK information from PP, how would he tell the difference, he didn't know the Potters location beforehand either way. Dumbledore may have realized that he still knew the Potters location, assuming he knew in advance, and attributes this to his belief that the Potters' SK, Sirius Black, was not faithful but was instead the spy they had all known existed. He did know the Potters had planned to employ the "Fidelius" and had planned to use Sirius as SK. You know, this wouldn't be the first time JKR let a planted perception exist for a while before finally revealing the true story. Didn't we all assume that Tom Riddle had jinxed the diary to do it's dirty deeds, only to find out he put a soul piece in it? Didn't we all assume Harry had to live with the Dursleys because they were his only relatives, then to find that Dumbledore had employed a blood protection with Lily's and Petunia's blood? Subtle, but significant difference, especially after Sirius had established himself at 12 GP and could offer Harry an alternate home. Just a possibility, not sold on it myself, just thought I'd throw it out there and see what others thought. > Carol continues: > > So the betrayal itself, the revelation of the Potters in their > hiding place (I'm sure that PP brought Voldemort to the spot, said > something like "There they are; that's their house," and > transformed into a rat to watch the action) may have been enough to > break the Fidelius Charm (and alert Dumbledore to their danger). > What I'm sure of is that the Charm was broken, enabling DD not only > to know where they were but to inform Hagrid of the address, either > by the betrayal or by the deaths of the adult Potters and the > exposure of Harry to danger, or by the destruction of the house. By > the time Voldemort had exploded, taking the house with him, there > was no Secret to keep. Etymology suggests that it was the betrayal > that broke the charm. > > Carol, not really arguing with Kemper but trying to understand how > the charm works in relation to its name Mike: Well... I think you are disagreeing with Kemper, Carol, and I think you are right. :-) If the "Fidelius" was properly cast and in place, then I think your explanation of why and how it was broken is spot on. Mike, wondering if JKR is going to fiddle with the Fidelius in DH From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 21:30:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:30:15 -0000 Subject: "Fidelius" etymology (Was: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163551 Mike wrote: > On a side note; 12 GP is not hidden by the "Fidelius", imo it was > hidden by the charms that the elder Blacks placed on the location. > Dumbledore hid the location of the HQ of the OotP, that's why Snape > cannot speak the location to Bella. Carol responds: I agree with the second sentence but not the first. If the house were hidden by the charms that the elder Blacks placed on it, the order members wouldn't be able to see it, "propriety" or not. Sirius black would have to remove those charms, and I think they're still there (mostly anti-Muggle charms that make the house invisible to the neighbors). But once Harry reads and memorizes the note Moody hands him, he can see 12 GP. It's knowing the Secret, as told to him in writing by the Secret Keeper, that enables him to see the house--nothing to do with the spells that mr. Black Sr. placed on it. Mike: Bella probably knew and knows where the Blacks lived, but she doesn't and won't know where the HQ was and is hidden. FWIW, I think the Blacks protections excluded Bella along with everyone else from entering the house, once they realized what was going on with Voldemort and realized what a rabid supporter Bella had become. Carol: I don't see any support for that speculation. Kreacher, who worships the Blacks, has a special affection for "Miss Bellatrix," whose portrait he treasures. If the Blacks had rejected their niece for her being a "rabid supporter" of Voldemort, they'd have discarded her photograph. Certainly, they didn't change their Dark wizard ways (house-elf heads in the hallway, Slytherin serpents as their chief decorative motif, jars of what appears to be blood in the pantry). I'm guessing that Bellatrix was a guest at her aunt's when Regulus heard her telling either his parents or Rodolphus about the special mission with which Voldemort had entrusted her. I'm even guessing that she asked to borrow their house-elf and that Kreacher's devotion to her was increased by his part in this special mission (hiding the locket Horcrux in the cave, along with a particularly malignant potion). Yes, I know. My turn to speculate. :-) Carol earlier: > > > > So the betrayal itself, the revelation of the Potters in their hiding place may have been enough to break the Fidelius Charm (and alert Dumbledore to their danger). What I'm sure of is that the Charm was broken, enabling DD not only to know where they were but to inform Hagrid of the address, either by the betrayal or by the deaths of the adult Potters and the exposure of Harry to danger, or by the destruction of the house. By the time Voldemort had exploded, taking the house with him, there was no Secret to keep. Etymology suggests that it was the betrayal that broke the charm. > Mike: > Well... I think you are right. :-) If the "Fidelius" was properly cast and in place, then I think your explanation of why and how it was broken is spot on. Carol: Thanks! And here I thought you were disagreeing with me. I *do* think the Fidelius was properly cast, by charming Lily (I like bad puns, too), and was "in place" until Wormtail's betrayal (or the destruction of the Secret). Carol, wondering what to etymologize next From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 21:33:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:33:31 -0000 Subject: The Snape Whisperer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163552 Pippin: > Milan also explains his use of a controversial technique > called 'flooding'. This consists of desensitizing an animal > to an undesirable emotion, such as a phobia, by allowing > it to become overwhelmed. While this is regarded as too > cruel by some, Milan feels that it is far more effective > than trying to comfort the animal when it is frightened, > which in his view often leads to reinforcing the very > behavior one is trying to discourage. > > I have to wonder if Dumbledore had a similar rationale > for leaving Harry to be overwhelmed by his feelings after > Cedric's death. Harry has received so little comfort in his > life that to have it given to him after Cedric's death might > have set up an undesirable association. As it was, Harry > went through a miserable six weeks at the Dursleys, but > he does seem to have become somewhat desensitized > to survivor guilt, enough so that he could deal with the > loss of Sirius without plummeting into the severe > depression he experienced after losing Cedric. Alla: Yes, this is of course possible and yes, I would consider it beyond cruel, but maybe Dumbledore did something else entirely. Something that he did to Harry during **all** his life, something that seems to me to be perfectly in character for Dumbledore to do. >From the moment Dumbledore left Harry with Dursleys, he did not bother as far as I remember to check on Harry once, to provide him with one yota of comfort when he was a little kid and till now, me thinks. Leaving Harry without comfort and moreover, prohibiting his friends from contacting Harry just seems to me another one in the very long line of mistakes Dumbledore committed while dealing with him. Oh, and I wonder where you see much difference between Harry state after losing Cedric and losing Sirius. He was miserable at Dursleys after he lost Cedric ( nightmares, etc) and he was **just** as miserable at Dursleys when he lost Sirius ( not eating, etc) He makes that speech to bravely go forward, but he seems to me to be just as depressed through the book, only signs are more subtle IMO. JMO, Alla, who thinks that Dumbledore should be called a bloody hyppocrite if he deliberately employed this techinique with Harry, because he was one of the major contributors to Harry not getting the comfort through his life. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 21:50:28 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:50:28 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. General vs Specific In-Reply-To: <700201d40701070039i239a0fbemab1cfb4b53fe27bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163554 --- Kemper wrote: > > > Kemper earlier: > > > The etymology of 'fidelis' (faithful) stems from > > > 'fides' (faith). To be faithful is different than > > > being loyal. One suggests a belief or trust in > > > something/one, the other an obligation to > > > something/one. > > > > > > ... > > > > Geoff responded: > > I think you are splitting hairs here and that your > > argument is not really valid. My Latin dictionary > > gives "fides" as: faith; trust; confidence; belief; > > credence; loyalty; honesty; allegaince; promise; > > security; protection. While the English-Latin section > > gives "Fides" for both "loyalty" and "faith" > > and in both cases the adjective form is "fidelis". > > > > ... > > > > Hence, I don't see precisely where your divergence in > > meanings is leading..... > > > Kemper now: > ... If you were following upthread, you will have > noticed that bboy was saying that: > > "The Potter's trusted Peter with their lives, and in > accepting that trust, Peter is implying a true and deep > loyalty to the Potters." > > I read this to mean that bboy believes the Fidelius > Charm works (in part) by the loyalty Peter feels of the > Potters. I disagreed because I don't believe that Peter > was loyal to the Poters at the time of the charm. ... > > Kemper, who wonders if your Latin dictionary would have > been more accurately labeled a thesaurus > bboyminn: There is one apect you are missing in my statements, and that is that Peter 'fidelity' (loyaty, trust, etc...) is not in question for ALL TIME. In a sense we have a magical contract that is very precise in its terms, and in which, by figuratively signing, Peter is agreeing to keep one specific secret. He is figuratively swearing an oath of 'fidelity' specific to keeping this one secret. So, whether Peter was a 'rat' in general doesn't come into play, and is not relevant to whether the Secret Keepr Charm remains or dissolves. Rat that he is, for as long as he keeps this one secret, for as long as he remain true to this one specific oath, the Charm stays intact. It is when he breaks the fidelity, when he fails in the "fulfillment of one's duties and obligations and strict adherence to vows or promises"(1) of that one specific 'oath' that the Charm becomes null and void. That's why I don't think Peter's on-going character is important to the successful creation of this one specific Secret Keeper Charm. The other aspect of how the Charm might have dissolved relates to the exact wording of the Secret itself. If the /secret/ was the Potters, then we have one set of problems. If the /secret/ was the house, we have a completely different set of problems. If the Secret was in the form 'The Potters are hiding at 123 West Lane Road; Godrics Hollow, UK', that is not a house, it is a lot. That address exists independant of whether there is a house on it or not. If the Secret is in the form 'The Potters are hiding in Dumbledore's ancestral home in Godrics Hollow' then things are different, but house and home are not exactly the same. So, that could create complications. If the Secret is 'The Potter are hiding in Dumbledore's house in Gordrics Hollow' that is more specific, but, though I can't think of any at the moment, that must have its own set of complications. However, I think we all agree that for whatever reason, the Charm was broken that night. By the time Hagrid got there and the muggles came running, the Charm simply did not exist anymore for whatever reason. If the Charm does still exist, I think we have many many unresolvable complications to the story. I also think if the Charm was on the Potter's themselves and is still in effect, then again, too many unresolvable complications. Conclusion; that charm must have been broken. I think it was broken by breach of Fidelity. Of course, that's just my opinion, but it is FIRMLY my opinion. Steve/bboyminn (1)- American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition CD-ROM V3.6a From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 21:56:39 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 21:56:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163555 Re: Harry's Characterization > > Alla: > > > > Except nowhere near in this scene Snape even implies IMO that > > Harry's answer is to go different way completely. If Snape is > > dispensing **useful advise** to Harry ( which as I said I do not > > think he is, I think it is either taunting that Harry is uncapable > > of using Unfogivables, or quite idiotic advise), that means that he > > is subtly encouraging Harry to learn Occlumency, not to learn > > something else entirely, no? > > Pippin: > > Can you explain why, if Snape meant to sneak advice to Harry > under the guise of taunting him, Snape would want to make it > obvious? > > What would the scene be like if Snape had said nothing? Would > Harry immediately understand why his attacks were failing? Was > it not useful for Harry to know? Alla: Oh, I am not asking for **obvious** Pippin, I am asking for the advise to actually **be there**. I was just trying to figure out where in that scene you read that Snape encourages Harry to **give up** Occlumency. Could you point me to that? Or did I lost you again? I thought you were saying that what Snape actually does is telling Harry that he has to do something else - not close his mind and I am saying that **IF** and this is a very big IF in my opinion, Snape gives Harry advise in that scene, the advise is to close his mind. The way I am reading your argument, you are saying that Snape actually does exact opposite, discourages Harry from doing it? If it is correct, could you please point me to the quote, where Snape does that? Thanks. ETA: Pippin, somebody just explained to me that what you actually meant in your earlier post is that Snape does not advise Harry to give up Occlumency that this is the conclusion us as readers and Harry must make. Is that what you meant? Thanks again. Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 22:02:50 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:02:50 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163556 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I think magic is a stage dressing more than the *foundation* of > > JKR's world. > > > > It's pretty and glittery and can stand in beautifully for real > > world things (a mother's love physically saving her child from > > harm for example) but it's not a story line, it's a prop. > >>Mike: > Oh well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then Betsy. :-) > Let me expound, anyway. PoA: When Harry reaches out his hand and > softly says, "Prongs". The connection with his father is a most > poignant moment for me, and many others I'm sure. GoF: When the > echo of Lily comes out of the wand and Harry describes his > feelings, thinking about her , I almost couldn't take the > emotion. > JKR is able to bring me to that emotional level because of the > magical world she set up. Betsy Hp: Right, but it's the *emotions* not the magic that touch you. It's Harry never getting to know his parents. The magic is the prop that brings that emotion home, but it's not the magical technique that makes the scene sing: it's Harry's very real feelings. > >>Mike: > Harry sitting alone in his bed, reminiscing about his parents > wouldn't do it for me. It was the magic that makes it, well... > Magical. It's the magic that makes it profound. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, I suspect we're talking at cross purposes here. Because from what you've said it's not really the magic at all. Because you're not really talking about magic. You're talking about Harry getting a chance to see what he's missed out on. The magic is what brings the emotion out, yes, but it's the emotion that hits you. (Um... IMO, of course, not trying to put words in your mouth or anything rude like that.) For it to be *about* the magic (in the way I'm thinking about it -- which I don't think I've expressed too clearly, sorry) then we'd have to be excited by the actual magic. The magic itself would need to be profound. For example: How cool that Harry is tapping into such and such powers! I'm glad Harry understands that the foundation of X is Y and can now unleash the powers of W! In other words, if it were about the magic itself, the magic would be more center stage. We the readers would have a very real understanding of how the magic of Potterverse works. Which would mean, of course, that JKR would have needed to come up with a logical, scientific, rules based magic form. Which is so not her style, IMO. (Thank goodness, because such stories leave me cold. ) > >> Mike previously: > > One of the reasons JKR and Harry Potter is such a phenomenon is > > because she got *boys* to read again. Take the magic out and where > > is she with that readership? > >>Betsy Hp: > > Cheering madly as Harry outflies a dragon? > >>Mike: > You mean Harry flies a broom without magic :P Dragons, dragons .... > hmmm, you mean Komodo dragons, right? Cause, no magic... no flying, > fire-breathing, horned-tailed dragons, right? Betsy Hp: Ah, but see now you're talking about magic as prop. "Dragon's exist; brooms fly." You're not talking world foundation. "Dragon's exist because...; brooms fly because..." And in that I agree. Magic is an important prop in JKR's world. It's what makes it fun. But it's not its foundation. Good vs. evil; easy choices vs. right choices: those are JKR's foundations, IMO. Which (to bring this back to the original discussion point ) is why I seriously doubt Harry is going to have a major training marathon where he finally learns all the magical knowledge of the various adults around him. It'd be too boring for JKR to write because it'd be memorization and rote, not an interesting dissertation of the magical rules of Potterverse. Instead, I think Harry will need to make some right rather than easy choices and learn to better differentiate between good and evil. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But I don't recall Harry demonstrating amazing magical ability to > > defeat his foes. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163546 > >>Eggplant: > Forget Harry's grades, life is the ultimate IQ test. I've posted > this list before, it's the times Harry has shown exceptional magical > ability. > Betsy Hp: Actually, I agree with this list, Eggplant. Harry has raw power or ability and he pulls it out of his pocket when needed. What Harry doesn't have is exceptional magical knowledge (book learning) that he uses to create special and specific magic per need. (Which is what I was talking about, unclearly, upthread. ) So again, I don't think DH will send Harry into a form of magical boot camp where he becomes as proficient as Dumbledore or Voldemort or Snape at creating his own magic based on a newly formed understanding of the rules of Potterverse magic. Instead I think Harry will dive into Horcrux hunting and follow his instinct (and trusted advice) as he goes along. It's sort of like Harry is a natural athlete, using those skills to bring down evil. Not a science wiz, using superior knowledge to bring down evil. If that makes more sense. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > It's not that there isn't a logical reason for Harry to embark on > > a heavy duty training regimen, it's just out of character, for > > both Harry and JKR. I expect more book study than spell study. > > (Though I do think Harry will work on his non-verbals.) > >>Mike: > Do you mean you expected, past tense? Or do you think there is more > book study to come for Harry? Seems unlikely to me. I mean, what > book knowledge other than spell knowledge are you expecting Harry > to go looking for? Betsy Hp: Well, the trio always hit the stacks when dealing with a new problem, so I doubt DH will be any different. And there might be some briefly mentioned training where Ron and Harry work on their non-verbal as in GoF. But I don't predict a Moody, Bill Weasley, Lupin (gosh, *especially* not Lupin, who's never really been there for Harry despite fan expectation), McGonagall boot camp. But yeah, I can see them looking for a specific spell or some specific information on a Founder or two. > >>Betsy Hp (noticing Magpie's already answered this post, but darn > > it, I'm posting this anyway .) > >>Mike, noticing that though Betsy's post came after Magpie's, it's > threaded above Magpie's. How does that happen? Betsy Hp: Yahoo!Mort. I sacrifice to it every night. Magpie's obviously skipped a night or two. > PS - Betsy, you're an elf so I'll ask you. If you start a post > before midnight local, but finish after midnight local, which day > does it count towards your five max? I'm such a slow typist, it > feels like I started this yesterday. Wait... I did, shoot. :( Betsy Hp (puts on elf hat): Since we're dealing with so many different time-zones, we go with a rolling 24hrs, rather than a midnight stopping point. So if you started posting at 5pm local time and you've posted 5 posts, your 6th post should wait until after 5pm local time the next day. Otherwise: firing squad. (Seriously, I think we elves tend to worry about overposting only if it starts to become a trend.) If anyone has any further questions (or complaints or suggestions) about posting limits (or any of our beloved rules) please feel free to bring them up on our Feedback list here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback/ Nothing excites us elves like a good Feedback discussion. Betsy Hp From percafluvia at gmx.net Sun Jan 7 22:18:27 2007 From: percafluvia at gmx.net (laperchette) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:18:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar and Lily/Snape questions (Was: a whole lot of topics a la Catlady) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163557 snip > Carol wrote: > > > I used to believe that Lily, whom I suspect to have been good at > Charms based on Ollivander's comment in SS/PS about her first wand > ("Nice wand for Charm work"), placed a protective charm on Harry > before Godric's Hollow, maybe even tracing an eihwax rune on his > forehead as part of the charm (compare the sign of the cross on the > forehead of a baptized baby), laperchette (who is normally lurking) thinks: Very interesting rune-theory! But for me Harry's scar looks more like the rune Sowilo, than Eihwaz. And Sowilo is (besides the missuse of the rune by the nazis) also very interesting, because it's meaning is the sun and the positive force of attack. Perhaps you have other resources? Thank you for the idea! http://www.runemaker.com/futhark/sowilo.shtml From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 22:26:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 22:26:04 -0000 Subject: The Snape Whisperer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163558 Pippin wrote: > > > > Milan also explains his use of a controversial technique called 'flooding'. This consists of desensitizing an animal to an undesirable emotion, such as a phobia, by allowing it to become overwhelmed. While this is regarded as too cruel by some, Milan feels that it is far more effective than trying to comfort the animal when it is frightened, which in his view often leads to reinforcing the very behavior one is trying to discourage. > > > > I have to wonder if Dumbledore had a similar rationale for leaving Harry to be overwhelmed by his feelings after Cedric's death. Harry went through a miserable six weeks at the Dursleys, but he does seem to have become somewhat desensitized to survivor guilt, enough so that he could deal with the loss of Sirius without plummeting into the severe depression he experienced after losing Cedric. > Alla responded: > > Yes, this is of course possible and yes, I would consider it beyond cruel, but maybe Dumbledore did something else entirely. Something that he did to Harry during **all** his life, something that seems to me to be perfectly in character for Dumbledore to do. > > From the moment Dumbledore left Harry with Dursleys, he did not bother as far as I remember to check on Harry once, to provide him with one yota of comfort when he was a little kid and till now, me thinks. > > Leaving Harry without comfort and moreover, prohibiting his friends from contacting Harry just seems to me another one in the very long line of mistakes Dumbledore committed while dealing with him. > > > Alla, who thinks that Dumbledore should be called a bloody > hyppocrite if he deliberately employed this techinique with Harry, > because he was one of the major contributors to Harry not getting > the comfort through his life. > Carol responds: Oh, dear. It seems that each time someone tries to analyze or justify Dumbledore's behavior, you just become more angry with him. Maybe we'd better just hold our tongues, eh, Pippin, or Alla will change her Yahoo ID! Seriously, I don't think that Dumbledore was intentionally withholding comfort from Harry. In fact, he took pains to announce publicly that Cedric was murdered by Voldemort (Wormtail gets left out of the explanation, I suppose because the full truth would seem even less probable than the condensed version) and to salute Harry along with Cedric, raising his cup to him and asking everyone present to do the same. That, to me, is DD saying to Harry, "This isn't your fault. You have no reason to feel guilty." And Dumbledore had listened to Harry's story, making sure he told it while it was still fresh in his mind rather than allowing him to sleep and then relive it, which would have been still more painful. Yes, he ignored Harry over the rest of the summer, but he didn't forget about him and he made sure that the Order members (Mrs. Figg and whoever else was on Harry duty) were watching over him. I don't think that speaking words of comfort, which Mrs. Weasley and others had already done, would have helped. Harry had to come to terms with Cedric's death himself, as we all do when someone we know dies, especially if we think it's partly our fault. (I won't get into the death of Sirius Black here except to mention that Harry deals with it differently, conveniently shifting his own feelings of guilt and his anger over Black's death onto Snape. Oddly, he never feels angry with Voldemort for either death even though he's either directly or indirectly responsible. It's possible that Dumbledore is trying to redirect Harry's animus in HBP when he talks about why Harry "has" to fight Voldemort.) Rather than considering Dumbledore a "bloody hypocrite" for employing a technique that we don't even know he's aware of, I think it might be better (more comforting :-) ) to return to regarding his treatment of Harry as a mistake rather than systematic cruelty. Just a suggestion since I don't think it was either one--more like a practical necessity or necessary evil, one of many I could list but won't unless requested to do so. However, it seems to me that *Lupin* applies something like Milan's "flooding" technique in teaching kids to confront their Boggarts (their worst fears personified)--and the technique seems to work. In some cases, the students may realize that their fears are childish (fear of eyeballs or mummies or mean teachers, for example). I wonder if the Boggart class helped Ron overcome his fear of spiders? And Lupin uses the technique again in teaching Harry how to cast a Patronus--confronting a Boggart Dementor. (No one except Harry has that advantage in learning to confront one.) I suppose that Dumbledore's taking Harry with him to retrieve the (supposed) locket Horcrux was also "total immersion," and much needed as preparation for future encounters. The same could be said for Snape's Occlumency lessons and his duel with Harry at the end of HBP ("again and again until you learn to shut your mouth and close your mind," which may not be applicable to battling Voldemort but is certainly necessary if Harry is ever to defeat Snape himself, supposing he's ESE, or a real Death Eater like Bellatrix, supposing that he's DDM). Anyway, Harry, because he's Harry, has to learn some difficult life lessons, and "flooding" could be an effective way to teach those lessons, whether or not his teachers consciously use it. Certainly, he has learned to deal with bullies by being exposed to bullies and with danger by being exposed to danger--as have many other students at Hogwarts. Quidditch and COMC (and unfair teacers) probably wouldn't be tolerated if they didn't prepare the students for the cruel and dangerous world that is the WW. Carol, just exploring Pippin's idea and wishing she could help Alla recover her lost affection for Albus Dumbledore From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jan 7 23:17:31 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:17:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar and Lily/Snape questions (Was: a whole lot of topics a la Catlady) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163559 snip > Carol wrote: > > I used to believe that Lily, whom I suspect to have been good at Charms based on Ollivander's comment in SS/PS about her first wand ("Nice wand for Charm work"), placed a protective charm on Harry before Godric's Hollow, maybe even tracing an eihwax rune on his forehead as part of the charm (compare the sign of the cross on the forehead of a baptized baby), laperchette: > Very interesting rune-theory! But for me Harry's scar looks more like the rune Sowilo, than Eihwaz. And Sowilo is (besides the missuse of the rune by the nazis) also very interesting, because it's meaning is the sun and the positive force of attack. Perhaps you have other resources? Thank you for the idea! Ceridwen: I agree, Laperchette, that the Rune, as drawn on JKR's bulletin board, is Sowelu. I do have a different site than you do, but can't speak for Carol: http://sunnyway.com/runes/meanings.html While Eihwaz is symbolized by the yew (LV's wand was made of yew) which represents Death, it is also a mark of protection. However, Sowelu is the symbol of the sun and of victory and success. Harry's survival was a success for an ancient and not understood form of magic, and I certainly hope he will be successful against Voldemort in the end! Also, Sowelu's gem is the ruby, Harry's birthstone, and encrusted on Gryffindor's sword. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 7 23:29:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:29:42 -0000 Subject: The Snape Whisperer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163560 > > Alla, who thinks that Dumbledore should be called a bloody > > hyppocrite if he deliberately employed this techinique with Harry, > > because he was one of the major contributors to Harry not getting > > the comfort through his life. > > > Carol responds: > Oh, dear. It seems that each time someone tries to analyze or justify > Dumbledore's behavior, you just become more angry with him. Maybe we'd > better just hold our tongues, eh, Pippin, or Alla will change her > Yahoo ID! Alla: Just to be clear since I was not clear whom you are implying I am angry with - Dumbledore or Pippin. So, I am certainly angry with Dumbledore not with Pippin. Carol: > Rather than considering Dumbledore a "bloody hypocrite" for employing > a technique that we don't even know he's aware of, I think it might be > better (more comforting :-) ) to return to regarding his treatment of > Harry as a mistake rather than systematic cruelty. Alla: Um, yes, that was my point. That Dumbledore would look **much** better to me if what he did to Harry is not explained as some sort of technique, because then he looks to me as cruel bastard, and I would much prefer to think that this was his another mistake. > Carol, just exploring Pippin's idea and wishing she could help Alla > recover her lost affection for Albus Dumbledore > Alla: Please don't help me. From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jan 8 01:52:39 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 01:52:39 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > 1) Harry is the only one to receive the AK curse and live. Well OK > Voldemort did too but Harry just got a minor cut on his forehead while > Voldemort nearly died with far more serious injuries. he survived due to his mother's protection. Even Voldmort states it was old magic, one he did not account for. > > 2) At age eleven with no instruction Harry could fly better than > anyone his age and better than most wizards of any age. yes. He did. Just like some children are gifted at sports or music or art, he was gifted in this area. > 3) In all of recorded history only 3 wizards have been able to speak > Parseltong. Harry is one of them. > due to his connection with Voldemort, as Dumbledore explained. > 4) Harry could produce a Patronis at a extraordinary young age but > more important it was so powerful it awed even Hermione, because the > only other wizard she knew who could repel a hundred Dementors was > Dumbledore. yes, he did. Under extreme stress. Up until then, he was not able to produce such a powerful Patronis. > 5) Harry could easily overcome the Imperious Curse, something even > formidable wizards like the real Moody and Crouch junior and senior > found extremely difficult to do. For example, Crouch junior struggled> against it for over a decade and even then was only partially > successful, Harry could triumph over it in just a few minutes. > I don't think "easily" is the right word, IMHO. In GoF, he was obediently to the curse until his inner voice questioned it. I think he has the knack to overcome the Imperious Curse, but I don't know if the word easy is the correct one. > 6) I can't think of a better demonstration of pure raw power than the > scene in GoF where Harry engages man to man in magical arm wrestling > with the most powerful dark wizard in a thousand years and wins. Harry > forced those beads of light into Voldemort's wand not the other way as > the dark lord wanted. > He had help - unexpected help - due to the fact of a rare occurance when two wands that share the same core of power(Fawk's feather) hit at the same time. The ghosts/spirits helped Harry to escape Voldy. > 7) Voldemort was able to possess Ginny and even a defense against the > dark arts teacher for months but when he tried to do the same thing to > Harry he had to retreat in defeat after just a few seconds. again, the connection between the two - it is complex and I don't even understand it. > > 8) The greatest Dark Wizard of all time, the best student ever to > attend Hogwarts beating even Dumbledore, tried to kill Harry 5 times > and failed 5 times, nobody is that lucky. Luck? How about the connection between the two - the one that came when Voldy tried to kill Harry the first time, failed due to his mother's protection and imparted a bit of Voldemort within Harry? Don't you think that might have something to do with it? I do. colebiancard(who thinks Harry is talented, but his friends (and enemies) do play a huge role in his success) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 02:04:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:04:01 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163562 Eggplant: > > 4) Harry could produce a Patronis at a extraordinary young age but > > more important it was so powerful it awed even Hermione, because the > > only other wizard she knew who could repel a hundred Dementors was > > Dumbledore. Colebiancardi: > yes, he did. Under extreme stress. Up until then, he was not able to > produce such a powerful Patronis. Alla: But does it matter though? Nobody else at Harry age seemed to be able to do it **at all* - extreme stress or not IMO. Eggplant: > > 5) Harry could easily overcome the Imperious Curse, something even > > formidable wizards like the real Moody and Crouch junior and senior > > found extremely difficult to do. For example, Crouch junior > struggled> against it for over a decade and even then was only partially > > successful, Harry could triumph over it in just a few minutes. Colebiancardi: > I don't think "easily" is the right word, IMHO. In GoF, he was > obediently to the curse until his inner voice questioned it. I think > he has the knack to overcome the Imperious Curse, but I don't know if > the word easy is the correct one. Alla: Okay, how about **better** than anybody else so far? > colebiancard(who thinks Harry is talented, but his friends (and > enemies) do play a huge role in his success) > Alla, who completely agrees with Eggplant on this one. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 01:50:27 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 01:50:27 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > > Which is why I see a large discrepancy between the way Snape sees the > upcoming confrontation and the way Dumbledore must have seen it. > Snape thinks there will be a showdown where Occlumency will make a > difference. Dumbledore said he didn't think it was necessary. > > So, Harry will have to do things a different way than Snape, and he > will get different results. His mission is different. Since Snape, > in my opinion, can't or won't see that there is a different way, he > is really straining to get his opinion heard and possibly followed, > given DDM!Snape, of course. Okay, let's look at this in a somewhat different light. JKR has told us two things (at least) about DD with great clarity: 1) she sees him as isolated (and since she is the god of the Potterverse, he therefore *is* isolated), and 2) he has no confidante. Now, that means at least one thing with regard to his relationship with Snape -- Snape is *not* a party to DD's inner thoughts and plans, at least not completely. Also, if we accept that DD was not flatly lying to Harry at the beginning of HBP, Snape does *not* know the full contents of the prophecy (and if we accept that Snape was not standing in the shed under an invisibility cloak). Whether Snape is DDM, ESE, Grey, Red, White, or Polka-Dotted at the time of his actions in HBP is really of no interest to me, and of no importance to the point I'm trying to get at. The thing I think IS of interest, and which Ceridwen is addressing, is the way Snape basically regards Harry and Harry's confrontation with Voldemort. Given that Snape was *not* DD's confidante, and that he does *not* know the full contents of the prophecy, and if we allow that DD and the prophecy are the best guides to the way to defeat Voldy (which is an assumption that could well be wrong) then it follows that Snape *can't* have a true or realistic idea of Harry's potential and the way that Harry might best go about defeating Voldy. And even if DD is mistaken, it seems unlikely that JKR will choose to show Snape as more in the right than the Headmaster was. Now, we might as well ask why DD did not fully confide in Snape. There could be several reasons. Maybe DD is just so naturally reticent and uncommunicative that he is incapable of fully confiding in anyone. Maybe he has a strong feeling that the contents of the prophecy are Harry's private property, so to speak. Maybe he thinks Snape just isn't capable of "getting it." Maybe he deliberately kept Snape in the dark because his plan depended on having a misinformed Snape among Voldy's entourage. I don't believe the last one for two seconds. But I could readily believe a combination of the first three. He probably does think that the prophecy is between him and Harry. He probably does have problems "opening up" and sharing his plans. As for the problem with Snape "getting it," though, there may be a theme at work. Why doesn't he explain to Snape the importance of "love" and "mercy" in defeating Voldemort without going so far as to reveal the prophecy? I suspect the answer is that he has tried, and Snape simply refuses to believe it. The events of OOTP probably drove this home. Snape's failure to "overcome" his feelings about James likely convinced DD that any attempt to get Snape to realize the value of the kind of virtues Harry embodies is, unfortunately, doomed to failure. Thus, at the end of HBP, Snape is still clinging to what is essentially a mistaken strategy and giving out bad advice. Lupinlore From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 02:26:20 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 18:26:20 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: <002501c73278$45fa3bc0$3e6c400c@Spot> References: <002501c73278$45fa3bc0$3e6c400c@Spot> Message-ID: <2795713f0701071826p3afc9242v31e81f210b33e70c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163564 Lynda: I won't know until the end of the seventh book whether or not Snape is evil... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 02:13:04 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 18:13:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0701071813v1f70eb8am5dd74ad18ebf0bb5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163565 Reading the posts on the lack of growth in Harry's magical prowess in HBP, I have to comment firstly, that, he does actually make some strides so to speak, magically in the book. He learns to apparate, he does apparently pass his classes which means that studious or not, he must be at least keeping up with the work and he does learn some new spells. Not only from the HBP's book either. Episkey which is the one Tonks uses on him first to heal his nose when she finds him on the train, and then of course, the ones that are from the potions book. And then, of course, serving as Quidditch Captain should have helped to hone his leadership abilities. All in all, I'm not overly disappointed in his maturation thus far... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lorac44444 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 01:29:36 2007 From: lorac44444 at yahoo.com (lorac44444) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 01:29:36 -0000 Subject: DDs defeat of Grindelwald 1945 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163566 Coincidental to the end of WW2 ? I think it was also Jo's mother birth year. lorac44444 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jan 8 03:27:21 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:27:21 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163567 Lupinlore: > Okay, let's look at this in a somewhat different light. JKR has told us two things (at least) about DD with great clarity: 1) she sees him as isolated (and since she is the god of the Potterverse, he therefore *is* isolated), and 2) he has no confidante. Now, that means at least one thing with regard to his relationship with Snape -- Snape is *not* a party to DD's inner thoughts and plans, at least not completely. Also, if we accept that DD was not flatly lying to Harry at the beginning of HBP, Snape does *not* know the full contents of the prophecy (and if we accept that Snape was not standing in the shed under an invisibility cloak). Ceridwen: Right. I can see this Dumbledore very clearly. He is the leader of an unofficial organization, and it isn't in his, or anyone else's, best interest to go spreading the secrets around. Snape is told what he needs to be told, as are the rest. The previous incarnation of the OotP had a traitor in it: there is no reason to believe that this will not happen again, with people being human and all. If that incident, or even one earlier on when Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald, influenced the way he deals with the Order, then his reticence could in part be from "once bitten, twice shy". I haven't heard the idea that Snape was under the IC in the shed, but I've heard speculation that he might be a spider Animagus. Still, Dumbledore, IIRC, mentions that only two people know the full contents of the prophecy and they are in that shed. That would be DD and Harry, in my opinion. DH may reveal differently, but so far, this is the information we have to go on. Lupinlore: > Whether Snape is DDM, ESE, Grey, Red, White, or Polka-Dotted at the time of his actions in HBP is really of no interest to me, and of no importance to the point I'm trying to get at. The thing I think IS of interest, and which Ceridwen is addressing, is the way Snape basically regards Harry and Harry's confrontation with Voldemort. Given that Snape was *not* DD's confidante, and that he does *not* know the full contents of the prophecy, and if we allow that DD and the prophecy are the best guides to the way to defeat Voldy (which is an assumption that could well be wrong) then it follows that Snape *can't* have a true or realistic idea of Harry's potential and the way that Harry might best go about defeating Voldy. And even if DD is mistaken, it seems unlikely that JKR will choose to show Snape as more in the right than the Headmaster was. Ceridwen: Since the discussion is usually couched in flavor of Snape, I'll take mine in basic black. ;) Makes for some nice descriptive moments in the book. I had been imagining that Snape had some idea of what Dumbledore thought, but that he disagreed. I'm still thinking about what you're saying here. I'd forgotten about Isolated!Dumbledore, so what you say makes a lot of sense. Snape doesn't need to know how Harry will defeat Voldemort, he only has to be the good soldier and follow Dumbledore's direction. Which is, apparently, what everyone in the Order had been doing - taking what Dumbledore said on faith. Their revelations in the hospital at the end of HBP shows that no one thought of questioning Dumbledore concerning Snape. So they may also not have questioned him about anything else. And if his instructions to Harry when they went to the cave is what he usually expects from his people, then they have learned how not to question. We have seen McGonagall question Dumbledore in PS/SS, and now we're seeing Snape questioning, too. Harry always did question what he didn't understand. > Now, we might as well ask why DD did not fully confide in Snape. There could be several reasons. Maybe DD is just so naturally reticent and uncommunicative that he is incapable of fully confiding in anyone. Ceridwen: Yes, as I mentioned above, he is the leader of an unofficial organization, he is fighting a war, and in the last round of that war, his organization was hit by a traitor. We don't know what happened with Grindelwald, so there may be another good reason there. Also, this would fit in with the description of Dumbledore being isolated and with no confidants. That plays into the job, and perhaps a natural inclination in that direction helps him to maintain that position. Lupinlore: > Maybe he has a strong feeling that the contents of the prophecy are Harry's private property, so to speak. Ceridwen: And I've seen it mentioned that this might be the reason he doesn't confide Snape's reason(s) for returning to Harry. It would be consistent, I think. Lupinlore: > Maybe he thinks Snape just isn't capable of "getting it." Ceridwen: I think that ties in with the second reason, and also with why he doesn't tell Harry about Snape's return. If so, he seems to be making judgements on what people can tolerate hearing, which we've also seen in his interactions with Harry. Lupinlore: > Maybe he deliberately kept Snape in the dark because his plan depended on having a misinformed Snape among Voldy's entourage. I don't believe the last one for two seconds. But I could readily believe a combination of the first three. He probably does think that the prophecy is between him and Harry. He probably does have problems "opening up" and sharing his plans. Ceridwen: Yes, I can see this. I can't see why it would be beneficial to have a misinformed Snape in LV's ranks, unless we bring in ESE!Snape. He really isn't my favorite flavor. I think I like your Dumbledore, who is intelligent, isolated, burdened by a war, and sensitive to others' privacy - perhaps too sensitive. Thinking along these lines, I would think that an organization like the Order would have key people who knew certain parts of the whole that Dumbledore knew, so they could put everything together if he was unable to lead them. He is 150+, natural causes barring unforseen disasters could just as easily have deprived them of their leader. Would Dumbledore have made such a huge mistake in not giving parts of his greater whole to certain trusted members so the Order could continue if he was no longer able to lead? Lupinlore: > As for the problem with Snape "getting it," though, there may be a theme at work. Why doesn't he explain to Snape the importance of "love" and "mercy" in defeating Voldemort without going so far as to reveal the prophecy? I suspect the answer is that he has tried, and Snape simply refuses to believe it. Ceridwen: Yes. And if Dumbledore is as hesitant about giving out necessary information as suggested above, then it would be difficult for someone to take his word at face value on something like this. Even on the list, we have discussions about how Harry will defeat LV - spells, knowledge, love, possession, the veil, and it all comes back to ideology: is killing in a war destructive? Would Rowling go there? Do we want our modern-day Hero to kill? I think Snape and Dumbledore would have had the same sort(s) of discussion(s), if they discussed it, especially if Dumbledore did not give enough back-up to his assertions. Lupinlore: > The events of OOTP probably drove this home. Snape's failure to "overcome" his feelings about James likely convinced DD that any attempt to get Snape to realize the value of the kind of virtues Harry embodies is, unfortunately, doomed to failure. Thus, at the end of HBP, Snape is still clinging to what is essentially a mistaken strategy and giving out bad advice. Ceridwen: Especially if Snape wanted to know more in order to wrap his mind around it. If Dumbledore did not think Snape needed to know the rest of the prophecy, he probably settled down to live with Snape's disagreement. It really doesn't matter, as long as Harry knows what Dumbledore thinks he ought to do. I think, perhaps, he might have been a little clearer with Snape once he gave Harry the prophecy. There was some chance that LV was still listening in through the scar connection. Could this have been another of Dumbledore's mistakes? Or would having Snape know merely be more of a burden on Snape in his role as a double agent? Would it be beneficial if Snape really did believe that Harry is a mediocre wizard? Either way, I agree that Snape is giving bad advice, though I do think he is giving advice that he believes in. Ceridwen. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 02:08:31 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 02:08:31 -0000 Subject: The Snape Whisperer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Anyway, Harry, because he's Harry, has to learn some difficult life > lessons, and "flooding" could be an effective way to teach those > lessons, whether or not his teachers consciously use it. Certainly, he > has learned to deal with bullies by being exposed to bullies and with > danger by being exposed to danger--as have many other students at > Hogwarts. Quidditch and COMC (and unfair teacers) probably wouldn't be > tolerated if they didn't prepare the students for the cruel and > dangerous world that is the WW. > But the ends don't justify the means, especially when it comes to the abuse of children. Now, many have argued that DD is operating along those lines. JKR has even implied it in many ways and in many forums. I guess my answer to that would be that, if such a message is being sent, then it is utterly contemptible. The fact that they WW is a reprehensible dystopia is no excuse whatsoever. Lupinlore, delighted that all moral roads lead back to this important issue From jsfigiel at aol.com Mon Jan 8 03:32:50 2007 From: jsfigiel at aol.com (jsfigiel at aol.com) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 22:32:50 EST Subject: Looking at the last page Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163569 Dsnylnd55 wrote: I feel a bit like "Sybll" in that I want to read book 7 and have all my questions answered, but I don't want to read the book because then I know there will be no book 8 and the fantastic journey that is Harry Potter will be over. I totally agree! I am conflicted. I can not wait for the new book to come out but I am going to be very sad when it is all over. I always feel like I'm missing my friends when I finish the books. I am also not sure I want all of the answers. I kind of like speculating and thinking my own scenerios. Jamie F. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jan 8 03:43:48 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:43:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163570 CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 28, Flight of the Prince Harry is in shock at the beginning of this chapter - he cannot believe what has just happened. Snape grabs Malfoy and leads the Death Eaters out of the tower. As they exit, Harry realizes that Dumbledore's Freezing Charm is no longer in effect. He throws off his Invisibility Cloak and executes "Petrificus Totalus" to stop the last Death Eater from exiting the tower. Harry runs down the staircase; his thoughts are chaotic and he rationalized that he HAS to get to Dumbledore and he HAS to catch Snape - if he does, then he will find that Dumbledore is not dead. Harry emerges from the staircase into a raging battle between the Order and the Death Eaters. He hears Snape yell "It's over, time to go" and sees Snape and Malfoy turning the corner at the end of the corridor. Harry follows when he is attacked by Fenrir. Again, Harry uses the "Petrificus Totalus" curse and he pushes the immobilized werewolf off of him. Harry notices two bodies lying on the floor; he sees Ginny, Ron, Professor McGonagall, Tonks and Lupin each fighting a Death Eater. Ginny cries out to Harry, asking him where he came from, but Harry pushes on, avoiding an overhead blast. His thoughts are on Snape - "Snape must not escape, he must catch up with Snape". Harry trips over Neville, who is lying on the floor, holding his stomach. Neville mumbles he is all right and that Snape and Malfoy had run past him. Harry delivers a hex to the big blond Death Eater while telling Neville he is on it. Harry gets up from the floor and runs after several Death Eaters - the blond and the brother and sister. He ignores the fight behind him and races around the corner. Harry thinks that Snape has a major lead on him and wonders if he has already reached the cabinet in the Room of Requirement or did the Order take precautions to secure it? Harry notices a bloody footprint heading towards the front door. He continues to aim jinxes at the brother and sister team, but then takes a shortcut, hoping to pass them and close in on Snape and Malfoy. The other people in the castle are now awake, as he sees the Hufflepuffs standing, confused and in their PJ's. Harry ignores Ernie Macmillan's question and knocks down two boys in his effort to get to the front door, which has been blasted open. There is blood on the flagstones, several terrified students and the Gryffindor Hourglass has been shattered. Harry runs out onto the grounds and he can see the blond Death Eater, Snape and Malfoy. As Harry races towards them, he sees a flash of light - Hagrid was trying to stop the Death Eaters now. Harry falls forwards as the brother and sister Death Eaters hit him with a curse from behind. Harry jinxes them with "Impedimenta" and hits one of them. Harry continues his pursuit of Snape. Harry sees Hagrid and the blond Death Eater battling but Snape and Malfoy are running towards the gates in order to Disapparate. Harry runs past Hagrid and jinxes Snape with "Stupefy" - he misses. Snape tells Draco to run and turns to face Harry. Only 20 yards apart, they both look at each other before raising their wands at the same exact time. The battle begins - Harry tries to invoke Crucio, but Snape deflects the curse before Harry can complete it and Harry is knocked off his feet. Hagrid's hut is now set ablaze by the blond Death Eater's "Incendio" curse. Harry tries the Crucio curse again, but Snape blocks it once more. Snape sneers at Harry and tells him that Harry does not have the nerve or ability to do Unforgivable Curses. Harry tries another curse, only to have Snape deflect it, effortlessly. Harry yells at Snape to fight back and calls him a coward. Snape yells back at Harry "Coward, did you call me, Potter?" and states that Harry's father would never attack him unless it was four on one ? He taunts Harry, asking him what he would call his father. Harry tries another curse, again deflected by Snape. Snape taunts him again, stating that Harry must learn to keep his mouth shut and his mind closed; otherwise, Harry's spells will blocked over and over again. Snape shouts to the blond Death Eater, telling him it is time to be gone before the Ministry shows up. Harry tries another jinx, but before he can finish it, he is hit by a curse that is so painful, he believes he will die of it, that "Snape would torture him to death or madness". Snape yells NO and suddenly the pain stops. Harry hears Snape say that Potter belongs to the Dark Lord and to leave him. As the blond Death Eater and the brother and sister team run past Harry, he struggles to his feet, not caring whether he lives or dies. Harry hates Snape now as much as he hates Voldemort. Harry throws another curse, this time "Sectumsempra". Again, Snape repels it, but this time, Harry can see that Snape is no longer sneering at him. Instead, Snape's face is full of rage. Harry thinks "Levi--" and before he can complete the curse, Snape screams NO ? There is a loud bang and Harry is thrust backwards, hitting the ground and losing his grip on his wand. As Snape approaches him, Harry can hear Hagrid yelling and Fang howling. Snape's facial expression "was suffused with hatred just as it had been before he cursed Dumbledore". Snape drops the big truth on Harry - he tells Harry that he, Snape, is the Half-Blood Prince. Harry tells Snape to kill him like he killed Dumbledore and again he calls Snape a coward. Snape yells at Harry, his face looking inhuman, "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" He slashes in the air, Harry feels a whip-like something hitting his face and he is again slammed into the ground. Buckbeak now appears, flying at Snape. As Harry gets up, he sees Snape running as Buckbeak chases him. He finds his wand, but it is too late - Snape has Disapparated. Hagrid carries Fang out of his hut and asks Harry if he is all right. Harry tells Hagrid they should put out the fire and they both issue the spell. Hagrid asks Harry what happened - why was Snape with the Death Eaters? Was he chasing them? Harry tells Hagrid that Snape killed Dumbledore. Hagrid is in disbelief and tells Harry that Dumbledore must have told Snape to go with the Death Eaters - to keep his cover as a spy. Harry doesn't explain or argue - he walks back to the castle with Hagrid. People are now coming out of the castle, looking around for any Death Eaters. Harry, however, is looking at the ground in front of the tallest tower. He notices that people are moving towards that spot. Hagrid wonders what they are looking at and they move, dreamlike, towards the very front of the tower. Hagrid moans in pain as Harry continues towards Dumbledore's body. Harry kneels down beside Dumbledore's body, which is broken and spread-eagled. Dumbledore's eyes are closed. Harry straightens Dumbledore's glasses and wipes the trickle of blood from Dumbledore's mouth. Harry tries to comprehend that he would never again speak to Dumbledore or get help from him. Harry feels something hard and looks down to see the locket they had taken out of the cave - it has fallen out of Dumbledore's pocket. It is open and as Harry picks it up, he feels something is wrong. The locket is not the same one that he saw in the Pensieve; it is smaller and the Slytherin mark is not on it. Inside is a folded piece of paper which Harry pulls out and reads: "To the Dark Lord. I know I will be dead before you read this but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can. I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more. R.A.B." Harry doesn't know or care what this means - he only knows that this is not the Horcrux. Dumbledore had weakened himself for nothing. As Harry crumples the message in his hand, Fang begins to howl. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could not have been them. 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I hope question made sense!! 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the curse from Harry? 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? 10. This is some background information for the question 10: a) "Samatha Scattergood for Waterstones - Which is your favourite member of the Order of the Phoenix? JK Rowling: I keep killing all my favourite members of the Order of the Phoenix, but there is one member of the Order of the Phoenix that you have not yet met properly and you will ?? well, you know that they are a member, but you haven't really met them properly yet and you will meet them in seven, so I am looking forward to that." b) "Peter O'Brien for Easons Ireland - Are you going introduce any new characters in the final book? JK Rowling: There will be some characters who you don't know particularly well, and there may be a couple of new characters, but nobody really major. You know pretty much the cast list by now" So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the cave? Was it a setup? Interview quotes from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4690800/4690885.stm 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal style of ending her books? 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? Also, please feel free to add your own questions! Thanks so much to Shorty-Elf for her fantastic help on making my post more understandable! All typos are my own. NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 8 04:27:33 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:27:33 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163571 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > Ceridwen: > Right. I can see this Dumbledore very clearly. He is the leader of > an unofficial organization, and it isn't in his, or anyone else's, > best interest to go spreading the secrets around. Snape is told what > he needs to be told, as are the rest. The previous incarnation of > the OotP had a traitor in it: there is no reason to believe that this > will not happen again, with people being human and all. If that > incident, or even one earlier on when Dumbledore defeated > Grindelwald, influenced the way he deals with the Order, then his > reticence could in part be from "once bitten, twice shy". > Ceridwen: > Yes, as I mentioned above, he is the leader of an unofficial > organization, he is fighting a war, and in the last round of that > war, his organization was hit by a traitor. We don't know what > happened with Grindelwald, so there may be another good reason > there. Also, this would fit in with the description of Dumbledore > being isolated and with no confidants. That plays into the job, and > perhaps a natural inclination in that direction helps him to maintain > that position. Quick_Silver: Its interesting Ceridwen on your view of why Dumbledore is secretive because I've never really considered Dumbledore's being the leader of the Order as the reason for him being so secretive. The Dumbledore that I have in my head is secretive and has no confidante but that's really part of his character rather then a habit forced on him by the necessity of war and managing the Order. It just strikes me as being more in his arch type range old, powerful, and naturally secretive (plus the fact that most of the talented wizards in JKR world seem secretive Tom Riddle, Snape, the Marauders, the Twins). > Lupinlore: > > Maybe he deliberately kept Snape in the dark because his plan > depended on having a misinformed Snape among Voldy's entourage. > > I don't believe the last one for two seconds. But I could readily > believe a combination of the first three. He probably does think > that the prophecy is between him and Harry. He probably does have > problems "opening up" and sharing his plans. > > Ceridwen: > Yes, I can see this. I can't see why it would be beneficial to have > a misinformed Snape in LV's ranks, unless we bring in ESE!Snape. He > really isn't my favorite flavor. I think I like your Dumbledore, who > is intelligent, isolated, burdened by a war, and sensitive to others' > privacy - perhaps too sensitive. Quick_Silver: But when you refer to Snape being misinformed do you mean the Dumbledore deliberately mislead him or simply a Snape that drawn the wrong conclusions. I can't see the benefit of deliberately misleading Snape (Snape's so good at doing that to himself) but I think that a Snape whose drawn the wrong conclusion is an inevitable thing (since Dumbledore's plan involves Harry). > Ceridwen: > Thinking along these lines, I would think that an organization like > the Order would have key people who knew certain parts of the whole > that Dumbledore knew, so they could put everything together if he was > unable to lead them. He is 150+, natural causes barring unforseen > disasters could just as easily have deprived them of their leader. > Would Dumbledore have made such a huge mistake in not giving parts of > his greater whole to certain trusted members so the Order could > continue if he was no longer able to lead? Quick_Silver: But isn't that what he did? He gave all of his information on Horcruxs to Harry, along with the knowledge of Tom Riddle, before he went to the cave. I see your point but if Dumbledore left behind too many instructions that could almost be worse. The last thing the Order needs to be doing is blindly following the orders of a dead man when Voldemort unleashes his plan in DH (I wonder if the real reason Snape is among the Death Eaters has nothing to do with the Horcruxs but with containing the damage of Voldemort's, hopefully, final push?). Quick_Silver From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 04:34:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:34:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: Alla: Oh, what a lovely surprise and the way to spend my fifth post on. Thank you colebiancardi :) >> DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting > his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, > his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his > instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you > think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. Alla: Well, per your question I am excluding the **help Harry in the long run** possibility in my answer ( not that it was hard for me ;)) So, why he did it? Well, since I believe that Snape enjoys taunting Harry, always did starting from his first lesson, I see what he says here as a logical progression of Snape's attitude. He IMO enjoys having Harry in the position he can be tormented, as simple as that :) > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Alla: Yes, I believe it is about being called a coward and Snape behaving as coward. Not even necessarily on the Tower, but maybe something in the past when Snape behaved cowardly and maybe he still regrets it. > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? Alla: Sure, it is possible that Hagrid knows more, but I believe that it is exactly because in Hagrid view Dumbledore is a great man and can make no mistakes. I think it is the same second hand trust that the Order had in Snape ( just because DD trust him). IMO of course. > 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged > Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? Alla: It is possible of course, but I really really don't. I think Harry wiping Dumbledore blood was one of the most moving scenes in HBP, and I hope it was not a clue, but just done for beatiful sad imagery - Harry's last touch. > 10. So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is > it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or > in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, > why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real > Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the > cave? Was it a setup? > > Interview quotes from: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4690800/46908 85.stm Alla: Oh, I love Regulus, I am convinced RAB is him, I believe he may be one character who is not really dead. If he is in hiding, well, maybe Dumbledore was not the one who hid him. I have no clue about cave though. Go Regulus Go :) > 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? > Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal > style of ending her books? Alla: Just as Sherry mentioned yesterday. I was **shocked**, truly shocked. Thanks you so much. I answered only some questions and briefly, cannot wait to read other answers. From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Mon Jan 8 03:35:03 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:35:03 -0000 Subject: The Snape Whisperer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163573 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >SNIP > > Milan also explains his use of a controversial technique > called 'flooding'. This consists of desensitizing an animal > to an undesirable emotion, such as a phobia, by allowing > it to become overwhelmed. While this is regarded as too > cruel by some, Milan feels that it is far more effective > than trying to comfort the animal when it is frightened, > which in his view often leads to reinforcing the very > behavior one is trying to discourage. > > I have to wonder if Dumbledore had a similar rationale > for leaving Harry to be overwhelmed by his feelings after > Cedric's death. Harry has received so little comfort in his > life that to have it given to him after Cedric's death might > have set up an undesirable association. As it was, Harry > went through a miserable six weeks at the Dursleys, but > he does seem to have become somewhat desensitized > to survivor guilt, enough so that he could deal with the > loss of Sirius without plummeting into the severe > depression he experienced after losing Cedric. > > Pippin > Lilygale here: Flooding is an accepted technique that many clinicians use to help people deal with phobias. As with the animal application (with which I am not familiar), therapists expose patients to phobic stimuli. But phobias by definition are irrational fears. And the therapy occurs under controlled conditions. Harry's reaction to Cedric's death and his (Harry's) torture and near-death experience in the graveyard resulted, IMO, in post- traumatic stress disorder, not phobia. Harry was suffering from common symptoms/emotional reactions of PTSD: survivors' guilt, grief, helplessness and attendent depression. Deliberately leaving him with those feelings for a prolonged period of time without help makes no sense whatsoever as a therapeutic technique. I really can't believe that Dumbledore would think that leaving Harry with his feelings was helpful in any way. If he did, he's a lousy psychologist, and that doesn't really fit with my picture of Dumbledore. He knows psychology well enough to be a master manipulator. And he would not deliberately increase Harry's pain. Lilygale, who spent many years as a clinical psychologist but has been out of touch with the field for a while From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jan 8 04:57:50 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:57:50 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163574 Quick_Silver: > Its interesting Ceridwen on your view of why Dumbledore is secretive because I've never really considered Dumbledore's being the leader of the Order as the reason for him being so secretive. The Dumbledore that I have in my head is secretive and has no confidante but that's really part of his character rather then a habit forced on him by the necessity of war and managing the Order. It just strikes me as being more in his arch type range old, powerful, and naturally secretive (plus the fact that most of the talented wizards in JKR world seem secretive Tom Riddle, Snape, the Marauders, the Twins). Ceridwen: I think, since I snipped that part, that I mentioned that a natural inclination would be a part of Dumbledore's more deliberate secrecy. I think Lupinlore showed a very isolated Dumbledore who does not naturally give away his secrets. I think that other events, like the spy in the Order during VWI, have merely strengthened the inclination. Quick_Silver: > But when you refer to Snape being misinformed do you mean the Dumbledore deliberately mislead him or simply a Snape that drawn the wrong conclusions. I can't see the benefit of deliberately misleading Snape (Snape's so good at doing that to himself) but I think that a Snape whose drawn the wrong conclusion is an inevitable thing (since Dumbledore's plan involves Harry). Ceridwen: I can't answer for Lupinlore, but I responded to him thinking that he didn't mean a deliberate misleading, only a misleading by omission. Snape does draw his own conclusions on this, I think, or he disagrees with what he is seeing play out. Quick_Silver: > But isn't that what he did? He gave all of his information on Horcruxs to Harry, along with the knowledge of Tom Riddle, before he went to the cave. I see your point but if Dumbledore left behind too many instructions that could almost be worse. The last thing the Order needs to be doing is blindly following the orders of a dead man when Voldemort unleashes his plan in DH (I wonder if the real reason Snape is among the Death Eaters has nothing to do with the Horcruxs but with containing the damage of Voldemort's, hopefully, final push?). Ceridwen: I didn't mean instructions, I meant things he knew, information about things in the works, the various threads which would make up the operations of an order like the OotP. I would like to think that giving Harry the information about Tom Riddle and the Horcruxes was part of a larger hand-picked "council" if you would give it a name, or "inner circle" of people who have other similar information. Lupin knowing what Dumbledore knew about the Werewolves, nothing held back, for instance, or perhaps Moody knowing who the spies are and how they are to be contacted and when, and how, their information might come. Arthur could be eyes and ears at the Ministry, as could Percy if he is still DDM: Moody would know this and would collect and collate that information and work plans based on it. And Snape would know who he is to contact. If Dumbledore left such a network in place and gave the necessary information to each individual for his or her area, then there would be one person who would know about Snape's role, if any, in the continuing Order. This is compartmentalization, where every piece of information is shared, but none are shared fully with the others. They would only know what they need to know to carry out their tasks. With Dumbledore dead, a new leader would need to get input from these people in order to keep his or her hands on all the threads. Since the information is ongoing and would change, then this wouldn't have to do with a master plan, only with continuing the mission of the Order. Hope that helps! Sorry if I'm not too clear, it's late. Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 05:13:27 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 05:13:27 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163575 > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > > 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody > footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? > The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could > not have been them. zgirnius: I will be inetrested in other opinions. The corridor blood could be Bill. He was wounded. The rest though...hmmm. I never noticed it. It seemed like appropriate imagery for the events, but there does seem to be a lack of sources for the blood. > 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, > Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able > to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to > get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? zgirnius: Nonverbal spells are faster. Harry was speaking his spells; Snape was blocking nonverbally, and knew what was coming before Harry finished. > 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you > think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is > due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the > latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from > Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? zgirnius: Snape is that powerful, in my opinion. It explains the attitude of the other Death Eaters, too. I think some of it is talent, and a lot of it is self-taught. Based on the HBP's book, and Sirius's comments in HBP, Dark Arts/DADA has been a serious interest of Snape's all his life. > 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right > before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that > he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated > around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and > the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about > this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do > you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind > it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion > are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, > perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I > hope question made sense!! zgirnius: I do not believe that self-loathing and other loathing are distinguishable externally. Just because Snape looked the same in two moments, does not mean he felt the same. > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. zgirnius: I think that being called a coward for killing Dumbledore was what did it. Since I believe the killing was completely unplanned (Snape either did it because he saw it was the only reasonable thing for him to do to further his goals, and it is what he understood Dumbledore to be asking him for) I think Snape may harbor a doubt about his own motives. If the killing was planned, then the explanation would be that it was a brave thing for him to do, since now he will be alone and friendless and a wanted man, and stuck with Voldemort and a big secret to hide from him. > 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the > Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why > Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have > issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have > harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the > curse from Harry? zgirnius: Either the DE cursing him stopped (Crucio ends when the wand is raised, we've seen this before) on Snape's order, or Snape actually blocked the curse. This is a point I imagine will never be clarified. > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? zgirnius: I tend to think it is based in part on Hagrid's own experience of Snape. What that would be, is still speculative. I tend to believe it might be about Snape and Lily's relationship. Hagrid never does answer Harry's question in PS/SS about why Snape might hate him. We the readers may conclude that Hagrid simply did not want to bring up what Dumbledore and Quirrell later tell Harry, but I am not so sure. > 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged > Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? zgirnius: I have no opinion. Certainly not in the sense that someone would have seen those clues and ionvestigated, if not for Harry's action. But will these details matter to Harry in Book 7? Depends on what the cause of death was... > 10. This is some background information for the question 10: > So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is > it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or > in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, > why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real > Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the > cave? Was it a setup? zgirnius: I believe RAB was Regulus, now dead. > 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? > Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal > style of ending her books? zgirnius: I was blindsided both by the death, and Snape's role in it. It is not in keeping with her usual way of ending the books. An event of this magnitude would normally be fully explained for us. In a 'typical' ending, Snape would have given a lovely, sneering villain speech, either on the Tower, or if he was really in such a rush, to Harry once they were alone, explaining just how he had hoodwinked Dumbledore, and why. And then someone standing in for Dumbledore (Hermione, perhaps? Lupin?) would have talked the whole event over with Harry and would have helped us see how all the events of the books fit in with this. Instead, we are stuck arguing about ewhat exactly happened and why until Book 7 comes out. > 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you > feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? zgirnius: Hmm. I hadn't asked myself this question before. Maybe. It's actually one of two chapters in HP I hate to reread...along with the Cave, wich is also brillinat IMO. Though, I think I would vote for "The Lightning Struck Tower" myself. The conversation between Draco and Dumbledore in that chapter is just amazing to me. Thanks for some excellent questions and observations about this chapter! From lealess at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 06:52:03 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 06:52:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163576 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 28, Flight of the Prince >1. Why so much blood? Good question. The only one we hear of being severely wounded is Bill Weasley, probably because Harry is all-but-a-Weasley. We've seen few spells that can cause bleeding: Sectumsempra, the candy that the twins devise to cause nosebleed, Umbridge's pen. I suppose non-human creatures can also cause bleeding by injury, such as Voldemort's snake. Most bleeding, however, seems to be caused by Muggle-type physical mishap. One of the Death Eaters was bleeding in the Department of Mysteries, probably caused by falling into something or something falling on him. Neville's nose was also bleeding at that battle, caused by actual physical violence. So, I think the blood in this chapter is for dramatic effect, and the combatants are just running into objects which cause them to bleed. The blood is never discussed again. It seems strange that wizards don't have a handy spell to stop run-of-the-mill bleeding. 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused. Yet, Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? Harry is full of emotion, not deliberation. Snape is more powerful at this stage because he can control emotion, and he has determination. Also, Snape embodies the fears Harry has to overcome. Harry is not yet ready to do face them. Plus (completely wishful thinking), Harry's better sense tells him that Snape is actually acting for the good. Given this, Harry cannot effectively attack Snape. 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? Harry thought on his feet in the OOTP battle, but was better at evading and tackling than chasing and spell-casting. Snape is without a doubt a powerful wizard. He is probably primarily self-taught, from personal interest in magic, years of self-defense, and observation of the Death Eaters and the Order. His personal gripes limit his power, however. In this instance, it seems Harry broadcasts his intentions before Harry takes any action, so blocking Harry's spells is no problem for Snape. 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. I believe Snape felt he was giving the most helpful advice he could to Harry, in his usual unhelpful way, and that his advise is probably irrelevant. Why was he giving this advice? An evil or OFH!Snape wouldn't have wasted his time on lectures. Given that Snape had already "killed" Dumbledore and couldn't realistically expect forgiveness from the "good" side, Snape couldn't have been hedging his bets on Harry being able to defeat Voldemort -- there's no future in it for him, expect for no Voldemort. Deep down, it is only Dumbledore's word, and Harry's improbable luck, that give him any hope that Harry is really the Chosen One. So, Snape in frustration took the time to give advice, his last, desperate attempt to impart to Harry knowledge that Snape valued, to help Harry, even in the face of Snape's own eventual downfall. 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I hope question made sense!! Harry has just tried to use the Levicorpus spell, a spell his father presumably used against Snape in the past. Harry sees Snape's face suffused with hatred... just as it was before he killed Dumbledore. Harry is not always correct in what he sees. Harry sees it as connected to the events on the Tower, but I think the hatred is separate. I think Snape is reliving his worst memory to some extent, including its implications for him, the course he set for his life. Snape is still embroiled in a dispute decades old at that moment. It only when Harry calls him a coward for killing Dumbledore that Snape is dragged into the present. 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. It was the justaposition of the two, cowardliness and the "murder" of Dumbledore, the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Snape is doing a job he does not want to do, but has promised to do. He has been given the most heinous of tasks, the apparent murder of his menor and friend. Nothing about it will end up good for him, except the knowledge that he has kept his promise and has proven his trustiworthiness. Now he is devoid of even Dumbledore's support, but he has to keep working to achieve whatever the plan is. Then, Harry drives home just how the world will see Snape's actions, right after the events on the Tower. The world will see Snape the way Harry does. It is understandable that Snape displays negative emotions at such a moment of vulnerability, in order to deflect more destructive emotions. But I think cowardice is an issue for "Snivellus". He tries to fight back when the Marauders taunt him. It may have been concern about being called a coward that got him to turn against girl-protector Lily in his worse memory, that got him to investigate the Shrieking Shack, that perhaps even got him to side with Voldemort. Then again, Snape has presumably been engaging in activities for Dumbledore that placed him "at great personal risk," so calling him a coward makes a mockery of all he has tried to do to atone for earlier mistakes, up to and including the tremendously-difficult "murder" of Dumbledore. For the record, I still don't think Snape "killed" Dumbledore, per se. He was an agent of death, but not a murderer. 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the curse from Harry? Snape needs Harry to complete Harry's destiny, and that means keeping him safe from the Death Eaters. Either that, or Harry was still a student, one that Snape was probably sworn to protect. The curse was either lifted by the originator's lack of attention to it or was lifted by Snape. 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? Hagrid is a half-blood outsider who was wronged by a more popular student. In spite of Hagrid's position, he remains an outsider. He and Snape have much in common. I believe Hagrid knows more than he is telling about Snape. 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? Certainly not intentionally, because he doesn't have the cunning, frankly. Unintentionally ... gosh, these are interesting questions. I think Harry intentionally misrepresented the actions on the Tower, just as he intentionally blames Snape for the events at the Department of Mystery, so as not to examine his own culpability. But he couldn't help but show respect and affection to Dumbledore's corpse. If he destroyed evidence... unless Hermione is a really good detective, it looks like Snape's a goner. 10. [I]f RAB is not Regulus Black, who is it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the cave? Was it a setup? The Order member on whom we will get more information will probably be Aberforth Dumbledore. Perhaps his nickname is RAB, for Rabid something -- goat-lover that he is. Regulus -- I'd be disappointed if he was developed as a character in book 7, just as I will be disappointed by the development of Lily's character, or Aberforth's. It seems a cheat to leave such important information to the last book. However, I expect to learn more about all of them, and maybe even Eileen Prince, in DH. Your question about Dumbledore putting himself through an ordeal when he should have known better is interesting. I don't think it's Regulus who is in hiding. It is most likely Emmeline Vance or, as some have argued, one or both of Snape's parents. I can't see Dumbledore putting himself and Harry through the cave ordeal in bad faith, unless... Dumbledore was a Polyjuiced other, which I think Rowling herself has argued against. 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal style of ending her books? Having a great affinity for Snape's character, for various reasons, I did not expect Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands. It depressed me for days. Then, Snape's probable fate depressed me. Then, I rebounded. 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? I think this chapter is too ambiguous at this point to call "best." The chapters that have stayed with me, which I can probably quote to you word-for-word, are the ones in which Snape tries to teach Harry Occlumency. Thanks for the incredibly thought-provoking questions! lealess From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 07:03:20 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:03:20 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: "Fidelius" etymology (Was: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40701072303p6d6018c0ja6dfbecfe71efdcc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163577 > Mike wrote: > What if Lilygale is right? What if part of the "Fidelius" requirement > includes the faithfulness/loyalty of the SK to exist for the charm to > *take hold*? Maybe the "Fidelius" never took, maybe the Potters were > never hidden, they just thought they were. In fact everyone thought > they were hidden. PP thought he was revealing the secret to Voldemort > when in fact he was only revealing an unhidden but not well known > location of the Potters. Voldemort thought he was receiving SK > information from PP, how would he tell the difference, he didn't know > the Potters location beforehand either way. Kemper now: IF the Fidelius Charm requires the SK to be loyal, I think there would be some indication (for Lily if not the others) that the charm didn't work with regards to Peter's lack of loyalty. Much like Snape can tell that a potion has been mixed wrong or Lupin can tell that Harry's silvery wisps aren't a Patronus. > Mike continues: > Dumbledore may have realized that he still knew the Potters location, > assuming he knew in advance, and attributes this to his belief that > the Potters' SK, Sirius Black, was not faithful but was instead the > spy they had all known existed. He did know the Potters had planned > to employ the "Fidelius" and had planned to use Sirius as SK. Kemper now: But a week had past from the time of the Fidelius Charm had been performed, so Dumbledore would have had a week to respond to 'knowing' the lack of loyalty of whom he thought to be the SK, Sirius. That is of course assuming that Dumbledore knew when the FC was performed. > > Carol wrote: > > ... not really arguing with Kemper but trying to understand how > > the charm works in relation to its name > > Mike contradicted: > Well... I think you are disagreeing with Kemper, Carol, and I think > you are right. :-) If the "Fidelius" was properly cast and in place, > then I think your explanation of why and how it was broken is spot > on. Kemper now: I'll go with Carol's statement of not arguing with me which isn't the same as agreeing with me. Another example of the subtlety of language. :-) What I argued earlier is that the Fidelius Charm does not take into account the SK's loyalty in order for the charm to take. Though, like Steve, I think we all agree that the Charm was broken that night. We disagree on the 'how'. > bboyminn: > > Is there something in the Secret Keeper Charm that > recognises an enemy? Well, yes, that 'something' is > called 'magic'. It is crystal clear that the greatest > threat to the Potters is Voldemort and those assisting > him. The Potter are specifically hiding from Voldemort. > So, it seems crystal clear who the enemy is from the > very beginning. And once again, keep in mind that we > are dealing with 'magic' not 'logic'. Kemper now: If a Fidelius Charm could be performed only if an SK was loyal (loyalty is not intermittent), then, like bboy, I think that a thing called 'magic' can identify a disloyal prospective SK. If so, then the thing called 'magic' would not permit the completion of the charm for the sake of the Secret Teller(s). But, again, I think the Charm needs only the faith of the Secret Teller... it is why we tell a secret to someone. We have faith in that person not to tell. Kemper From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 8 07:37:58 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:37:58 -0000 Subject: Looking at the last page. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy" wrote: > > Anders: > > Even if Jo does the most wonderful, surprising, awe-inspiring, all- > > questions-answered ending, and all the threads are tied up just as > > I'd like, it's still an end to something we'll likely never see again > > in our lifetimes. I want it to last. I want to savor it, page by > > page, as though it were rich dark chocolate melting across my tongue > > like velvet. When it's done I want to gently close the book, with a > > smile on my face as I gently nod and say, "Yeah. It's finished. > > Thanks, Jo." Until then, Anders > > Dsnylnd55 here: I too Anders am looking forward to savoring book 7. > I have many mixed emotions about wanting it soon; on the one hand, I > want to read, savor, enjoy each morsel of information; however, this > is the end of a wonderful literary experience. > > I feel a bit like "Sybll" in that I want to read book 7 and have all > my questions answered, but I don't want to read the book because then > I know there will be no book 8 and the fantastic journey that is > Harry Potter will be over. Geoff: I first read the last page of "Lord of the Rings" about 50 years ago. I still return to see my Middle-Earth friends and reminisce over the events at the end of the Third Age. Once the last full stop of the HP books has been printed, I shall return if only to re-read my favourite sections. I doubt whether Jo Rowling will tie up every last loose end, partly because of space considerations and, like Tolkien, there will still be areas where we will be able to speculate on what might have been or what might have gone on behind the scenes and was not overtly revealed. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 07:37:13 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:37:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. General vs Specific In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40701070039i239a0fbemab1cfb4b53fe27bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40701072337m44215176sc4bef8641e798f5c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163579 > > Kemper earlier: > > ... If you were following upthread, you will have > > noticed that bboy was saying that: > > > > "The Potter's trusted Peter with their lives, and in > > accepting that trust, Peter is implying a true and deep > > loyalty to the Potters." > > > > I read this to mean that bboy believes the Fidelius > > Charm works (in part) by the loyalty Peter feels of the > > Potters. I disagreed because I don't believe that Peter > > was loyal to the Poters at the time of the charm. ... > > > > bboyminn responded: > > There is one apect you are missing in my statements, and > that is that Peter 'fidelity' (loyaty, trust, etc...) is > not in question for ALL TIME. Kemper now: Yes, it is in question. I'm sorry for missing that aspect. I did not realize you believe 'loyalty' to be a intermittent or vacillating quality. I, however, think 'loyalty' to be more fixed. > Steve continues: > In a sense we have a magical contract that is very precise > in its terms, and in which, by figuratively signing, Peter > is agreeing to keep one specific secret. He is figuratively > swearing an oath of 'fidelity' specific to keeping this one > secret. So, whether Peter was a 'rat' in general doesn't > come into play, and is not relevant to whether the > Secret Keepr Charm remains or dissolves. Kemper now: I agree with the precision of the contract. But our definitions of the contracts fine print are different. If Lex Luthor knows Superman's secret identity and promises not to tell anyone but still tries to kill Superman, then Lex is not loyal to Superman regardless of keeping Superman's alter-ego secret. > Steve continues: > The other aspect of how the Charm might have dissolved > relates to the exact wording of the Secret itself. If > the /secret/ was the Potters, then we have one set of > problems. If the /secret/ was the house, we have a > completely different set of problems. > > If the Secret was in the form 'The Potters are hiding at > 123 West Lane Road; Godrics Hollow, UK', that is not a > house, it is a lot. That address exists independant of > whether there is a house on it or not. > > If the Secret is in the form 'The Potters are hiding in > Dumbledore's ancestral home in Godrics Hollow' then things > are different, but house and home are not exactly the same. > So, that could create complications. > > If the Secret is 'The Potter are hiding in Dumbledore's > house in Gordrics Hollow' that is more specific, but, > though I can't think of any at the moment, that must have > its own set of complications. > ... > If the Charm does still exist, I think we have many many > unresolvable complications to the story. I also think if > the Charm was on the Potter's themselves and is still in > effect, then again, too many unresolvable complications. > > Conclusion; that charm must have been broken. I think it > was broken by breach of Fidelity. > > Of course, that's just my opinion, but it is FIRMLY my > opinion. > Kemper now: I think the Secret was: We (the Potters) are hiding in the house located at123 West Lane Road; Godrics Hollow, UK. When the Potters are dead so is their Secret. Lily/James are the Secret Tellers, not Harry as he can't have faith in Peter, though Harry's might be able to include him by proxy, their death would leave the proxy void leaving baby Harry easy to find. Dumbledore (and the Order) left 12 GP because of Sirius' death. Was he the Secret Teller as it was his place? I think so. Just Kemper's firm yet flexible opinion From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 04:57:09 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:57:09 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163580 > > Lupinlore: > > As for the problem with Snape "getting it," though, there may be a > theme at work. Why doesn't he explain to Snape the importance > of "love" and "mercy" in defeating Voldemort without going so far as > to reveal the prophecy? I suspect the answer is that he has tried, > and Snape simply refuses to believe it. > > Ceridwen: > Yes. And if Dumbledore is as hesitant about giving out necessary > information as suggested above, then it would be difficult for > someone to take his word at face value on something like this. Even > on the list, we have discussions about how Harry will defeat LV - > spells, knowledge, love, possession, the veil, and it all comes back > to ideology: is killing in a war destructive? Would Rowling go > there? Do we want our modern-day Hero to kill? I think Snape and > Dumbledore would have had the same sort(s) of discussion(s), if they > discussed it, especially if Dumbledore did not give enough back-up to > his assertions. > And here we have what I think is an interesting example of the weakness of DD's approach -- one of his mistakes, if you will. By holding back important information from both Snape and Harry, he was in effect constantly stoking their hatred of one another. Consider that Harry tended to come away from every discussion with DD about Snape angry and frustrated. Essentially he was told, "I trust Snape, do as I say." As his enmity toward Snape escalated, this became more and more irritating, and less and less effective. In time, the anger and frustration just served to accelerate the spiral of dislike and, eventually, hatred. One suspects much the same happened with Snape. Imagine the "mirror image" conversations that DD must have had with Snape about Harry. For instance in OOTP: SNAPE: The boy has no sense of caution whatsoever! How could he be so foolish as to fall into the Dark Lord's trap? DD: Now, Severus. You know Harry had no way of knowing what which were truthful visions and which false. Much older and more experienced wizards have been fooled in that way. SNAPE: He refused to apply himself to his lessons! DD: I have already said I take the blame for that, Severus. I should have taught him myself. It is likely that Harry cannot learn Occlumency in any case -- something else I should have known. SNAPE: He is doomed if he cannot close his mind! DD: So I believed -- but I was wrong. Harry has other strengths. Strengths against which Voldemort is weak. SNAPE: Weak! How can you constantly dismiss my warnings! You know what we face. That bumbling boy will be the death of all of us! DD: That's enough, Severus. I have every faith in Harry. SNAPE: Then... DD: I said that's quite enough, Severus. Such conversations -- and their were likely at least as many of this kind as of the ones between Harry and DD -- would frustrate and anger Snape, eventually feeding the spiral of his dislike. Thus, in trying to maintain secrecy and preserve privacy, DD accidentally took what began as a bad situation, helped it grow into a terrible situation, and eventually nursemaided it into a catastrophic situation. Lupinlore From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jan 8 12:05:10 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:05:10 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. General vs Specific In-Reply-To: <700201d40701072337m44215176sc4bef8641e798f5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163581 A little bit of canon - "An immensely complex spell involving the magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul. The information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find -- unless, of course, the Secret-Keeper chooses to divulge it" (PA10). "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!" (PA10) "When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else... And a couple of quotes from JKR - "In other words, a secret (e.g., the location of a family in hiding, like the Potters) is enchanted so that it is protected by a single Keeper (in our example, Peter Pettigrew, a.k.a. Wormtail). Thenceforth nobody else - not even the subjects of the secret themselves - can divulge the secret. Even if one of the Potters had been captured, force-fed Veritaserum or placed under the Imperius Curse, they would not have been able to give away the whereabouts of the other two. The only people who ever knew their precise location were those whom Wormtail had told directly, but none of them would have been able to pass on the information (JKR)." MA: Was there anyone else present in Godric's Hollow the night Harry's parents were killed? JKR: No comment. Brothergib; The first piece tends to suggest that the Secret Keeper can divulge the location to anyone and the secret will remain intact. I'm not sure it is a loyalty issue, but as it says it is a complex spell, I suppose it can't be discounted. The first quote proves that only the secret keeper can divulge the info i.e. DD could not tell anyone (even via a scrap of paper) unless PP had given him permission to do so. What has always confused me is how anyone could find Harry! PP was still alive and therefore the Charm was still in place. Therefore noone would be able to find Harry in the rubble. My theory - SS was with LV on that night, although he was not privvy to the secret (since LV could not tell him). SS was aware that something catastrophic has happened (after all the house is destroyed), and may even have found LV in the rubble - he wouldn't be able to find the Potters however. SS contacts DD. DD knows the Potters are there, but probably wasn't directly told by PP. Perhaps the missing 24h involved DD attempting to break through the Charm in an attempt to locate Harry/Lily/James. Brothergib From fourpawsg at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 05:48:57 2007 From: fourpawsg at gmail.com (Lois N.) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 21:48:57 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57b30d050701072148y78268cfcyfaa3f7ba2c5b5d1e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163582 > > > Lupinelore wrote: > *As for the problem with Snape "getting it," though, there may be a > theme at work. Why doesn't he explain to Snape the importance > of "love" and "mercy" in defeating Voldemort without going so far as to > reveal the prophecy? I suspect the answer is that he has tried, and > Snape simply refuses to believe it.* > > Hi Lupinlore, Or... Perhaps DD didn't trust Snape enough to tell him about the Prophecy. It seemed kind of like DD trusted Snape only to a point, because Snape had been a Death Eater before, now I could be wrong on this idea, but this could explain why DD never told Snape about the full prophecy. Then you seem to be forgetting what Harry and DD were doing just before DD was killed, and that was searching for a Horcrux. DD had told Harry the way to get rid of Voldie, was to find the last three or four Horcruxes, then he would be able to kill Voldie for good, Snape knows nothing about this. So I still believe Snape has gone back to the Dark Lord along with Draco Malfoy. Book Seven will tell the tale. Lois [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fourpawsg at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 06:14:18 2007 From: fourpawsg at gmail.com (Lois N.) Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 22:14:18 -0800 Subject: The Snape Whisperer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <57b30d050701072214l4f3c3208ibbf767fa97af1d9d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163583 On 1/7/07, pippin_999 wrote: I have to wonder if Dumbledore had a similar rationale for leaving Harry to be overwhelmed by his feelings after Cedric's death. Harry has received so little comfort in his life that to have it given to him after Cedric's death might have set up an undesirable association. As it was, Harry went through a miserable six weeks at the Dursleys, but he does seem to have become somewhat desensitized to survivor guilt, enough so that he could deal with the loss of Sirius without plummeting into the severe depression he experienced after losing Cedric. Pippin Hi Pippin, Now that is a theory I hadn't thought about, this makes perfect sense, but... at the same time, he was also not wanting to make contact with Harry because he already suspected Voldamort was using Harry to transfer his own thoughts, too. Remember, Voldamort could not go to the Ministry to obtain the Prophecy, it had to be Harry, so Voldamort was giving Harry his thoughts and showing him where he had to go to get this Prophecy. This is why Harry was supposed to learn Occlumency, so he could block out these thoughts. This is another reason why DD wasn't contacting Harry. Lois From parantap.samajdar at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 10:57:13 2007 From: parantap.samajdar at gmail.com (samajdar_parantap) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:57:13 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163584 How Harry can be called a genius when he has never invented a spell himself? Only Weasly twins show any talent for innovation among present Hogwarts students ( They did worked out how to use the map , appart from inventing countless joke objects ). Harry has got high mental/moral power,nerve , reflex, teamwork and all the qualities of a great fighter. He can apply his skills under great pressure. But when Tom Riddle was below his age - he actually created a Horcrux. So it is only fighting abilities that is special trait in Harry ( Voldemort excells in sneaking - he is never shown as a great fighter, wheras Harry has actually faught countless number of battles where he has outperformed even grownup wizards, even Voldemort himself - be it with luck or without, as we all know fortune favours the brave ). As for battle with Snape - we need to keep in mind Snape is THE most powerful wizard in the field of Occlumency, who can even hoodwink Voldemort. It doesnot matter whether Snape is in good side or bad - certainly he is holding many things from Voldemort - otherwise Voldemort should have been warned of the attact on his horcruxes by now. So it all comes down to a good at heart fighter hero against genious villain ( Frodo is not more powerful than Sauron in any way ) - and chance plays a great role in the final battle as it has played before. Learning a great number of spells won't help. This is very much symbolic - because when you are fighting a tyrant - you cannot wait till you gather more military power than the tyrant himself and then strike. That only creates a more powerful tyrant. It is common man who must unite and create the positive force that destroys the tyranny. Harry is only the ring bearer - destined to save the world at the cost of his life - he will neither become the most evil wizard of all times - nor the epitome of goodness. One wild dramatic guess for your kind judgement : we already now Voldemort is a heir of Slytherin. Is it possible that Dumbledore is actually a heir of Ravenclaw ( given his cunning ) and Harry a heir of Gryffindor ( courage ), thus bringing a thousand year old fatefull drama to conclusion? Don't know how to fit Hufflepuff in this theory , though :-). Don't know if there is any Huffy important enough. "samajdar_parantap" From chrusokomos at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 13:23:06 2007 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 13:23:06 -0000 Subject: JKR's Rubbish Bin In-Reply-To: <00c901c73274$a3452000$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163585 thanks shelley! gosh, I do feel thick...but I'll go and try to see those drawings all the same. :D --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > chrusotoxos wrote: > > I was just wandering through JKR's site and I saw a few details in the > > Rubbish Bin section > > which I don't understand..it's probably nothing, but isn't the rubbish bin > > a perfect place to > > hide significant stuff (Sherlock Holmes' theory and all that)? > > > > So I'd like to know what means the shattered sentence just below the bin - > > saying, if you > > don't want to have a look there now: > > ring / tap / times /five / within / in. / you / I am/ and / no / get / > > Here > > > Some of the fan sites tell you what to do with these clues. You get to > unlock secret goodies on her site- the best of them are her drawings made > before the books were published! One day I'd like to see the books > republished with Rowling's original drawings included. > > These words you showed are a jumbled clue: It says tap 5 times and you find > a ring within. There is a ringbox hidden in the bookcase, I believe. You do > what the clue tells you to do. It's been a long time since I did that clue, > but this site is worth exploring and figuring out the clues. Almost nothing > on her site is "nothing"; she uses them from time to time. Be sure to listen > to the radio- Toots, Shoots and Roots is one that my kids love to hear again > and again. Honking daffodils indeed! > > Shelley > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 15:14:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:14:24 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163586 Eggplant: > > > 4) Harry could produce a Patronis at a extraordinary young age but more important it was so powerful it awed even Hermione, because the only other wizard she knew who could repel a hundred Dementors was Dumbledore. > > Colebiancardi: > > yes, he did. Under extreme stress. Up until then, he was not able to produce such a powerful Patronis. > > > Alla: > > But does it matter though? Nobody else at Harry age seemed to be > able to do it **at all* - extreme stress or not IMO. Carol chimes in: Harry had the advantage of special training under Lupin using a Dementor Boggart. He couldn't produce a full-fledged corporeal Patronus against real Dementors in PoA--only light before he collapsed and lost consciousness. He produced the corporeal Patronus from a distance after seeing his future self do it. (After that, of course, it was a piece of cake to produce one for his OWLs and not exceptionally difficult, though hardly easy, to produce two of them, one per Dementor, in Magnolia Crescent in OoP. None of the DA members had the advantage of training using a Dementor Boggart, so the chances of their producing a Patronus against a real Dementor are slim. (That's where Snape's alternative method will come in, I hope!) At any rate, I'm not so sure that Harry's ability to produce a corporeal Patronus at thirteen is a reflection of his unusual power or talent so much as a reflection of his extraordinary circumstances, including the luck of having the right Boggart to train with! He did come through under stress, thanks to the Time Turner (thank you, Dumbledore!), but he was not directly facing the hundred Dementors, which were focused on his non-Time-Turned self and Sirius Black, whose soul they were ready to suck. > > Eggplant: > > > 5) Harry could easily overcome the Imperious Curse, something even formidable wizards like the real Moody and Crouch junior and senior found extremely difficult to do. > > Colebiancardi: > > I don't think "easily" is the right word, IMHO. In GoF, he was obediently to the curse until his inner voice questioned it. I think he has the knack to overcome the Imperious Curse, but I don't know if the word easy is the correct one. > > Alla: > > Okay, how about **better** than anybody else so far? > Carol: This one I'll concede, though I wonder if the ability to resist the Imperius Curse is one of the abilities he acquired from Voldemort. It's odd that he can do so but can't do Occlumency (so JKR says) since the two require similar abilities. If we were to go solely by the books and not by interviews, I'd say that his inability to do Occlumency has more to do with not trying because he hates Snape and wants to have the dream than with lack of ability. surely, he could reach the rudimentary level Draco has reached with a little effort. But, no. He ostensibly can't separate himself from his emotions. Sounds like a weakness to me. > > > colebiancard(who thinks Harry is talented, but his friends (and > > enemies) do play a huge role in his success) > > > > Alla, who completely agrees with Eggplant on this one. > Carol, agreeing with Colebiancardi and respectfully noting the correct spelling of "Patronus" and "Imperius" (blushes and adjusts McGonagall glasses) From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 8 15:28:11 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:28:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163587 "colebiancardi" wrote: Potioncat: Thank- you for a very good summary, and very original questions. I enjoyed answering them. > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > > 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody > footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? > The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could > not have been them. Potioncat: Oh, I never noticed it before! Harry runs through a pool of blood, and his trainers are slippery with it.I suppose everyone else ran through it too. But wouldn't you expect only a few footprints from the blood? I mean, would the blood still be on the shoes by the time they had reached the entrance hall? Maybe JKR got carried away. It's starting to remind me of our first meeting with Slughorn, except I can't think of any reason for there to be a hoax here. > > 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, > Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able > to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to > get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? AND > > 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you > think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is > due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the > latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from > Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? Potioncat: Well, of course "I" think Snape is an extremely powerful wizard, so my saying so will impress no one. I think one of JKR's weaknesses is her description of battles. The DEs are pretty lame, both here and at the MoM. I mean, Fenrir is horrible, and Amycus is bad, but the fighting skills are less than stellar. Of course, Harry did pretty well against LV, too. Why is it so much harder for him to best Snape? I'm not sure if JKR is showing us that Snape is powerful, or if Harry's emotions are in the way. Snape's emotins get in the way of his dealing with Harry and Harry's emotions get in the way of his dealing with Snape. Of course, I think Snape has been using Legilimency to one degree or another on Harry for 6 years now. So perhaps it's become very easy for him to know what Harry is about to do. > > 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting > his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, > his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his > instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you > think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. Potioncat: For the fun of answering the question in the way it was asked: Because he is an Evil-Overlord-In-Traning and he is making one of the errors that Evil Overlords make; he is taunting the hero with the very information the hero needs. I shouldn't have said that. > > 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right > before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that > he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated > around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and > the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about > this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do > you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind > it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion > are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, > perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I > hope question made sense!! Potioncat: In this section Harry first thinks Snape is torturing him; then hears Snape tell the siblings to stop; then Harry thinks that he hates Snape as much as LV; and then the line, "but Harry was mere feet away now and he could see Snape's face clearly at last: He was no longer sneering or jeering...a face full of rage." So, was Snape never sneering and jeering just like he wasn't the one casting the Cruciatus? It seems that Snape is enraged by the beginning Sectumsempra and Levicorpus and he yells about filthy James Potter using his own curses against him. It really seems out of place at this particular moment. He also announces then that he is the Half-Blood Prince. I thnk that will be very important later, but I'm not sure if Snape is yelling it out in uncontrolled anger or if he has a reason for telling Harry now. > > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Potioncat: The description of Snape was painful. He's compared to the howling dog trapped in the burning hut. What is JKR trying to tell us? This description is part of the reason I think Snape is loyal to DD. He would be gloating if he was LV's minion. Some have suggested that Snape is still thinking of James at this moment, because Snape was just yelling about James. Also, the slashing in air, and the white-hot whiplike hit across Harry's face could be something like the curse Severus used on James after OWLs. Although Harry seems more affected, and we don't hear of any blood. But I think he's back to DD at this moment. Still...the uncertain use of pronouns leaves it up in the air. Nothing Snape has done as an adult has indicated any cowardice, so it's very hard to understand why that triggered the reaction. My feeling is that it has to do with his killing Dumbledore. It could mean he did it for an overall good, and knows he will seen as a coward, or it could mean he himself wonders if he may have done it out of cowardice. I'm beginning to believe that the Tower events were completely unanticipated. > > 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the > Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why > Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have > issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have > harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the > curse from Harry? Potioncat: I think whichever sibling was casting it, stopped it on Snape's orders. Good question about Snape's other options. Again, is this JKR's battle scene style? Or was Snape using every last moment to train Harry? > > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? Potioncat: Yes. I just went back to SS/PS ch 11 to make sure I didn't have movie-contamination. Turns out I did. Hagrid's support is pretty strong. His support is based on Snape, not on DD's trust of Snape. We see it again in GoF...I don't have the canon for that one, but he seems amused at Snape's attitude in GoF. He's very certain Snape wouldn't have killed DD. Of course, Hagrid has been wrong before. We know Hagrid liked James and Lily, but I'm not sure when he really befriended them, as students or as adults. It's possible he had befriended Severus as a student similarly to the way he befriended Harry. It's very likely he knew Eileen. > > 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged > Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? Potioncat: Well, he just straighened the glasses. They hadn't fallen off or broken. And there's the blood again. The fact that it isn't dry may be a clue, or it may be dramatic effect. > > 10. This is some background information for the question 10: a) > "Samatha Scattergood for Waterstones - Which is your favourite member > of the Order of the Phoenix? JK Rowling: I keep killing all my > favourite members of the Order of the Phoenix, but there is one member > of the Order of the Phoenix that you have not yet met properly and you > will ?? well, you know that they are a member, but you haven't really > met them properly yet and you will meet them in seven, so I am looking > forward to that." > b) "Peter O'Brien for Easons Ireland - Are you going introduce any > new characters in the final book? JK Rowling: There will be some > characters who you don't know particularly well, and there may be a > couple of new characters, but nobody really major. You know pretty > much the cast list by now" > > So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is > it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or > in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, > why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real > Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the > cave? Was it a setup? > > Interview quotes from: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4690000/newsid_4690800/469088 5.stm Potioncat: I think he's Regulus. I think he's dead. I don't think he had been an Order member and I don't think DD had any information about the locket from RAB. (Just in case it isn't Regulus.) Maybe RAB expected to die as he destroyed the Horcrux, or maybe he expected to die for some other reason. He didn't expect LV to find out any time soon about the locket switch. Phineas Nigellus Black said something along the line of "given a choice, a Slytherin would save his own neck." That's been taken as resounding proof of Slytherin self-centeredness. Well, heck, if you had to do something brave and could come out of it alive wouldn't that be better than being dead? But if the chips were really down and you had no choice but to risk the sacrifice, would you do it? I don't think it's a given that a Slytherin cough*Regulus-or-Severus*cough wouldn't make that choice. > > 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? > Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal > style of ending her books? Potioncat: I didn't expect it. No this book doesn't end like the others. I think JKR is being honest when she says book 6 and book 7 are like one book (Or something like that.) From elanor.isolda at googlemail.com Mon Jan 8 14:01:37 2007 From: elanor.isolda at googlemail.com (Elanor Isolda) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:01:37 +0000 Subject: Fwd: Sectus 2007: New Venue and Submissions Deadline Extension In-Reply-To: <6493bc80701080600uaca39ccucbfc5f35576083a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <6493bc80701080600uaca39ccucbfc5f35576083a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6493bc80701080601j2c5a80bl37d0684c40a8d029@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163588 Due to higher than anticipated interest, Sectus has decided to expand and the main conference will now take place at the University of Westminster's Cavendish Campus. The Cavendish Campus is located just six minutes' walk from the original venue, and slightly closer to the official conference hotel, so any accommodation arrangements made privately should still be suitable. Details of the official Sectus hotel and our new hostel option are available at http://www.sectus.org/stay.php With the extra space and new facilities now available to us, we've also decided to extend our deadline for submitting proposals for papers, presentations, discussions and workshops. Abstracts or proposals are now due by 28th February 2007. More details about the venue and a map can be found at http://www.sectus.org/venue.php. Registration is still available at the ?55 rate until January 31st, after which the registration fee will rise to ?65 as previously announced. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at info at sectus.org. We can't wait to meet you all at the new, bigger and better Sectus 2007! Regards Elanor Isolda Conference Chair Sectus 2007 -- http://elanor-isolda.livejournal.com Celebrate the 10th anniversary of Harry Potter in London! Register now for Sectus 2007 at http://www.sectus.org From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 8 16:59:37 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 11:59:37 -0500 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: <1168260228.4014.56140.m22@yahoogroups.com> References: <1168260228.4014.56140.m22@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9015D83D0BAF4-97C-1287@WEBMAIL-RA19.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163589 Lois wrote: Or... Perhaps DD didn't trust Snape enough to tell him about the Prophecy. It seemed kind of like DD trusted Snape only to a point, because Snape had been a Death Eater before, now I could be wrong on this idea, but this could explain why DD never told Snape about the full prophecy. Then you seem to be forgetting what Harry and DD were doing just before DD was killed, and that was searching for a Horcrux. DD had told Harry the way to get rid of Voldie, was to find the last three or four Horcruxes, then he would be able to kill Voldie for good, Snape knows nothing about this. So I still believe Snape has gone back to the Dark Lord along with Draco Malfoy. Book Seven will tell the tale. Julie: The problem here is that Dumbledore said "I trust Severus Snape completely" and I believe he meant completely. Let's also remember that Dumbledore didn't tell anyone else the whole prophecy, not McGonagall, or Moody, or his brother (assuming he play a pivotal role in Book 7). So Snape isn't a special case. Or maybe he is. There's another rather obvious reason not to tell Snape the entire prophecy. Snape is a spy, and Voldemort has access to his mind. No matter how great an Occlumens Snape is, should Voldemort decide Snape has betrayed him it's likely he could eventually break Snape. Snape was always taking that risk, so why would Dumbledore give Snape the very information Voldemort is seeking, even on the smallest chance Voldemort could force it out of Snape? Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 17:17:49 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:17:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. General vs Specific In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40701072337m44215176sc4bef8641e798f5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40701080917r4a2433f6w6d5be00b21e9aba7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163590 > Brothergib sited: > A little bit of canon - > > "An immensely complex spell involving the magical concealment of a > secret inside a single, living soul. The information is hidden inside > the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to > find -- unless, of course, the Secret-Keeper chooses to divulge it" > (PA10). > > "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could > search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and > never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their > sitting room window!" (PA10) > > "When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or to put it > another way, the status of their secret will remain as it was at the > moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue > to know the hidden information, but nobody else... > > And a couple of quotes from JKR - > > "In other words, a secret (e.g., the location of a family in hiding, > like the Potters) is enchanted so that it is protected by a single > Keeper (in our example, Peter Pettigrew, a.k.a. Wormtail). > Thenceforth nobody else - not even the subjects of the secret > themselves - can divulge the secret. Even if one of the Potters had > been captured, force-fed Veritaserum or placed under the Imperius > Curse, they would not have been able to give away the whereabouts of > the other two. The only people who ever knew their precise location > were those whom Wormtail had told directly, but none of them would > have been able to pass on the information (JKR)." > > Brothergib commented; > The first piece tends to suggest that the Secret Keeper can divulge > the location to anyone and the secret will remain intact. I'm not > sure it is a loyalty issue, but as it says it is a complex spell, I > suppose it can't be discounted. Kemper now: I agree, and yet I also freely discount the loyalty of the Secret Keeper. > Brothergib continued: > The first quote proves that only the secret keeper can divulge the > info i.e. DD could not tell anyone (even via a scrap of paper) unless > PP had given him permission to do so. Kemper now: Yes, the Secret Keeper is the only one to tell anyone the Secret. But if writes the Secret on a scrap of paper, then he is telling the Secret. It doesn't matter that the Secret Keeper's intention is to tell (via written form) the Secret only to a certain someone. What matters is that the Secret is being told; so if anyone reads the Secret, they know the Secret. If the Secret Keeper whispered the Secret to someone but a eavesdropper overheard the Secret, then the eavesdropper would know the Secret, too. Even though this is a world of magic, I think JKR would use some of the same aspects of Real Life to make the magic more believable... so to speak. > Brothergib continued (with Kemper doing some creative editing): > MA: Was there anyone else present in Godric's Hollow the night > Harry's parents were killed? > JKR: No comment. > ... > What has always confused me is how anyone could find Harry! PP was > still alive and therefore the Charm was still in place. Therefore > noone would be able to find Harry in the rubble. > > [Brothergib's] theory - > SS was with LV on that night, although he was not privvy to the > secret (since LV could not tell him). SS was aware that something > catastrophic has happened (after all the house is destroyed), and may > even have found LV in the rubble - he wouldn't be able to find the > Potters however. SS contacts DD. DD knows the Potters are there, but > probably wasn't directly told by PP. Perhaps the missing 24h involved > DD attempting to break through the Charm in an attempt to locate > Harry/Lily/James. > Kemper now: I really like the last part of your theory: the missing 24h being DD breaking through the Fidelius Charm. It solves two mysteries: the missing 24h and being able to find HP (as JKR implies that he is the subject of the Fidelius Charm along with his parents). With JKR's 'no comment' statement, I would agree that Severus was there but maybe without Voldermort's knowledge. This may not be easy to do, but with Voldemort focused on a bit of infanticide (toddlericide?), I'm sure that Severus would have been successful at trailing/tailing the Dark Lord. I, like many others, also think that Peter as the rat, Wormtail, was there as well, for how else could Voldemort been given back his wand after his rebirth in the graveyard? Severus would have thought Voldemort alone not giving notice to a rat (in one of Voldie's robe pockets, maybe?) Kemper From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jan 8 17:17:01 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:17:01 -0000 Subject: Occlumency vs. Anti-Imperius (was: The Power of Harry ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163591 > Carol: > This one I'll concede, though I wonder if the ability to resist the > Imperius Curse is one of the abilities he acquired from Voldemort. > It's odd that he can do so but can't do Occlumency (so JKR says) since > the two require similar abilities. If we were to go solely by the > books and not by interviews, I'd say that his inability to do > Occlumency has more to do with not trying because he hates Snape and > wants to have the dream than with lack of ability. surely, he could > reach the rudimentary level Draco has reached with a little effort. > But, no. He ostensibly can't separate himself from his emotions. > Sounds like a weakness to me. Magpie: Actually, I do think it makes sense that Harry is good and not the other, if you figure that his strength as one explains the other. When he throws off Imperius it's saying that he knows himself. His will is clear to him. So when a little voice that's not his own whispers for him to do something, he's able to recognize it as foreign and must his entire will against it. Occlumency depends on the ability to fragment that Harry doesn't have. He's not able to hide parts of himself away or cut himself off from them. But just as his ability to use his whole self makes him stronger than Imperius, it makes it impossible for him to do Occlumency. It's a cool difference, actually, when you figure that Harry the Gryffindor is a natural at throwing off Imperius and Draco the Slytherin is a natural at Occlumency, because of what it suggests about the houses. Gryffindor=fire=spirit or will and Slytherin- water=emotions. Voldemort is unable to put Harry under Imperius but he tricks his emotions by showing him false data like Sirius trapped, knowing that Harry will then turn his own formidable will torwards that false goal. Draco the Slytherin is given a goal from Voldemort and goes about repressing emotions to fulfill it. But in the end their real strength comes from the will for Harry and the emotion for Draco (his feelings for his family are ultimately the bigger drive, and keep him from committing an act he really doesn't want to do). They both naturally have more control over their strength--Harry has more control over his will (so won't give in to Imperius), Draco has more control over his emotions (so can repress and fake them). -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 8 17:44:40 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:44:40 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163592 "colebiancardi" wrote: > he survived due to his mother's protection. > [ ]some children are gifted at sports or music > or art, he was gifted in this area. [ ]due to > his connection with Voldemort, as Dumbledore > explained. How about the connection between > the two [ ]Don't you think that might > have something to do with it? And Einstein was only smart because he had good genes and grew up in a good environment. Does that fact make Einstein less smart? > yes, he did. Under extreme stress. Up until > then, he [Harry] was not able to produce > such a powerful Patronis. Unlike most people Harry is at his best when he is under extreme stress. It's one thing to produce a Patronus in a calm classroom, but it's quite another to produce one powerful enough to stop a thousand hideous Dementors when they're trying to suck out your soul. Harry doesn't panic. > I don't think "easily" is the right word I think easily is precisely the correct word. Harry overcame the Imperious Curse in just a few minutes while other very powerful wizards struggled with it their entire lives. > He had help - unexpected help - due to the > fact of a rare occurance when two wands > that share the same core of power(Fawk's > feather) hit at the same time. > The ghosts/spirits helped Harry to escape Voldy. No, I'm talking about what happened before that. Harry wanted those beads of light to go in one direction and the most powerful dark wizard of all time wanted them to go in the opposite direction. Harry won. If I were Voldemort I'd be humiliated that I'd been out muscled by a 14 year old boy. Eggplant From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 17:45:37 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:45:37 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163593 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > > Eggplant: > > > > 4) Harry could produce a Patronus at a extraordinary young age > > > > but more important it was so powerful it awed even Hermione, > > > > because the only other wizard she knew who could repel a > > > > hundred Dementors was Dumbledore. > > > > > Colebiancardi: > > > yes, he did. Under extreme stress. Up until then, he was not > > > able to produce such a powerful Patronus. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > But does it matter though? Nobody else at Harry age seemed to be > > able to do it **at all* - extreme stress or not IMO. > > Carol chimes in: > > Harry had the advantage of special training under Lupin using a > Dementor Boggart. He couldn't produce a full-fledged corporeal > Patronus against real Dementors in PoA--only light before he > collapsed and lost consciousness. He produced the corporeal > Patronus from a distance after seeing his future self do it. Mike's two knuts: I'm with Alla and Eggplant, the thrust is not *how* he got to the point of being able to do it, it's *that* he did it. So he had extra training, would we have expected him to pick up a book and figure out how to employ a spell that many fully qualified wizards can't do? Colebiancardi says he did it under extreme stress as if it's an indictment against him. I say that makes it *more* impressive, not less. Carol notes it was from a distance, true, but it was also powerful enough to drive away large troup of them. Besides, asking any wizard, much less a 13-year-old wizard, to drive off a large troup of Dementors that have you pinned down and are leeching your strength sounds like unrealistic expectations. You would be asking for Dumbledore-level magical strength, imo. > Carol continued: > to produce two of them, one per Dementor, in > Magnolia Crescent in OoP. Mike: Just a small point, I think there was only one Patronus, Harry just sicced it on Dudley's Dementor after it had chased off Harry's. > Carol continued: > At any rate, I'm not so sure that Harry's ability to produce a > corporeal Patronus at thirteen is a reflection of his unusual power > or talent so much as a reflection of his extraordinary > circumstances, including the luck of having the right Boggart to > train with! Mike: Again, I disagree. He was fortunate to have the Boggart to train on, but that doesn't diminish the fact that he was training to perform a spell that was beyond Newt level, if I remember Lupin's words right. Nor does it diminish the fact that his Patronus was powerful enough to drive off all of the Dementors. Quite frankly, I was surprised that Lupin didn't mention this in his after-sacking discussion with Harry. > > > > Eggplant: > > > > 5) Harry could easily overcome the Imperius Curse, something > even formidable wizards like the real Moody and Crouch junior and > senior found extremely difficult to do. > > > > Colebiancardi: > > > I don't think "easily" is the right word, IMHO. In GoF, he was > obedient to the curse until his inner voice questioned it. I think > he has the knack to overcome the Imperious Curse, but I don't know > if the word easy is the correct one. > > > > Alla: > > > > Okay, how about **better** than anybody else so far? > > > Carol: > This one I'll concede, though I wonder if the ability to resist the > Imperius Curse is one of the abilities he acquired from Voldemort. > It's odd that he can do so but can't do Occlumency (so JKR says) > since the two require similar abilities. Mike: As you point out, Harry can't seem to perform even a rudimentary form of Occlumency, which is one of Voldemort's abilities. (no direct canon support for this supposition, only the belief that the "world's greatest Legilemens" would be fairly well versed in the sister discipline of Occlumency.) Therefore, I'm disinclined to think that Harry got his ability to resist "Imperius" from Voldemort. Especially since he showed an advanced aptitude for it right out of the box, and this resistance ability is supposed to be closely related to the ability-to-resist-mind-penetration, Occlumency. It seems Harry got the anti-Imperius gene in spades and the Occlumency gene in deuces. > > > colebiancard(who thinks Harry is talented, but his friends (and > > > enemies) do play a huge role in his success) > > > > > > > Alla, who completely agrees with Eggplant on this one. > > > Carol, agreeing with Colebiancardi and respectfully noting the > correct spelling of "Patronus" and "Imperius" (blushes and > adjusts McGonagall glasses) Mike, agreeing with Alla and Eggplant, who went ahead and corrected the spelling, if that's alright with everyone. Well... actually... I corrected it even if it isn't, so here's hopin' you're not mad at me for doin' it From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 17:50:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:50:02 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163594 Lupinlore wrote: > > Okay, let's look at this in a somewhat different light. JKR has > told us two things (at least) about DD with great clarity: 1) she > sees him as isolated (and since she is the god of the Potterverse, he therefore *is* isolated), and 2) he has no confidante. > > Now, that means at least one thing with regard to his relationship > with Snape -- Snape is *not* a party to DD's inner thoughts and > plans, at least not completely. Also, if we accept that DD was not > flatly lying to Harry at the beginning of HBP, Snape does *not* know > the full contents of the prophecy . > Ceridwen responded: > Right. I can see this Dumbledore very clearly. He is the leader of an unofficial organization, and it isn't in his, or anyone else's, best interest to go spreading the secrets around. Snape is told what he needs to be told, as are the rest. Dumbledore, IIRC, mentions that only two people know the full contents of the prophecy and they are in that shed. That would be DD and Harry, in my opinion. DH may reveal differently, but so far, this is the information we have to go on. Carol responds: I agree that to the best of DD's knowledge only he and Harry know the full contents of the Prophecy. Certainly, Voldemort doesn't. But Snape, being a Legilimens who can take memories from his own head, could have placed the memory of the Prophecy in DD's Pensieve and listened through the door to the rest of the Prophecy while his younger self and Aberforth were scuffling, oblivious to his presence. Just a thought. (If I were Snape, that's what I'd have done, unless I was afraid of being unable to conceal what I knew from Voldemort, and I wouldn't think that since I'd trust my own superb skills as an Occlumens. And I'll bet anything the eavesdropping incident is one of the three memories in the Pensieve in the Occlumency chapters.) As for Snape being told what he needs to be told, I think that's true, but I also think he knows a great deal more than, say, McGonagall, simply because he has to deal with the DEs and later with Voldemort himself in person. DD trusts Snape *completely*. That's canonical and, as such, more important to me in interpreting the books than anything JKR says in an interview. (BTW, I think she was talking about McGonagall and DD when she asked, "Where is his equal, his confidante, his partner?" I'd say not the feminine "e" but we're quoting a transcript.) At any rate, Snape is some 115 years DD's junior and is also his employee, so of course he's not Dumbledore's equal, any more than Aragorn is Gandalf's despite his power and talents. Age and experience combined with intellect produce wisdom, which in turn produces isolation if there are no others of similar age and experience. By wizarding standards, Snape at 38 or so (end of HBP) is still young, especially compared with Dumbledore. DD could almost be his great-great-grandfather, so it's hardly surprising that he sometimes gives him orders or silences him with a look. And yet there are things that Snape needs to know (I think that one of those things is the existence of the Horcruxes). As for the Prophecy, Voldemort needs to believe that Snape doesn't know the second part, or at least that DD has refused to tell him. And clearly DD *didn't* tell him whatever his reasons, unless he lied to Harry in the shed, and I don't think he did. So if Snape does know it, he found out on his own initiative by entering his own Pensieve memory, as I suggested above. (Can it be that Snape isn't curious and doesn't *want* to know? Or that DD asked or ordered him not to explore his own memory because of the danger of LV finding out?) Snape may not be DD's intellectual equal simply because he hasn't lived long enough and hasn't studied, say, languages as DD has, but he's a genius in his own right and an expert in several fields of study (Potions, DADA, the Dark Arts and Healing as it relates to them)--so much so that DD depends on his expertise in those fields. If DD doesn't confide in him it's not because Snape isn't is intellectual equal. It must be, as you suggest, because to do so would violate someone's privacy or because Snape doesn't need a particular piece of information (for example, his thoughts regarding the person who placed Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire) or because he can't comprehend it emotionally. In the case of the Prophecy, he may simply want Snape to be able to maintain his stance of ignorance of the second part for Snape's own safety, just as he hasn't revealed the Prophecy to Trelawney, who spoke it in the first place, for her safety. I do agree that there are some things about Harry that Snape wouldn't understand--the Harry he sees really is an arrogant rule-breaker, an occasional liar who's cheating in Potions in sixth year, and a mediocre wizard (though it's to Harry's and DD's advantage to have Snape tell Voldemort and the Death Eaters that he, Harry, is mediocre--best for the good side that the bad side underestimate the Chosen One. Possibly, Snape cultivates that image of Harry to the point that he believes it or can at least conjure it in his mind whenever he speaks to LV about Harry.) > > Lupinlore: > > Given that Snape was *not* DD's confidante, and that he does *not* know the full contents of the prophecy, and if we allow that DD and the prophecy are the best guides to the way to defeat Voldy (which is an assumption that could well be wrong) then it follows that Snape *can't* have a true or realistic idea of Harry's potential and the way that Harry might best go about defeating Voldy. > > Ceridwen: > I had been imagining that Snape had some idea of what Dumbledore thought, but that he disagreed. I'm still thinking about what you're saying here. I'd forgotten about Isolated!Dumbledore, so what you say makes a lot of sense. Snape doesn't need to know how Harry will defeat Voldemort, he only has to be the good soldier and follow > Dumbledore's direction. > And if his instructions to Harry when they went to the cave is what he usually expects from his people, then they have learned how not to question. We have seen McGonagall question Dumbledore in PS/SS, and now we're seeing Snape questioning, too. > Carol: Snape questioned DD's judgment in hiring Lupin back in PoA, and he dared to suggest that Lupin was helping Black into the castle. What he got for his pains was a cold look and a rebuke. And yet Snape was right that someone was helping Black get in (it turned out to be Crookshanks) and that Lupin was concealing knowledge about Black (the fact that he was an Animagus and, later, the Marauder's Map, which revealed other ways into the castle that Black knew about). But I do think that HBP!Snape is under some such orders as Harry was under because of the UV--essentially, do what you must do to save Draco even if it means killing me, or something of that sort. "You take too much for granted, Dumbledore" could mean that DD is wrong, in Snape's view, to think they can avoid confronting Draco and activating the UV. But there's no question that DD expects Snape to keep his promise, whatever it is, and that DD is firmly in charge of the operation. Snape *chooses* to obey orders, but they are orders, nonetheless. To return to Harry, Snape may well have expressed doubts about Harry (he can't be trusted; he's arrogant; he's mediocre) and DD may simply have dismissed them with the fact that he's the Prophecy Boy and only he can defeat LV. I can see Snape resisting the impulse to curl his lip and retort, or complaining that "Potter" gets away with too many broken rules and DD responding that Snape must trust his judgment. So Snape teaches Harry in his own way what he thinks Harry needs to know--whether it's Bezoars or Expelliarmus or following rules and directions or how to identify a werewolf or Occlumency or nonverbal spells--and goes on resenting Harry's insubordination and apparent mediocrity, not so much trusting DD's judgment as hoping that Harry can somehow do the job despite the failings that are so clear to Snape and so invisible or insignificant to Dumbledore. > Lupinlore: He probably does think that the prophecy is between him and Harry. He probably does have problems "opening up" and sharing his plans. > > Ceridwen: I think I like your Dumbledore, who is intelligent, isolated, burdened by a war, and sensitive to others' privacy - perhaps too sensitive. Carol: I think I agree with this DD, too. But as I said, he could simply be protecting Snape as he protects Trelawney. What you don't know can't be extorted from you, and even superb Occlumency skills may not provide sufficient protection from LV's Legilimency. Best, in DD's view, to take no chances. (But I'm not sure that Snape agrees. He wouldn't disobey a direct order or request from DD, but if DD said nothing, why wouldn't he explore his own memory of the Prophecy?) > Lupinlore: > > As for the problem with Snape "getting it," though, there may be a theme at work. Why doesn't he explain to Snape the importance of "love" and "mercy" in defeating Voldemort without going so far as to reveal the prophecy? I suspect the answer is that he has tried, and Snape simply refuses to believe it. > > The events of OOTP probably drove this home. Snape's failure to "overcome" his feelings about James likely convinced DD that any attempt to get Snape to realize the value of the kind of virtues Harry embodies is, unfortunately, doomed to failure. Carol: I can see DD having difficulty explaining to Snape that the "arrogant" Harry Potter embodies love and mercy. When has Snape seen Harry showing any such virtues? He didn't witness Harry preventing Lupin and Black from murdering Pettigrew, and attempting to "save" Gabrielle Delacour or Sirius Black could simply be, in Snape's view, the result of a desire for glory or simple recklessness. Or you could be right that Snape underestimates the effectiveness of these virtues, which may be why, though his loyalties lie with Dumbledore, he believes in discipline rather than nurturing students' egos as a means of motivating them to work hard, pay attention, and follow the rules. He doesn't want his students' love, only their respect, and he may be under the delusion that mercy is a weakness. Whether or not Snape concedes that love and mercy have their uses, I doubt that he sees them in the insolent, rule-breaking brat (not wholly unjustified) image of Harry Potter. Lupinlore: > Thus, at the end of HBP, Snape is still clinging to what is essentially a mistaken strategy and giving out bad advice. > > Ceridwen: > > I agree that Snape is giving bad advice, though I do think he is giving advice that he believes in. Carol: I agree that he's giving advice he believes in (and the fact that he's giving it certainly suggests that he's DDM). I just don't agree that it's bad advice. After all, Snape isn't telling Harry how to fight LV. He's telling Harry how to fight Snape *himself* (in essence, "I'll keep whipping the pants off you until you learn how to cast a nonverbal spell and block my Legilimency"). That's sound advice, not because I think Harry is going to fight another duel with Snape, much less win it, but because wanting to fight Snape will provide him with the incentive to take Snape's advice and enable him to defeat other Death Eaters (those who are genuinely loyal to LV or dangerous in their own right) using nonverbal spells and, if not using Occlumency, at least controlling his emotions. Rage generally interferes with efficiency and accuracy. I think Snape's advice to Harry to shut his mouth and close his mind so that the DEs can't second-guess him and/or his emotions don't get in his way is perfectly sensible, whether or not it will work against Voldemort himself, just as I agree with Snape that Harry shouldn't be casting Unforgiveable Curses--not for the reasons Snape gives, which IMO are for the benefit of any listening DEs and necessary to keep his cover even with Harry, but because Harry, the Chosen One, shouldn't use the weapons of the enemy, especially if he has to defeat Voldemort using Love. So maybe Snape does know more than we think he does about the Prophecy. Or maybe he just knows that Dark curses can't defeat Voldemort and his DEs (if they could, Barty Sr.'s methods would have destroyed LV and all his minions. Instead, Barty fell victim to them himself). I think that Snape has listened to DD enough to know that, or has arrived at that conclusion on his own. And he knows that, like it or not, Harry is the Chosen One and the only real hope the good side has. Best that he know as much as possible about DADA so he can survive DEs and Inferi and whatever other foes he'll fight before he gets to the final battle. I also think that he's the best DADA teacher Harry ever had, including Lupin (who merely taught Harry how to get past minor Dark creatures), and Harry would do well to get past his antipathy and remember Snape's lessons. It's just common sense to learn nonverbal DADA spells, and Harry could do it if he didn't have a mental block against anything Snape teaches. The Bezoar alone should have taught him that Snape's lessons can save lives. And he saw Snape save Draco's life. The man knows things worth listening to. Carol, unsure whether Snape knows the rest of the Prophecy but convinced that his advice is perfectly sound (and constitutes solid evidence of his continuing loyalty to the now-dead DD) From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jan 8 18:50:08 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:50:08 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: Young Goats Message-ID: <5577461.1168282208621.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163595 From: lealess >The Order member on whom we will get more information will probably be >Aberforth Dumbledore. Perhaps his nickname is RAB, for Rabid something >-- goat-lover that he is. Bart: I don't recall if I've mentioned this before, but Marion Zimmer Bradley, had her character Lythande the Star Browed (one of the few Thieves' World characters whose author asked to be taken out of the continuity) go into a city where the standard insult was to call someone a "despoiler of young goats". This turns out to be a key to the final upshot of the story. Ever since I read it (well over a decade ago), I have commonly used the phrase when I wanted to give an example of an insulting statement, but one so ridiculous that nobody would think that I meant it seriously, and therefore nobody would take offense (how many of you would take offense if someone accused you of being a "despoiler of young goats"?). I would be very surprised if JKR was unfamiliar with the late Ms. Bradley; I wonder if Aberforth's interests were some form of tribute? Bart From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 19:06:18 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:06:18 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40701081106o6dbfe36ev9e8115e3206d5790@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163596 > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 28, Flight of the Prince > > > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > > 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody > footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? > The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could > not have been them. Kemper now: Great catch, colebiancardi! Perhaps the blood is from Fenir's victims dripping from Fenir... though Fenir isn't described as being particularly bloody he is described (in the previous chapter) as smelling 'unmistakably, of blood coming from him.' Also, 'blood was dripping down his chin...' > 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, > Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able > to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to > get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? > > 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you > think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is > due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the > latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from > Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? Kemper now combining q's 2 & 3: It is evident in the previous chapter that the DE's and the werewolf cowed to Snape on the tower which suggests fear of Snape which I imagine is due to his capability as a wizard. They seem to know something of Snape that Harry and the reader do not. I think Snape does not take Harry for granted. He knows that Harry is skilled. Bellatrix and the other DE's at the MoM assume that they are dealing with a child of little experience, Dumbledore's pet. > 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting > his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, > his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his > instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you > think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. Kemper now: I think Snape was imparting a last lesson. Why didn't Snape kill Buckbeak as he killed Dumbledore? Why didn't he lure Harry to the gates of the school or take the wandless Harry to the gate himself? > 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right > before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that > he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated > around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and > the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about > this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do > you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind > it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion > are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, > perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I > hope question made sense!! Kemper now: I think Snape's expression on the tower and his expression on the grounds are different. I think on the tower, the expression paralleled Harry's feelings in the Cave. Harry making Dumbledore drink the water that caused DD such anguish. Snape killing Dumblledore for DD's cause. On the grounds, I think the expression mirrors Harry's feelings in the moment. Harry hates Snape for killing Dumbledore. Similarly, Snape hates himself for the same reason. > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Kemper now: I think Snape loses his cool because Snape had to kill DD so that Harry, someone he dislikes severely, could live. But the question makes me wonder: what does Snape think the cowardly thing to do was? > 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the > Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why > Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have > issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have > harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the > curse from Harry? Kemper now: Snape lifted the curse. Overcoming Harry would mean he would have to explain to Voldemort why Harry wasn't given to Voldemort as a prize. Maybe??? > > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? Kemper now: I suspect Hagrid knows that Snape helped Harry out as a little boy who lived shortly after Harry's parents had been killed. Maybe with other parts of the destroyed house falling on baby Harry and perhaps cutting him deeply, Harry required Snape's song-like incantation. Hagrid bore witness to that... maybe??? Thanks for the questions, colebiancardi! From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 8 19:09:41 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:09:41 -0500 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: <1168279805.1040.81766.m20@yahoogroups.com> References: <1168279805.1040.81766.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C9016FAF737DF4-97C-1C16@WEBMAIL-RA19.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163597 > > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Potioncat: The description of Snape was painful. He's compared to the howling dog trapped in the burning hut. What is JKR trying to tell us? This description is part of the reason I think Snape is loyal to DD. He would be gloating if he was LV's minion. Julie: This description convinced me too, along with Snape's look of "hatred and revulsion" when aiming his wand at Dumbledore being so similar to Harry's feelings while force-feeding Dumbledore the cave potion. I think JKR drew these analogies purposely, as clues for us. Potioncat: Some have suggested that Snape is still thinking of James at this moment, because Snape was just yelling about James. Also, the slashing in air, and the white-hot whiplike hit across Harry's face could be something like the curse Severus used on James after OWLs. Although Harry seems more affected, and we don't hear of any blood. But I think he's back to DD at this moment. Still...the uncertain use of pronouns leaves it up in the air. Nothing Snape has done as an adult has indicated any cowardice, so it's very hard to understand why that triggered the reaction. My feeling is that it has to do with his killing Dumbledore. It could mean he did it for an overall good, and knows he will seen as a coward, or it could mean he himself wonders if he may have done it out of cowardice. I'm beginning to believe that the Tower events were completely unanticipated. Julie: I don't think Snape wonders at all if his act in killing Dumbledore was cowardice. I think Snape is reacting just the opposite, that he desperately *wanted* to take the cowardly way out--by killing Dumbledore, accepting his own death from the UV and divesting himself of all responsibility for the fates of Draco,Harry and the WW. Instead it took the most extreme courage he'd ever summoned to kill Dumbledore, save Draco's soul and likely his life, along with Harry's life, to give up EVERYTHING and brand himself a murderer and traitor, to have nowhere else to go but to Voldemort where he must hide his true intentions and finish the game he started when he "rejoined" Dumbledore's side. I'd say for Snape "suicide" would be painless by comparison! So Snape's reaction is because Harry dares to call Snape a coward when he has no idea that Snape was acting from the opposite extreme. Julie, out of time right now but hoping to add more thoughts to the other excellent questions later. ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 21:17:32 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:17:32 -0000 Subject: Occlumency vs. Anti-Imperius (was: The Power of Harry ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163598 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > > Carol: > > This one I'll concede, though I wonder if the ability > > to resist the Imperius Curse is one of the abilities > > he acquired from Voldemort. It's odd that he can do > > so but can't do Occlumency (so JKR says) since the > > two require similar abilities. ... > > Magpie: > Actually, I do think it makes sense that Harry is good > (at one) and not the other, ... When he throws off > Imperius it's saying that he knows himself. His will is > clear to him. So when a little voice that's not his own > whispers for him to do something, he's able to > recognize it as foreign and must his entire will against > it. > > Occlumency depends on the ability to fragment that > Harry doesn't have. He's not able to hide parts of > himself away or cut himself off from them. But just as > his ability to use his whole self makes him stronger > than Imperius, it makes it impossible for him to do > Occlumency. > > It's a cool difference, actually, when you figure that > Harry the Gryffindor is a natural at throwing off > Imperius and Draco the Slytherin is a natural at > Occlumency, because of what it suggests about the houses. > ... > > ...their real strength comes from the will for Harry and > the emotion for Draco ... They both naturally have more > control over their strength--Harry has more control over > his will (so won't give in to Imperius), Draco has more > control over his emotions (so can repress and fake them). > > -m bboyminn: Excellent post; though I think it only covers one aspect of the subject. Though admittedly it covers that aspect very insightfully. Let me point out another aspect that doesn't necessarily contradict your own. The Imperius Curse is about following a command. Yes, if the command is repugnant enough it could stir some emotions, but the induced euphoria would probably take care of that. So, yes, as you said, Harry is able to muster a strength of Will against it, but he is able to do that because there is no emotional involvement. The Legilimens Curse, and I say the curse or spell because that is the only real example we have where we see things from the inside; from inside Harry's head. This spell brings forth memories that have very strong emotions tied to them. Harry sees many of his most humiliating experiences while under the Legilimens Spell. Also note that in the bathroom after Cursing Draco, Harry is appalled at his own actions and by the damage he inflicted on Draco. Thus an emotionally charges stituation; guilt, shame, fears, etc.... Consequently, he can't suppress his thoughts of the book. I think part of it was that Harry felt so guilty, that he couldn't muster the will to hide his thoughts of the book. So really the difference is on one hand you are refusing a somewhat emotionally neutral command, on the other had you are trying to suppress very emotional memories. It is easy to see why for Harry, the Imperius is easier. Also, for most of the memories that come forth, Harry is just as curious to see them as anyone. He is also curious about the walk down the long dark hall. If he had understood the danger of allowing his dreaming mind to go down that hall, he may have been able to muster some resistance. But the reasons and explanations he is given are wholly inadequate to surpress his curiousity. Finally, and the reason I think Harry has /some/ Occlumency abilities is because when a memory that has very strong emotions, memories that he REALLY does NOT want anyone to see, he finds away to stop it. Usually these memories involve Cho Chang, but they are far more personal and embarassing than Dudley taunting him years ago. So, though it is not always by blocking the memory, Harry does find a way to cut off the memories he truly does not want anyone to see. No, Harry is never going to be great at Occlumency, but I think he has more talent than we are giving him credit for, and I think that misconception is intentional on the part of the author. I think misconception exists relative to many aspect of Harry. I think we have seen hints of his immense underlying magical power, but we have far more often seen Harry struggling to learn what he needs to know at the moment. Though it is just from memory, I believe Harry says himself that he seemed to have developed a bit of a mental block toward the Summoning Charm. I think to some extent this is avoidance behavior, Harry - the reluctant Hero, much the way many of us knew he had an important critical college paper due, and we did everything we could think of but work on that paper. Just like us and our college paper, at the last minute, under the pressure of an impending deadline, we were able to pull it off, so to does Harry. He doesn't want to do these things. He doesn't want to /have/ to learn Occlumency. He doesn't want to /have/ to learn the Summoning Charm. He doesn't want to /have/ to learn the Patronus. But once he gets past the /have to/ and gets to the /must/, he manages to pull it off. I think Harry is very internally conflicted. He wants to be an ordinary kids and struggles to be so by staying out of the limelight. But fate has other ideas for Harry. And when fate has back him into a corner so that subconsciously trying to avoid being the hero is no longer an option, Harry doesn't hesitate to learn what he needs to learn and to step forward and be the hero he must. I'm not contradicting what you have said, I'm just pointing out of few other aspects. Steve/bboyminn From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jan 8 21:57:25 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:57:25 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701081357m40dd3862o452c0d7fc84ff359@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163599 "Brandon also reminded us that, undoubtedly, a full day had passed before Hagrid retrieved Harry from Godric's Hollow." "I think the Potters' murder did dissolve the Fidelius Charm, but - for some reason - it didn't end abruptly. It needed 24 hours to fully disappear." Now my theory and apparently everyone else's has been that the Potters were killed, moments later Hagrid and Sirius arrive on the scene, Hagrid took Harry away, and 24 hours later, Hagrid delivers Harry to Privet Drive. The big question has always been, where was Harry during that 24 hours? ========================= Jeremiah: I have always interpreted the timeline as this: The Potters were murdered in the early morning. Vernon goes to work (and I'm assuming an 8-4 or 9-5 type of work day... possibly even as early as 6am). So, Voldemort kills the Potters, let's say around midnight on Halloween (I was corrected about Halloween by a fellow poster... Thanks for the enlightenment, btw) and the word gets out in the early AM. 'Cause I'm sure there were other villagers in Godric's Hollow that would have heard the explosion and sent owls out. Ok, so McGonagall goes to Privet Drive and camps out as a cat and watches the place all day. The question is then left to this: Who knew what and when.... (I just read all of this a few times during the weekend... there are some holes...) If everyone thought Sirius was the Secret Keeper (remember all the confusion in POA?) then would Hagrid have been so friendly to Sirius and have taken his motorbike? Dumbledore didn't know there was a switch because Sirius had to explain it all to him at the end of POA. So, why didn't anyone act suprised about Sirius's presence at the demolished Potter's house that morning? Moving on: there is a little bit of time that is unexplained and it has to do with Harry, as a baby, starving. If his parents were dead then who would have fed him from the time of their death to the time Hagrid picked him up (doesn't he say he got little Harry out of the rubble?) and then the trip to Privet Drive and then the long sleep until Petunia woke him in the early morning putting out the milk bottles? That's a long time to not feed a baby and have it stay quiet. Now, I'm sure a baby can live for a day or two without food... they are pretty hearty little critters... but to be so docile that he would sleep through the night... Hmmm... maybe Hagrid gave him something on the flight over? Any way, getting back, so Peter Pettigrew was the SKeeper but noboy except Lilly, James and Sirius knew. This does not, however, mean that only Peter, Sirius and Voldemort were given the location of the Potters. Just as Dumbledore wrote Grimauld Place on paper for Harry, Pettegrew could have had this information dispersed to several people close to the Potters... Such as Petunia (who state she had not seen her sister in years but does not specify wether she has heard from Lilly in the last several years) or Hagrid (meaning that Hagrid could have found the location even if the Filelius Charm had not been broken)... It seems that a lot of people this the spell would have disolved. And I posted about this before. I think the conclusion I came to was this: Nobody friggin' knows! LOL!!! I don't see why it wouldn't have stuck (because I think that harry would have been a part of the charm and protecting him would still be a part of the process regardless of the house's destruction) but with a blow-up house and 2 dead people... well, maybe it would have lifted: and yes, there is the whole act of "fidelity" being breached... But I say that if you're married and you cheat... you're still married... so, fidelity schmidelity... a vow is a vow and a charm is a charm... But if Hagrid was let in on the secret then everything is plausible as written (regarding who was at the Potters during the aftermath and who was not). Now, as far as the Minisrty having som clock... I have no idea where that came from and I have no idea how to respnod to it. I just think that there were people in Godric's Hollow that worked at the Ministry and if they, bu some strange chance (note: sarcasm here) then they could have popped their head anywhere they wanted and let someone know that, "Hey, there was a giant Kaboom!" and officials could have apparated in... yadda, yaddda, yadda... least of my concerns... I think all of this will come to light in the final book. that's why Harry has to go back to where is all began for him. He knows that it is possible to sense old magic, he knows that there are ways to decode the past. I'm sure his scar will prickle and burn with memories of that night and all will be revealed... and it's also possible that JKR has needed 10 years to figure out the details, too. lol.. Awe, Poor Jo. So much work to do... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 22:22:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:22:32 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163600 colebiancardi wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 28, Flight of the Prince > >Harry follows when he is attacked by Fenrir. Again, Harry > uses the "Petrificus Totalus" curse and he pushes the immobilized > werewolf off of him. Carol responds: Are you sure? Someone Petrifies Greyback, but I don't think we can safely assume that it's Harry. Otherwise, great summary. colebiancardi: > Only 20 yards apart, they both look at each other before raising their wands at the same exact time. Carol: Good detail--I hadn't noticed that. They start off on an equal footing but don't stay there. I wonder how that relates to the (nonverbal) Protego in Snape's class, and what Snape could have done to Harry then had he so chosen. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > > 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Carol responds: The only person who had a wound from which he would bleed, as opposed to a hex or curse from a wand, was Bill Weasley. (No one was casting Sectumsempra.) But I think the blood is also symbolic of death and carnage in the supposed sanctuary of Hogwarts. Maybe the spilled rubies also symbolize Gryffindor blood? > > 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? Carol: First, Harry hits a DE ("Brutal-face" or, IMO, Yaxley) in the back with a Petrificus Totalus. Then *someone* (I don't think it's Harry and it could even be Snape shooting around the corner) hits Greyback with a second freezing spell. Harry trips one of the following DEs with an Impedimenta and the second trips over him or her. And then someone hits Harry with a Crucio and he thinks it's Snape. I wouldn't call that holding his own. He's lucky he was under the Invisibility Cloak earlier and that Snape got the DEs off the tower or he'd be dead. But one on one with Snape is a different matter. Harry ought to be able to hold his own as he did with the DEs at the MoM, but he can't because Snape is a Legilimens and an expert duellist whereas Harry hasn't even learned to cast a nonverbal spell. He's flustered and Snape is just parrying his attempts, taunting him *and* telling him what he needs to do to fight Snape (or a real DE) effectively. Harry is outmatched, but he's also out of control. He has yet to learn that he can't let rage or the desire for revenge interfere with his thinking and spell-casting. (Snape, too, loses control at the end and pays the penalty when he's attacked by Buckbeak. He must be a good runner as well as a great duellist to escape unscathed. :-) ) > > 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? Carol: I think that Snape is brilliant, highly talented, powerful, and motivated to help bring Voldemort down. (If he were a real DE, Harry would be dead or Voldemort's captive.) He's also, despite the anguish that slips through when Harry calls him a coward, in control until the last minute in this scene. Harry, whatever his natural talent, is underprepared, having had a mental block against nonverbal DADA spells all semester (his ability to learn the HBP's spells without effort shows that it's mental, just like Ron's problems with Quidditch--he could do it but his emotions are interfering with his ability to perform). Harry is also traumatized, as he wasn't at the MoM, and he's facing a man he hates personally, as opposed to merely despising (Lucius Malfoy) or having no personal feeling for (Dolohov et al.). He had similar problems with Bellatrix in the MoM after she killed Sirius Black and made the same mistake of trying to cast a Crucio. But Bellatrix evidently isn't a Legilimens and she wasn't merely parrying Harry's spells. Clearly, Snape is a much better duellist than he's let on so far--and as perhaps we ought to have guessed as far back as CoS when he made such a spectacle of Lockhart in front of the short-lived Duelling Club. As for who trained Snape, I'm sure he's self-taught. He came to school at age eleven knowing more hexes than most seventh-years, after all. (I think DD taught him Occlumency, though, or helped him improve on what he had taught himself.) > > 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. Carol: I've recently posted on this topic (my apologies--I forgot that we'd be discussing this chapter), but I'll summarize briefly. I think "No Unforgiveable Curses from you, Potter!" should be taken at face value: Harry, as a good guy and the Chosen One, must not use Voldemort's weapons. The dangers of doing so have been well illustrated by the Crouches, father and son. "You don't have the power or the nerve" may be partly true, but it's the sort of "reason" that can serve as a cover for sound advice, just as "he's for the Dark Lord" is a cover for Snape's order to the DE to stop Crucioing Harry. As for telling Harry to shut his mouth and close his mind, that advice may not help Harry against Voldemort, but it's excellent advice for fighting a DE of Snape's caliber, or near it (a freed Lucius Malfoy or Bellatrix Lestrange, for example). As Snape said in DADA class, a nonverbal spell will give the caster a split-second advantage, and he's also reminding Harry that Occlumency will protect against a Legilimens like himself. (No doubt Snape also thinks that Harry should use it against LV. It works for him!) Controlling his emotions is most important of all, and I think "close your mind" incorporates that idea, Occlumency being the means by which Snape, IMO, controls his emotions most of the time. When the mask of Occlumency slips, usually with regard to James but in this chapter, with regard to DD, the rage is let loose, almost always to Snape's detriment. > > 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind it? Carol: We're seeing both expressions through Harry's eyes, so the narrator's description can't be trusted. IMO, the expression on the tower reflects revulsion at what he has to do and self-hatred, as well as hatred of anyone and everyone who's brought him to this pass, including, temporarily, Dumbledore and possibly Draco, and more certainly, Voldemort, the cause of it all. Harry simply thinks that Snape hates DD, an emotion for which we have not a shred of evidence in the books, and that perception is reflected in the narrator's word choice. (But so is the parallel with harry's own emotions in the cave, which we seen and Harry doesn't.) The expression of "hatred" on Snape's face after Harry uses the HBP's spells on him is different, however similar it may look to Harry. It may not be hatred at all so much as anger at Harry for being so stupid as not to realize that they're Snape's own spells. I'm sure he still hates Harry for being so "mediocre" and "arrogant" and for hating him (Snape) at this moment instead of realizing that Snape has, yet again, saved Harry's life, this time at great cost to himself. Snape's emotions are barely under control here. He's just killed Dumbledore, run all the way down eight flights of stairs and across the grounds with Draco in tow, and saved Harry from a Crucio, and now he's in the process of deflecting Harry's spells, enduring insults from the kid whose existence has ruled his life for the last fifteen and a half years, and now the brat (his view, not mine) has had the arrogance to use Snape's own spells against him, like his father before him. Snape's anger, based on his old hatred of James and his longterm resentment of James's death (which he had tried so hard to prevent), has nothing to do with Dumbledore and the events on the tower. It's also separate from, but coexists with, Snape's desire to teach Harry what Harry as the chosen One needs to know and to protect him from physical harm--as Snape has always done since Harry came to Hogwarts. So, no, it's not the same expression as the hatred and revulsion on the tower at all. This is Snape vs. "Potter" as usual. That was Snape vs. himself and the consequences of the UV, which for the moment is at the back of Snape's mind, not at the forefront. (See my response to the next question.) > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Carol: It can't be *just* the charge of cowardice that pushes him over the edge, or the first use of "cowardly" would have produced the same results. The first time, Harry is making the nonsensical accusation that deflecting curses instead of fighting back constitutes cowardice. Snape has managed to get in his advice not to use Unforgiveables before this first accusation of cowardice, and his response to the first accusation is only an insult to James (the real coward, in Snape's view) and more advice in the form of a taunt (essentially, "Use the skills I've taught you, you moron!"). As I said above, this part of the duel is almost business as usual for Snape, trying to get through to Harry by showing up his inadequacy and to get a bit of revenge for Harry's failure to understand the burden Snape is taking upon himself by insulting Harry's father. He doesn't want to harm Harry, just show him how much he still needs to learn. It's interesting that Snape saves Harry from a Crucio *after* this initial accusation of cowardice. In fact, the first thing Snape does after insulting James and blocking Harry's Stupefy is order the big blond DE, who has just shown up, to get off the grounds before the Ministry arrive. And the next thing he does is save Harry from a Crucio--to which Harry brilliantly responds by trying to hit Snape with Sectumsempra! At this point, Snape's attitude changes from jeering to controlled rage. He's had enough. How dare Potter use Snape's own spells against him just like his filthy father? He disarms Harry rather forcefully but without actually hurting him and informs Harry that *he's* the HBP. He's probably been dying to tell Harry that he knows Harry has been using his spells and taking credit for his Potions improvements, and he takes the opportunity now, still not losing his cool but clearly angry at Harry *as Harry* rather than Harry as James's son. And then, as he stands over the disarmed Harry with no intention, apparently, of hurting him with anything other than words, Harry flings his second accusation of cowardice, this one accompanied with "Kill me like you killed him!" Pippin to the contrary, these words can only refer to the similarly disarmed Dumbledore, whom Snape has just killed against his will at the expense of everything he had--freedom, a job, the respect of his colleagues, a chance to do good even though few understood what he was doing. And now all he has is infamy and the dubious authority over a few idiotic DEs so long as he retains what passes for Voldemort's trust. He's facing he doesn't know what as a DE supposedly loyal to Voldemort. At Harry's words, the Occlumency he's been using to mask his emotions even from himself (as I read it) slips. The anguish he's kept at bay throughout the duel with Harry surfaces at last. Even Harry can see that Snape is in as much pain as the dog in the burning house despite not having so much as a scratch on his body. In his rage, he loses control and casts a spell that stings Harry like a whip--punishment, maybe, for all the pain Harry has caused him, but most of all for calling him a coward after the bravest act of his life (which involved saving Harry as well as Draco but Harry doesn't understand that and the furious, frustrated Snape can't explain). > > 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the curse from Harry? Carol: I don't understand the last question. Snape's "no!" causes the DE to lift the Cruciatus Curse. Obviously, IMO, the reason Snape gives for stopping the Crucio is not his real reason. He can't tell the DE--or Harry--that he's loyal to the man he just killed and wants to spare Harry so Harry can *destroy* the Dark Lord. IMO, he deflects Harry's curses during their duel partly for the same reason (to prevent harm to Harry), partly (being Snape) to show how good he is at duelling as compared with Harry's paltry skills, and partly to show Harry what he needs to know. (I wonder if Snape taught any of those defensive moves, which remind me of parrying in fencing, in his DADA class.) Why didn't Snape use a Petrificus Totalus or some such spell on Harry? Because he wanted the DEs off the grounds and Harry safely away from them. > > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? Carol responds: Just a guess--maybe Hagrid knows that Snape did something to protect baby Harry after Godric's Hollow. Maybe he examined the scar and made sure that Harry wasn't possessed by Voldemort--or a stray soul bit. I don't think it has anything to do with Severus's school days. But, yes, I agree that Hagrid knows something about Snape that DD also knew but McGonagall, Lupin et al. don't know. > > 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? Carol: Interesting question. I'm sure that Pippin thinks so! But surely the fact that DD's eyes are closed and he looks like he's asleep (much like the peacefully sleeping portrait) is a clue of some sort. DD didn't die thinking that Snape was a traitor, that much I can state with confidence. If he had, we'd see a horrified or shocked expression on DD's face--and open eyes like those of most AK victims. > > 10. This is some background information for the question 10: > So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the cave? Was it a setup? Carol: In my view, RAB is Regulus, who was killed before he could destroy (or unsuccessfully attempt to destroy) the locket. I think that Harry (or Hermione) will figure out that RAB is Regulus and remember the locket that no one could open next time they're at 12 GP. Finding it will cause a little trouble but not much. Kreacher will provide the background info and Aberforth, the Order member we've met but don't really know, will help them to locate the locket, which I'm guessing was among the items that Mundungus stole from 12 GP. Bill Weasley, the curse breaker, will open the locket and de-Horcruxify it, perhaps being fatally wounded in the process. (Not facts; just my predictions!) > > 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal style of ending her books? Carol: Subtle? No. I don't understand why you would use that word here. Unexpected? Yes. I knew from the imagery at the end of "Spinner's End" that Snape was in trouble and I feared that *he* would die rather than kill Dumbledore (or whatever the task was). I know that I didn't expect him to rush in and murder a helpless Dumbledore. My first reaction to the AK was a sense that JKR had betrayed *me* (and readers in general) by setting up a Snape who was so clearly Dumbledore's man and then having him betray Dumbledore. But Snape's actions in "Flight of the Prince" showed that he was still Snape and still Dumbledore's man. (ESE!Snape save Harry from a Crucio and deflect Harry's curses while still trying to teach him? It made no sense.) DD's death at Snape's hands wasn't obvious or expected (except that DD clearly was not going to survive to the end of the book and the UV was clearly ominous). In some respects, the book fit the normal pattern: JKR usually resolves the mystery and reveals the villain at the end of the book (though in OoP we knew the villain from the outset). In HBP, the DADA curse, which strikes in every book, and the revelation of the HBP and Draco's plot (the detective-story element) were business as usual, but the *seeming* revelation of Snape as villain is almost certainly a set up. HBP is the first half of a two-part book, and if there's a villain other than Voldemort in that book (Draco doesn't count), we don't yet know his or her identity. We'll get a reversal in DH revealing Snape's true loyalties: of that much I'm certain. We may also get a traitor in the Order, but it won't be Snape. > > 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? Carol: Oi! What a question! I was too devastated when I first read the chapter to think about it in thematic terms, but I'd say that it fits in with the futility of revenge, the need for forgiveness, and the continuing misunderstanding between Harry and Snape, which is more a motif or a conflict than a theme. I'd say the chapter is more important in terms of character development (and revelation paired with concealment) than in terms of theme (though I may change my mind after reading other people's responses). On a rereading, I liked and still like Snape's remaining Snape after he has killed Dumbledore, with his perennial internal conflict between hating Harry and wanting to save him and train him still intact. His moment of anguish is moving and revealing though I can't say that I "like" it. I like his calling out "Run, Draco!" showing that Draco's safety is still high on his list of priorities. I like his saving Harry from a Crucio (though Harry, blinded by hatred, can't comprehend what happened). I really like the revelation of Snape's formidable powers as a duellist, which nicely complement his unexpected powers as a Healer. I *don't* like his slipping and using a painful hex at the end, though it's very Harrylike and very human, and I don't like Buckbeak chasing Snape as if he were really endangering Harry. It actually lessens my affection for Buckbeak a bit, silly as that may seem. I don't like to pass value judgments on chapters, but I'll take a stab at it. Except for the melodramatic bit where Snape reveals his identity as the HBP, the chapter is well-written, suspenseful, exciting, surprising, and, in retrospect, entertaining. Lots of irony, which I always enjoy, and lots of unreliable third-person limited narration (Harry misinterpreting the action), which gives me hope that he similarly misinterpreted the events on the tower. A favorite chapter? No, because it sends Snape from Hogwarts into the Voldemort camp. I fear for him, not for his loyalties but for his life. I mourn for his lost freedom and the lost respect of his fellow Order members, who clamored to hear his report in OoP and knew he was risking his life as a spy. I dread having Voldemort assign him some terrible task that he'll have to perform or give away his true loyalties. If I knew that he'd make it through DH safely, revealed as a good guy who did what he had to do against his will, following the last order or last request of the mentor he killed, I'd probably rank the chapter among my favorites. Until I know what becomes of Snape, I can't place it there. The ending is still up in the air. Carol, thanking colebiancardi for her thought-provoking questions and hoping that at least one or two readers made it to the end of this long post! From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 8 22:32:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:32:09 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy __( was: The Isolated Headmaster) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163601 --- , "justcarol67" wrote: > > ...total snippage... > > Carol, unsure whether Snape knows the rest of the > Prophecy but convinced that his advice is perfectly > sound (and constitutes solid evidence of his continuing > loyalty to the now-dead DD) > bboyminn: Since Snape has been discussed a lot recently, the Prophecy and 'who knows what' has also been discussed. I have mentioned this before, so it's nothing new, but I think Dumbledore discussed the Prophecy with lots of people and /in general/ told them what it said and what it meant, but I don't think he has actually quoted it to anyone but Harry. It seems reasonable that there are people at the Ministry who know /about/ the prophecy. I think that is how Dumbledore convinced them to put the extra monitoring on Privet Drive. I also think that is how Dumbledore arranges special treatment from the Ministry for Harry (cars and such). But to know /about/ the Prophecy, to have had it explained in variying degrees to varying people is quite different than hearing a direct quote. Dumbledore, just as Ender, Bean, Atremis Fowl, and other heroes and commanders, operates on a a strict 'needs to know basis'. No reasonable and effective commander could do otherwise. Oh yes, there are many people who think they want to know, there are many who think they should know, but there are very few who really need to know. This is not gossip over tea, this is the fate of the Wizard World at stake, and 'loose lips sink ships'. That's part of Dumbledore's dilemma; 'it's lonely at the top'. He has no equal, either socially, intellectually, or militarily. He carries the burden of destiny alone, just as Harry does. He keeps his own council because to do otherwise is to introduce grave risk into the equation. I'm sure Dumbledore would love to sit down to tea with McGonnagall or Snape and tell them everything. It would be a relief to not have to carry that burden alone. It would be a immense relief if he could pass the knowledge and responsibility for choices off on to other people, but he can't; the risk is too high. If he tells someone and they let bits and pieces slip, and someone else puts those bit and pieces together, the the Grand Plan is blown; the game is lost. So, Dumbledore carries his knowledge alone. He makes the decisions alone. And rise or fall, fly or crash, he excepts the responsibility alone. It's a terrible burden, but it is the burden that all men in Dumbledore's position must bear. As to the Prophey, I believe Dumbledore has given various people various explanations based on his own opinion of their 'need to know'. But he hasn't revealed the actual Prophecy to anyone other than Harry. I suspect, perhaps, not even Lily and James or Neville's parents knew it in detail. I think Dumbledore explained it and they trusted his explanation. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 9 00:35:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:35:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163602 > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > > 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody > footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? > The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could > not have been them Pippin: I think the blood is for thematic purposes -- this is the most Slytherin-oriented book and it's positively awash in liquids of various kinds. It may be there for color, but also in Purloined Letter style to distract us from the really important (IMO) clue of the blood on Dumbledore's face. But as to where it came from I have two theories. Harry hit Enormous Blond Death Eater in the face with an unspecified curse which caused a howl of pain. It might have broken his nose. Or it could have even been a sectum sempra. Also the blood on the flagstones seems to be near the broken Gryffindor Hourglass. Someone might have been cut by shards of flying glass. > 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, > Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able > to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to > get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? Pippin: I don't think the others are capable of legilimency. > > 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you > think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is > due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the > latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from > Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? Pippin: I think Snape must have trained himself in legilimency, since it seems he was already using it against James at school. (See answer to 4, below.) > > 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting > his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, > his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his > instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you > think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. Pippin: I do think it was to help Harry in the long run. Not against Voldemort, because *nobody* knows what it will take to defeat Voldemort. IMO, even Dumbledore did not know, though he must have had a hunch concerning Harry's blood. All DD knew, IMO, was that love could find a way. I think Snape believes that --why else would he be DDM -- but he has no more idea of how it's going to work than Harry does. I agree with others that the advice Snape is giving has to do with how to fight wizards like Snape. He is telling Harry exactly why his attack is failing. And Snape does give Harry one piece of useful advice that no one seems to have picked up on: "Your father would never attack me unless it was four on one." We have seen Snape overcome when he had more than one enemy to face at a time: Fluffy's three heads, the Trio in the Shrieking Shack, and the Pensieve. Harry calls Snape a coward for not fighting him, as if this were a schoolyard contest and he was calling Snape out. But it's not. It's war, and while Harry has to avoid atrocities like the Unforgivables, there's no need to give the enemy an even break. Harry needs backup. > > 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right > before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that > he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated > around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and > the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about > this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do > you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind > it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion > are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, > perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I > hope question made sense!! Pippin: Snape could never function if he wore his heart on his sleeve. There's no telling what he really feels from his face except when it's showing involuntary reactions like glittering eyes, paleness or pulsing veins. Without these indicators, all we can tell is what Snape *wants* people to think he's feeling. It seems like the hatred and revulsion is a mask, but whether it's being used to hide the same feelings each time or different ones would be difficult to say. > > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Pippin: The list seems to be familiar with my theory that Snape was actually talking about James. After all, it's James that Snape is supposed to be overcome with remorse about, and James that Snape and Harry were discussing. Also in my view, Snape didn't kill Dumbledore at all, so while he might be anguished over his inability to rescue him, I don't think he'd be anguished at the accusation of murder. Incensed is more like it. Filled with hate and revulsion, perhaps. > > 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the > Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why > Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have > issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have > harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the > curse from Harry? > Pippin: Petrificus Totalus would have left Harry helpless until someone discovered him. Snape can't be sure that the other DE's are all accounted for and the grounds have never been entirely safe at night in any case. > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? Pippin: I think so. Hagrid has never been one to trust someone just because they had Dumbledore's countenance-- look at the way he treated Karkaroff. > > 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged > Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? Pippin: Definitely. Dumbledore's blood could *not* be liquid half a canonical hour after he supposedly died. Impacts can do funny things, but the fact that the glasses aren't even broken while the locket was supposed to have bounced out of Dumbledore's pocket and fallen open also seems fishy to me, especially since we have a line in PoA about Harry's glasses not having been broken during his fall and we find out that's probably because Dumbledore stopped it. > > 10. > > So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is > it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or > in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, > why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real > Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the > cave? Was it a setup? > Pippin: I think he's Regulus and really dead. I think Dumbledore had discovered the fake horcrux by the time he'd got back to Hogsmeade and that's why he groans when Harry says that at least they got it. I have had the disturbing thought that there might be other decoys out there. I don't think Dumbledore set himself up. Unless he was lying he could not have known Death Eaters would enter the castle that night. > > 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? > Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal > style of ending her books? > Pippin: What death ? ;) DD died of the poison, that's obvious to me. It's definitely not a normal ending. We don't get much of a resolution about anything. We've learned definitively that Harry's power is love but we haven't yet seen what it can do against Voldemort. We've been set a puzzle regarding Snape and a murder mystery involving Dumbledore. And we've learned that Harry's final confrontation with Voldie must be postponed until the horcruxes are dealt with. > 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you > feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? Pippin: Interesting question. I've never tried to rate the chapters. But I think the one's I've reread most obsessively are The Servant of Lord Voldemort, in PoA, followed by Spinner's End. Thematically, it's hard to judge because we aren't going to know what really happened until we have finished Book Seven. Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jan 9 01:06:41 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:06:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163603 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could not have been them. Ceridwen: I had thought that the blood was on people's shoes because of Bill Weasley having been savaged. But with things so condensed in the summary, it does seem like huge amounts of blood. It can't be from Fenrir Greyback, he was taken out in the upstairs corridor. If they had stepped in Bill's blood - possible, I think Harry did - it would have dried before they got down seven flights of stairs, and certainly wouldn't have been in the entrance hall. There is blood, not bloody footprints, near the Hufflepuff House. The Gryffindor rubies have been spilled, which was another bloody image for me. An aside - was the hourglass broken on purpose by someone running by, or did it shatter like "My Grandfather's Clock" when Dumbledore died? It does seem like someone was wounded. But as to who, I don't know, other than Bill Weasley, and I don't think his blood on someone's shoes would track as far as this blood seems to have done. Good question - now you've scared me. 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? Ceridwen: Harry is operating on "auto-pilot" for the other Death Eaters. His hatred for Snape is personal. His emotions, though chaotic and confused before now, never dovetailed with his attempts to cast spells until he fights Snape. There's an entire history between the two of them, and it isn't a good history. Coupled with Harry's wanting to hate Snape. in fact preferring to hate Snape, earlier in the book, and his emotions are in complete control of him. 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? Ceridwen: I think Snape is a powerful wizard. We've had hints in other books. Harry's no slouch, but he hasn't got the experience that Snape has. Harry also has his emotions clouding his judgement here. Also, in places through the book, Snape seems to be reading Harry's mind, though more often than not without the circumstances set up for Legilimency. When he walks Harry from the gate to the castle, he knows, or intuits, what Harry is thinking without having eye contact. Snape seems to be able not just to Legilimens Harry, but to anticipate what he will do. I'm not sure if this is due to Snape's abilities as a wizard, or to some connection between himself and Harry on another level. 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. Ceridwen: I'm not sure if I ought to answer this at all, since I do think this is Snape giving his own last lesson at Hogwarts. I think he was also releasing any frustrations and anger at this time, before going to Voldemort. 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I hope question made sense!! Ceridwen: I think Snape masks a lot of emotions as anger. And anger can look like hatred. In my opinion, Snape is in as much emotional turmoil as Harry is throughout this scene, but it only shows as hatred on his face. He's genuinely angry that Harry tries to use his own spells against him. He may also think that Harry is wasting his time with this pettiness after everything that's happened. Once emotions are released, they all come out, so he's onto everything, and it all looks like anger, or hatred. He's angry at James, he's angry at Harry, he's angry at the situation, he's angry at himself, in my opinion, of course. And, he absolutely hates it. 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Ceridwen: This is later in the scene, in the first place. Snape's emotions are not getting any better, they're fraying. Harry's using a schoolyard taunt, trying to hurt Snape, when nothing else works. He's already emotional, though it only shows as anger or hatred, in my opinion. This was the last straw. In the second place, the accusation, when applied to Dumbledore, really hurts. I think that anyone killing anyone else, even if they hated their guts and thought they would be glad they were gone, will hurt afterwards. Souls split in the Potterverse. Does it physically hurt? No matter which Alphabet!Snape is imagined, killing is not something routine for him. Bellatrix said he got out of doing things with the Death Eaters, so it's possible that this was his first killing. I won't even go into whether he killed Dumbledore or not here, that's speculation for other posts. In the chapter's viewpoint, he did kill Dumbledore. I don't think he wanted to, given his history of "slithering out of" such assignments before. So, he is unable, in my mind, not to try and hurt Harry back. He is reduced to the basic humanity: he hurts, he lashes out. 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the curse from Harry? Ceridwen: I don't think Snape wanted to hurt Harry. I lean more toward DDM! Snape, so you know. He is also fleeing, so getting involved in a duel, especially one with someone not as experienced as he is, would be ridiculous. Issuing a "Petrificus Totalus" would have saved Snape the trouble of defending himself and allowed him to continue toward the gate, but it would have left Harry defenseless against any Death Eaters following. If Snape did not want to hurt Harry, then he would not have left him wrapped like a present for some other Death Eater's frustrations. Of course, being so emotionally overwrought, he may just not have thought of it, but I don't think so. The curse was lifted by the Death Eater who was cursing Harry, at Snape's orders. It's already been shown that they all looked up to him as a leader on the scene. The reason given would be another justification to do as Snape said. 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? Ceridwen: I think Hagrid knows a lot. He'll tell it, but only if the right words are used. Sometimes, he doesn't even have it articulated in his own mind until someone asks or makes a statement that pulls it together for him: my opinion. Hagrid has been at Hogwarts since the 1940s when he was a student. He became the gamekeeper, and would probably have been apprenticed to the former gamekeeper at Hogwarts to learn the job. He's seen a lot of students, and he may have known or had dealings with quite a few. He's known Snape at least since Snape began teaching, and it's possible he knew him before. He's positive about Snape in the books. That could be from a true and unquestioning trust in Dumbledore, but it could also be from his own observations and knowledge of Snape. Most likely, it's a combination of the two. Hagrid may still play a role in this part of the story. 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? Ceridwen: I don't know. I hadn't thought about that before you asked. It's possible that he destroyed evidence, but the scene itself was moving for what it represented, Harry caring for Dumbledore as Dumbledore tucked Harry in at Privet Drive and slipped a note in with him. I think it's a more distant echo to that, in the same way that the Side- Along Apparation scenes from the beginning and end of HBP were mirror echoes of each other. If he did destroy evidence, then the blood has more to do with the story than we thought. If it does, then it too is an echo of Slughorn's liberal use of dragon's blood when he was trying to avoid being found. Harry's actions could have been either, or they could have been both. 10. *(snipping background)* So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the cave? Was it a setup? Ceridwen: I think RAB is Regulus. I think that, unfortunately, he is dead. He may have been killed by Voldemort or by Death Eaters for leaving, as Karkarov was; he could have been killed by Voldemort for discovering (one of) his Horcrux(es); he could have been killed by whatever curse was on the locket, not having Snape around, or not an older and more experienced Snape around, to save him. Since I don't think that RAB was hidden, then of course Dumbledore wouldn't know about the switch. Dumbledore knew the potion would be dangerous, and to me it would lessen Dumbledore's sacrifice if he knew and was just using the potion to train Harry. 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal style of ending her books? Ceridwen: Anything but subtle! I didn't expect it, though, if that's what you mean. Reading that scene was like having someone take a bat and hit my head right out of the ballpark. I was absolutely reeling. I don't think this is Rowling's normal style. She meant for us to reel, to reach fevered pitches of emotion. She gave Dumbledore a resounding send-off. And since she's said that HBP and DH are more like two halves of the same book, I'll answer for the middle of the other books, too. No, this is not typical Rowling. I think she really went over the top here. 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? Ceridwen: I loved the chapter. I can't say if it was the best she's ever written since everything she's written comes into play here. There is emotion and stress throughout the entire chapter. If we were supposed to feel as if the world had just changed, then she met her goal. I also think this chapter opens up a lot of possibilities for DH. I would say that things mentioned in this chapter will be important in DH. colebiancardi: Thanks so much to Shorty-Elf for her fantastic help on making my post more understandable! All typos are my own. Ceridwen, thanking colebiancardi and Shorty Elf for a very good discussion. From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Tue Jan 9 01:36:19 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:36:19 -0000 Subject: Eyeglasses: the key to Harry's vulnerability Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163604 I've once again thinking about the role Harry's eyes play in the story. For a while I was satisfied that the importance lies in Harry's ocular resemblance to Lily that shamed Slughorn into giving up his memory. But I started wondering about the importance of his glasses per se. A search revealed a very old thread, back in 2001, that mentioned a Reader's Digest article where Jo said that Harry's *glasses* (not eyes) are the key to his vulnerability. But that thread was very short (4 posts) and not very informative. So I put it to the group - how do Harry's glasses reveal or symbolize his vulnerability? One thought is that Harry usually needs outside help to see things clearly. He often is so focused on "what is right in front of his face" that he doesn't see consider the bigger picture. His urgency in going to the Ministry to rescue Sirius comes to mind. For what it is worth, when I first heard the title "Half-Blood Prince" the first thing that popped into my head was "Harry Potter: the Half-Blind Seeker." Harry needs outside help (his friends) to help him see clearly. But I am sure I am missing a lot here. Any ideas. Lilygale From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 01:58:16 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:58:16 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. General vs Specific In-Reply-To: <700201d40701080917r4a2433f6w6d5be00b21e9aba7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163605 --- In HPforGrownups/message/163551, "justCarol" wrote: > > Mike previously: > > > On a side note; 12 GP is not hidden by the "Fidelius", imo it was > > hidden by the charms that the elder Blacks placed on the location. > Carol Responds: > If the house were hidden by the charms that the elder Blacks placed > on it, the order members wouldn't be able to see it, "propriety" or > not. Sirius black would have to remove those charms, and I think > they're still there > But once Harry reads and memorizes the note Moody hands him, he can > see 12 GP. It's knowing the Secret, as told to him in writing by > the Secret Keeper, that enables him to see the house Mike now: I was trying to reconcile logically what JKR wrote (using Flitwick as her mouthpiece) about how the "Fidelius" functions with how the charm manifests itself in canon. This might be a fruitless effort seeing as how JKR herself doesn't seem to be concerned with consistency in how this charm works. Anyway, I'm gonna borrow some of Brothergib's canon postings Start with DD's note about 12 GP. It read: "The headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, London." (OotP ch 3) To me, that reads that the secret is the headquarters location, IOW, where the headquarters was is the secret, not number twelve. Or, equated to the Potter's "Fidelius", the headquarters equals the Potters and #12 equals 'address', GH. IF you see it differently, the rest of this explanation becomes nonsense ;-) Now, let's look at what Flitwick told us > > A little bit of canon - > > > > "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could > > search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and > > never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their > > sitting room window!" (PA10) Mike: The implication here is that the "Fidelius" doesn't stop someone from seeing the Potter's house, they just wouldn't see the Potters. Equating again, someone not in on the OotP secret could still see #12, GP; they just couldn't see anything or anyone associated with the OotP inside the house. If this be the case, it must have been some other charm which hides the house, not just from Muggles, but from other wizards, too. That's why I speculated that by giving DD propriety to use #12 as 'secret' HQ, Sirius concurrently granted DD the propriety to reveal the house to those he chooses to reveal the 'secret' of the HQ location. I know, mighty finicky. Anyway, that's my logic, FWIW. --- In HPforGrownups/message/163590, "Kemper" wrote: > > > > [Brothergib's] theory - > > [SS] wouldn't be able to find the Potters however. SS > > contacts DD. DD knows the Potters are there, but > > probably wasn't directly told by PP. Perhaps the missing 24h > > involved DD attempting to break through the Charm in an attempt > > to locate Harry/Lily/James. > > > > Kemper now: > I really like the last part of your theory: the missing 24h being DD > breaking through the Fidelius Charm. It solves two mysteries: the > missing 24h and being able to find HP (as JKR implies that he is the > subject of the Fidelius Charm along with his parents). Mike now: Kemper, you found the holes in the "Fidelius-never-took" theory, which was good. Like I said, I wasn't really sold on that theory anyway, just wanted to throw it out there. Likewise, I'm glad Brothergib threw his theory for scrutiny. So, here's me scrutinizing. ;-) If DD is trying to break through the "Fidelius", I'm supposing he's doing it at Godric's Hollow? You implied such, but didn't give a reason as to how he knows the Potters are at GH if the "Fidelius" he's trying to break through is still actively hiding the Potters? But no matter. The big hole, imo, is if the 24h is explained by DD at GH breaking the charm, what happened *after* he broke the charm? He leaves Harry in the rubble, calls/arranges for Hagrid to come get Harry, then leaves to go do some other business before showing up later that evening at Privet Drive? Especially believing that Sirius Black was the SK and therefore the traitor, and SB's whereabouts is unknown? Jeez, that would be beyond cold-hearted, don't ya think? Mike, who's going to watch (American) football now. See ya in a few hours :-) From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 9 02:34:14 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:34:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > colebiancardi: > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Quick_Silver: I think that I may be a combination of factors. First I'm not convinced that Snape had any idea that Harry was actually on the Tower and witnessed what he did to Dumbledore. So when Harry seems to imply in his taunt that Snape killed Dumbledore it cuts Snape to the bone because Harry witnessed Snape's greatest low moment...the forced death of Dumbledore. Secondly (total speculation here) I think that Snape hates to be called coward because there's a ring of truth to it (at least in Snape's opinion). Objectively Snape comes across as a courageous person...the years of spying, the great personal risk, etc...but when I read the books, with the exception of Snape and Dumbledore scene in GoF, Snape doesn't really come across as courageous (I don't know how else to describe it). I don't there's anything really wrong with not being courageous (besides Snape's not a Gryffindor) but I don't think that Snape thinks that. So when Harry calls Snape a coward it touches on that internal conflict within Snape and Snape leashes out against Harry. Quick_Silver (who think Snape's moment of courage is still coming) From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jan 9 02:56:28 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:56:28 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163607 > 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody > footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? > The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could > not have been them. I actually didn't notice the amount of blood on the first reading, but I'm assuming now it came mostly from Greyback and his victims, since most DEs seem to prefer use the bloodless Crucio and AK as their weapons. Still, there was mention of several wounded so some of the blood could have come from them also (wounded by Greyback or not). > 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, > Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able > to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to > get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? Two reasons. One, Snape is a much more powerful wizard than the other DEs present, and Two, Harry's emotions are controlling him when he faces Snape in a way they aren't when he's facing the DEs or Grayback. Against Snape Harry's uncontained rage makes him flail. > 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you > think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is > due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the > latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from > Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? I think Snape is a very powerful wizard (and I think that power is inherent in him, the way Harry's Quidditch skills are inherent in him). I also think Harry gives a very poor showing against Snape because he is acting off his rage rather than focusing on his abilities and controlling them. > 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting > his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, > his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his > instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you > think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. I think Snape was both releasing his frustration (taunting Harry, as Alla says) *and* imparting a final lesson. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and never have been when it comes to Snape's teaching methods! We must consider that Snape had Harry COMPLETELY overmatched here. Given Harry's inability to cast or deflect even a single spell, Snape could have done anything he wanted. He could have crucioed Harry, cut him to shred with Sectumsempra, killed him a dozen times over. So how is a DDM!Snape supposed to impart a lesson when faced with this enraged and completely impotent Harry? Really, what would you have him say that would make sense for the character, other than what he did say, using his usual highly caustic approach? And I do believe Snape intends his words to help Harry in the long run, no matter how he couched them. No, shutting his mouth and closing his mind won't suffice to defeat Voldemort, but Harry may need to use some of those skills (at least stop broadcasting his every intent so clearly) to get into a *position* to defeat Voldemort--i.e., to get past the DEs and others standing between him and Voldemort. > 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right > before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that > he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated > around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and > the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about > this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do > you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind > it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion > are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, > perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I > hope question made sense!! I pretty much agree with earlier replies on why the two expressions in the two chapters weren't the same. > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. I replied to this earlier, and again I will state that I think Snape lost it because Harry called him a coward *for* killing Dumbledore, when in fact killing (or making it appear that he coldly killed) Dumbledore took more courage than Snape has ever had to produce before. The cowardly act would have been for Snape to do what was easy--*not* kill Dumbledore, die himself, and let the chips fall where they may. I sincerely believe that is what he wanted to do, die trying to save Dumbledore (futilely)-- die a hero with an unsullied soul--but Dumbledore's pleading words gave or forced on him the courage to take on the stain of murder in order to save Draco, Harry, and in the end the WW. I want to note also that I wasn't too disappointed that Snape delivered the stinging hex to Harry. Yes, he had only blocked Harry's curses up to that point, using verbal rejoinders in response to Harry's attacks. He hadn't physically retaliated, as he finally did once Harry called him a coward for killing Dumbledore. I guess the reason I wasn't disappointed in Snape is because, despite how much he dislikes Harry, and his own tendency toward vengefulness, and the pain he is suffering after killing Dumbledore (likened to Fang's agony), he *only* delivers a mild slap when he finally gives in to his temper. That is really quite a show of control, I think! > 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the > Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why > Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have > issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have > harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the > curse from Harry? I got the impression Snape initially blocked the DE's curse, then the DE lifted it in response to Snape's order. I could be wrong. As for why Snape didn't perform a Petrificus Totalus, I think it's because Snape is DDM. He's not going to leave Harry defenseless if he's DDM, neither is he going to perform the Pefectus Totalis and take Harry with him (something else he could have easily done, which certainly would have pleased Voldemort, I should think). His goal was to get the DEs, Draco and himself out of there. He just wanted Harry out of his way, and left unharmed. Which he accomplished. > > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? I do think Hagrid knows something about Snape. I also suspect it may be related to those missing hours after Harry was removed his parents' destroyed house at Godric's Hollow. Snape did something for Harry during that time, Hagrid witnessed it, and that's why Hagrid never says a bad word about Snape. Here I'd like to add a Question 8A. Even though we got a scene with almost every other adult at Hogwarts accepting that Snape cold-bloodedly murdered Dumbledore, we never get this scene with Hagrid. Hagrid thinks Harry got hit on the head when Harry says he witnessed Snape kill Dumbledore. Even later, after the Order members have accepted Snape's murderer status, even during the funeral, Hagrid never rails against Snape (as he's wont to rail against those who have in any way wronged someone he cares about). He merely cries for Dumbledore. Is this simply a meaningless ommission, or is there a reason JKR never shows Hagrid outright condemning Snape as everyone else does? > 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged > Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? I don't think there will be any indication that Harry got rid of clues in the sense that those clues could make or break a case against someone, but I do wonder if those clues were put there for *us*. I.e., will we find out in Book 7 that Dumbledore wasn't dead when he hit the ground, but died right before Harry reached his body? In which case, Snape couldn't have killed him with the AK, but perhaps released a stopper of death or in some other manner hastened Dumbledore's demise rather than killing him outright (which doesn't absolve Snape in some fans minds I know, and perhaps not in Snape's own mind). > > 10. This is some background information for the question 10: a) > "Samatha Scattergood for Waterstones - Which is your favourite member > of the Order of the Phoenix? JK Rowling: I keep killing all my > favourite members of the Order of the Phoenix, but there is one member > of the Order of the Phoenix that you have not yet met properly and you > will ?? well, you know that they are a member, but you haven't really > met them properly yet and you will meet them in seven, so I am looking > forward to that." > b) "Peter O'Brien for Easons Ireland - Are you going introduce any > new characters in the final book? JK Rowling: There will be some > characters who you don't know particularly well, and there may be a > couple of new characters, but nobody really major. You know pretty > much the cast list by now" > > So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is > it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or > in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, > why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real > Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the > cave? Was it a setup? > I do believe Regulus is RAB, and though I'd like to believe he is alive and in hiding, it's probably more likely that he's dead. Otherwise Dumbledore would already know the locket was fake (though if he did know, I suppose he could have gone through the whole cave thing as a training exercise for Harry...maybe). As for the Order member we haven't met, since we already know he IS an Order member per Jo, then it can't be Regulus, so it must surely be Abelforth. > > 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? > Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal > style of ending her books? I didn't expect Dumbledore to die at Snape's hands. So it wasn't obvious at all. And while in one sense it wasn't in keeping with Rowling's normal style of ending her books, since she usually ties up the loose ends, the open-endedness works here because she's already said Books 6 and 7 and like two halves of one book (something like that). But, in another sense there is a similarity to how JKR ended her other HP books, and that is in the high energy and emotion of the final confrontation in the book. HBP is no different in that way than the previous books. > 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you > feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? Thematically, I don't know yet. As for best chapter, I think it is certainly one of the best. Any chapter that has me barely able to breathe until I finish it is a great chapter, IMO ;-) Julie, applauding these thought-provoking questions From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 03:34:58 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:34:58 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163608 > JulieL > Here I'd like to add a Question 8A. Even though we got a > scene with almost every other adult at Hogwarts accepting > that Snape cold-bloodedly murdered Dumbledore, we never get > this scene with Hagrid. Hagrid thinks Harry got hit on the > head when Harry says he witnessed Snape kill Dumbledore. > Even later, after the Order members have accepted Snape's > murderer status, even during the funeral, Hagrid never > rails against Snape (as he's wont to rail against those > who have in any way wronged someone he cares about). He > merely cries for Dumbledore. Is this simply a meaningless > ommission, or is there a reason JKR never shows Hagrid > outright condemning Snape as everyone else does? zgirnius: We won't know until Book 7, but I noticed this about Hagrid too. I tend to think he knows something relevant, that he hasn't yet told Harry, and this could be why. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jan 9 03:45:34 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:45:34 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163609 Lupinlore: > And here we have what I think is an interesting example of the weakness of DD's approach -- one of his mistakes, if you will. By holding back important information from both Snape and Harry, he was in effect constantly stoking their hatred of one another. Ceridwen: I've snipped the rest, since this sums it up. Dumbledore did say it was an old man's mistake to forget what it was like to be young, and another time he admitted that he didn't realize the hurt ran so deep. As Headmaster of a school where this problem is growing, he needed to be on it and nip it in the bud. As head of the Order of the Phoenix, it made perfect sense to withhold information. Neither Snape nor Harry needs this information about each other, so there is no need to risk too many people knowing, or to risk breach of privacy. And during OotP, there is the added problem of the Harry/Voldemort connection, so having Harry know something he might like or respect about Snape could be dangerous for the Order's mission. And, as head of the Order, it is in Dumbledore's best interest to protect each of his agents, or he will lose the trust of all his agents. As things turn out, of course, things might have been very different by the beginning of HBP if Dumbledore had trusted Harry and Snape with information about each other. Harry at school and Harry as the Chosen One are the same person, so what affects Harry the Student also affects Harry the Hero Destined to Vanquish the Dark Lord. And despite Snape's ability with Occlumency, which seems to be in some way connected with the ability to compartmentalize his feelings, he still has those feelings, and they do bleed over occasionally. It is not a good situation. Could Dumbledore's secrecy, in the interest of the war effort and the ultimate safety of the Wizarding World, have actually placed it in more danger? Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 9 04:01:59 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:01:59 -0000 Subject: FILK: Wizarding and Muggle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163610 Potioncat enters the Great Hall of HpfGU. She sets a large cake with candles on the Head Table. "The Happy Birthday notice is already up at JKR's site. As we are currently discussing "The Flight of the Prince" balloons and confetti wouldn't seem right. But everyone is invited to have a slice of cake." In honor of Severus Snape's birthday I've written this FILK, based on "The Orange and the Green." I know it by the Irish Rovers, but this is the only link I can find for words and music: http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/The_Orange_And_Green.shtml Wizarding and Muggle CHORUS: It was the biggest mix-up. It reached an awful pitch, My father was a Muggle and my mother was a witch. My father was a working man who spun in yonder mill. My mother was a quiet witch who hid her magic skill. Sometimes I'd see her cower, when he would start to yell, But then again she'd wave her wand and give him bloody hell. CHORUS: I was my mother's Half-Blood Prince, my father's little tike. I learned to fly on Mam's old broom, and pedal Da's old bike. Da would take me to the pub and teach me to throw darts, Then afterwards I'd sit with Mam and learn to cast dark arts. CHORUS: They couldn't chose between 'em, so left me to the struggle Of how to choose within myself 'tween wizarding and Muggle. My Da would talk of his old school, while Hogwarts was Mam's joy. The green-inked letter said it all, I was a wizard boy. CHORUS: I thought it might be Ravenclaw where I would best fit in. Imagine my excitement when the Hat said 'Slytherin!' Sorted with the chosen pure, I knew I would go far, Ambition is a virtue in the House of Salazar. CHORUS: My friends were all around me. We followed Voldermort, Till I had an epiphany and switched to Dumbledore. My duty was to spy then, still stuck right in the middle. My heart belonged to Dumbledore, my actions to Tom Riddle. CHORUS: I took a vow that sealed my fate and made things all turn worse, It led me to the tower where I cast the killing curse. The bad guys they don't trust me, the good ones hate me too, And we won't know my outcome till dear Rowling says it's through. CHORUS: Potioncat Thanks to Ginger and Carol for their help. From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 04:32:10 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 23:32:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Eyeglasses: the key to Harry's vulnerability In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0701082032y88e6291r1d59130bc7459d46@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163611 Lilygale: So I put it to the group - how do Harry's glasses reveal or symbolize his vulnerability? One thought is that Harry usually needs outside help to see things clearly. He often is so focused on "what is right in front of his face" that he doesn't see consider the bigger picture. His urgency in going to the Ministry to rescue Sirius comes to mind. For what it is worth, when I first heard the title "Half-Blood Prince" the first thing that popped into my head was "Harry Potter: the Half-Blind Seeker." Harry needs outside help (his friends) to help him see clearly. Debbie: Harry is most vulnerable when he tries to overanalyze things; he does much better, generally, when he allows his instincts to take over. It's what makes him good at Quidditch, at DADA, and thwarting Voldemort. With respect to the last, he is successful in escaping Voldemort time after time because of his innate goodness, which allows him to make good choices at crucial moments. His glasses help him to see what's going on in the world, but those things are distractions. He is much better off, as you point out, when he relies on his friends for that knowledge, which is useful but is not the core understanding he needs to defeat Voldemort. Ultimately the means of defeating Voldemort will come from within. What he can see through his glasses can only distract him from the knowledge he really needs. They are a crutch, and to succeed he must rely on himself. Much is made of the fact that Harry's eyes are Lily's eyes. In her sacrifice, Lily exhibited the same talent for doing the right thing. She didn't have time to analyze the situation; she acted, instinctively, out of love. Their green eyes symbolize their great capacity for love, and Harry's glasses symbolize how easy it can be to underestimate the power of love. Or something like that. Debbie who will have to wait until tomorrow to address The Flight of the Prince [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cdayr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 06:06:33 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 06:06:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163612 -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: CDR here: Thanks for the great questions! I'm going to take a moment to re-introduce myself. I was an intense lurker/occasional poster in the year previous to HBP, off and on at Sunday chats, and a judge for tigerpatronus's fabulous prediction contest, but I needed a break after the intense first months back from the book. For the last few weeks I have been reading the list every day again, and I actually made a New Year's Resolution to post more, rather than just lurk. So, here I am. I'm a fifth grade teacher, I answer to the initials CDR, I'm DDM, I like extreme theories (because, why not?), and I am obsessed to be back. > 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody > footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? > The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could > not have been them. CDR: I'm afraid this is meant to be Bill's blood, conveniently tracked to serve the plot. > 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, > Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able > to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to > get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? CDR: As many have said, I agree that Snape is just more skilled at non-verbal spells and has more personal experience with Harry that he can use to predict his next move. > > 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you > think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is > due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the > latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from > Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? Part of what I found fascinating about Snape in HBP is that we learned our snarky, smug, superior Snape has actually hidden a huge amount of his talent from general knowledge (in the HBP's book) rather than subtly parade it in front of Harry, the Slytherins, etal. It is clear that he is not a braggart (see comparison, i.e. Lockhart) but he did seem to make sure that he quietly impressed his students and fellow faculty with his abilities (see Potions speech in PS/SS, duelling club, various potions such as veritaserum and wolfsbane). The fact that he in fact had a full textbook's worth of potion improvements that no one has seen speaks (IMO) to a very deliberate secretiveness. This, to me, is evidence of his extreme power as a wizard that he doesn't want as common knowledge. It is further emphasized in this chapter by his simultaneous use of occlumency/legilimancy (hard to imagine what that must be like to accomplish) while using non-verbal spells and being distracted emotionally (by his actions previous), and literally (by Draco, Harry and the DEs). He has been keeping some of his deepest talents under wraps. Now the question is, who is he hiding it from? If you are me, and a solid DDM!er, it's VM. If you believe he is ESE!, it's DD and the Order. You decide! (Fun fun) > > 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting > his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, > his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his > instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you > think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. CDR: Okay, he did it because Um I just can't do it! It would make no sense! > 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right > before he killed Dumbledore. [snip] Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion > are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, > perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. CDR: Can't add anything to the intriguing ideas I've already read > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. CDR: Okay, I've gone down this road before with Sirius and been slapped back, but how do we know for sure that Snape is responsible for the whip-like feeling? I think it is perfectly possible, nay, likely that he is (the slash at the air is *pretty* clear), but honestly on first reading I though that Harry had be knocked down by Buckbeak as he attacked Snape. I'm sure this will not ever be further explained and I'm supposed to think it's Snape lashing out and loosing control (Carol, loved your ideas here), but just like that darn spell that sends Sirius through the veil, couldn't JKR just have stated for sure who cast it?? I need specifics JKR, with no doubts! (Sorry, I know I'm off the edge here. I guess this is more of a frustration with the writing thought than an actual theory. ) P.S. Sardonic is my favorite word lately. > 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the > Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why > Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have > issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have > harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the > curse from Harry? CDR: Well, great point, Snape will have some explaining to do to VM. (Of course, I don't think he went to VM at all, but has taken Draco and gone into hiding to figure out his next move. But enough about me ) > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? CDR: Ooo, ooo, pick me! I love all talk of the Hagrid/Tom Riddle/Eileen years at Hogwarts, as I am convinced that DH will involve learning about some events from that time period. Okay, I screamed "pick me," but really I have no concrete thoughts right now (I'm just like my students!), it's just that I think Hagrid will have some information about Snape/Eileen/DD/Tom that will play an important role. (I'm still obsessed with the "traveler" that gave Aragog to Hagrid at the Hog's Head back in the day, and I'll continue to think about it so long as Aragog lives (oops )) Anyway, I hope/believe that Hagrid may have some inside info on Snape's life, especially as concerns Eileen, and that Harry will actually listen to Hagrid in DH. > 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged > Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? CDR: I think this was more of a personal moment with DD to convince himself, and us, that DD is really gone. > 10. [snip] So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is > it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or > in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, > why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real > Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the > cave? Was it a setup? CDR: I think it's Regulus. I was solidly of the belief that he is alive, but now I'm torn. Ask me later. > 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? > Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal > style of ending her books? CDR: I was shocked and perhaps still am. How can she still surprise us, eh? > 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you > feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? CDR: This chapter reminds me of the awesome Snape/Fake!Moody conversation about DEs on the stairs in GoF when Harry is under the cloak; I think after DH we will all be re-reading it and marveling at the double meanings throughout. At least, that is my hope. > > Thanks! CDR > From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 9 08:44:57 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 08:44:57 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163613 Ceridwen: > As things turn out, of course, things might have been very different > by the beginning of HBP if Dumbledore had trusted Harry and Snape > with information about each other. Pippin: But what if Dumbledore had always planned that Snape would appear to betray him once Harry was ready to leave Hogwarts? Snape is not going to be much use hanging around Hogwarts while Harry is off hunting for horcruxes, so why not send Snape back to the enemy camp as mole and saboteur? Once it became clear that Harry would not have the acting ability or the skill with occlumency to guard the secret of a false betrayal, Dumbledore could only keep it from him. But in that case, nurturing trust between Snape and Harry would be no use, since it would be broken when the 'betrayal' took place. Pippin From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Jan 9 10:05:50 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:05:50 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. General vs Specific In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Mike now: > Kemper, you found the holes in the "Fidelius-never-took" theory, > which was good. Like I said, I wasn't really sold on that theory > anyway, just wanted to throw it out there. Likewise, I'm glad > Brothergib threw his theory for scrutiny. So, here's me > scrutinizing. ;-) > > If DD is trying to break through the "Fidelius", I'm supposing he's > doing it at Godric's Hollow? You implied such, but didn't give a > reason as to how he knows the Potters are at GH if the "Fidelius" > he's trying to break through is still actively hiding the Potters? > Brothergib replies; I think the implication is that DD may have suggested that the Potter's use the house in Godric's Hollow. Therefore he would suspect that they are at GH, but wouldn't be able to find them if he turned up there - without spending a considerable amount of time trying to break through the magic (as he did in 'The Cave'). > Mike now: > But no matter. The big hole, imo, is if the 24h is explained by DD at > GH breaking the charm, what happened *after* he broke the charm? He > leaves Harry in the rubble, calls/arranges for Hagrid to come get > Harry, then leaves to go do some other business before showing up > later that evening at Privet Drive? Especially believing that Sirius > Black was the SK and therefore the traitor, and SB's whereabouts is > unknown? Jeez, that would be beyond cold-hearted, don't ya think? Brothergib again; OK, my theory is as follows. SS informs DD that something has happened at GH involving LV (due to the Fidelius charm he would not be in possession of all the facts). DD is only too aware of who is probably residing in GH and therefore understands the significance. He gets Hagrid and they side-along apparate to GH - this explains two issues; a) how Hagrid could get to GH quickly since surely he doesn't possess the skill to apparate alone and b) Hagrid's trust in Snape i.e. he has witnessed first hand Snape's allegiance. DD then spends time breaking down the Fidelius charm. Once this is done he instructs Hagrid to get Harry and keep him safe/deliver him to Privet drive. DD has other business to deal with and he doesn't have time to babysit. But he 'trusts Hagrid with his life' and so departs leaving Hagrid with the baby. Not long after this Sirius turns up (perhaps aware that the Fidelius was broken). But I think that DD has complete faith that Harry was safe with Hagrid, even if potential Death Eaters turn up and try to take Harry. This would also help with the resolution of what happened at Godric's Hollow in book 7. Who is left to tell the story? DD - gone; Sirius - gone; Snape/Wormtail - unlikely to sit down over a nice cup of tea with Harry! Hagrid is the only friendly face remaining who we know FOR CERTAIN was at GH. Brothergib - (who is a Cowboys supporter, and is convinced that dark (magic?) forces conspired against them this week! From irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 11:18:43 2007 From: irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com (irishshedevil333) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:18:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lilly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163615 Here is a question for everyone. Do you think that Snape had a crush on Lily Potter when they were in school? Maybe I am off my rocker but I got the feeling that perhaps he felt something for her during the flash backs Harry had about his parents school days. After all Lily did defend Snape when no one else would even against James himself. Also perhaps he had more then one motivating factor in saving Harry in the first book and other times when he has protected him. I think Lily had more then a little to do with it. What do you guys think? irishshedevil From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Jan 9 12:57:35 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:57:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. Brothergib: The only other time that Snape has lost his cool in this way is when Sirius cheats death in POA. Therefore one could argue that it is the Marauders that truly get his blood boiling. He doesn't overreact the first time he mentions James, but if you believe that he is ESE Snape, then maybe he was trying to stick to his orders to leave Potter to the Dark Lord. However, his anger gets the better of him in the end and he does attack Harry. However, I am only playing Devil's Advocate here, and my belief is that the accusation of cowardice in relation to DD's murder, is what prompted the extreme reaction from Snape. > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? > Brothergib again: This follows on from my previous email - Hagrid was at Godric's Hollow soon after LV attacked - FACT! How did he get there? Portkey - very, very unlikely IMO. Apparition - I think canon evidence suggests that Hagrid would not possess those skills. Side-along apparition - i.e. DD takes Hagrid with him to GH. But why would DD go to GH? If he had information that an attack was imminent, then I'm sure he would have prepared a defence. If DD was ignorant to LV's plan, then someone had to inform DD that LV had attacked GH. An obvious candidate would be someone who a) was trusted by LV or b) could at least track his movements. Obvious candidate - Severus Snape. Therefore Hagrid trusts Snape because he had seen direct proof of his allegiance at GH that night. Brothergib From irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 11:08:28 2007 From: irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com (irishshedevil333) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:08:28 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163617 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > JulieL > > Here I'd like to add a Question 8A. Even though we got a > > scene with almost every other adult at Hogwarts accepting > > that Snape cold-bloodedly murdered Dumbledore, we never get > > this scene with Hagrid. Hagrid thinks Harry got hit on the > > head when Harry says he witnessed Snape kill Dumbledore. > > Even later, after the Order members have accepted Snape's > > murderer status, even during the funeral, Hagrid never > > rails against Snape (as he's wont to rail against those > > who have in any way wronged someone he cares about). He > > merely cries for Dumbledore. Is this simply a meaningless > > ommission, or is there a reason JKR never shows Hagrid > > outright condemning Snape as everyone else does? > zgirnius: > We won't know until Book 7, but I noticed this about Hagrid too. I > tend to think he knows something relevant, that he hasn't yet told > Harry, > and this could be why. irishshedevil: I tend to think that Hagrid does know somthing more then we give him credit for. As we see in hbp Hagrid has many of his own secrets. his pet spider, his dragon egg, and the things he knew about the half blood prince. Still his loyalty to Dumbledore has never changed. So if he does not outright accuse Snape I think there is a reason for it. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Jan 9 13:13:53 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:13:53 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lilly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163618 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "irishshedevil333" wrote: > > Here is a question for everyone. Do you think that Snape had a crush > on Lily Potter when they were in school? Maybe I am off my rocker but > I got the feeling that perhaps he felt something for her during the > flash backs Harry had about his parents school days. After all Lily > did defend Snape when no one else would even against James himself. > Also perhaps he had more then one motivating factor in saving Harry > in the first book and other times when he has protected him. I think > Lily had more then a little to do with it. What do you guys think? > > irishshedevil > Brothergib; Look in the 'Fantastic Posts' section of this website and you will find vast amounts of information on this very topic. If you are a believer in the Snape-Lily connection, then the comments I see most often in support are; Snape & Lily are connected due to their mutual talent at potions. They were probably both members of the Slug Club, and this may have been where a friendship flourished. Lupin's comments in the film version of POA i.e. that Lily saw the good in people even when they couldn't see it in themselves, may predict how Snape & Lily became friends. Some predict that Aunt Petunia's comments about her sister and that awful boy, rather than referring to James, actually refer to Snape. This would provide evidence that Snape had been present in Lily's childhood home. DD comments that the biggest regret of Snape's life is the fact that he was the one who informed Voldemort about the prophecy and therefore sent LV after the Potters. Since he clearly wouldn't regret LV targeting James, we have to assume that Snape regrets (indirectly) targeting Lily. Why did LV give Lily so many chances to step aside when he wanted to AK Harry. Is it because Snape asked LV to spare her? If Snape is on the side of good, this may explain why he is so steadfast in his desire to destroy LV. If Harry had looked more like his mother - would Snape have hated him so much? If anyone else wants to add to this list please feel free. Brothergib From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 13:20:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:20:06 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163619 > Ceridwen: > > As things turn out, of course, things might have been very different > > by the beginning of HBP if Dumbledore had trusted Harry and Snape > > with information about each other. > > Pippin: > But what if Dumbledore had always planned that Snape would appear > to betray him once Harry was ready to leave Hogwarts? Snape is not > going to be much use hanging around Hogwarts while Harry is off > hunting for horcruxes, so why not send Snape back to the enemy > camp as mole and saboteur? > > Once it became clear that Harry would not have the acting ability > or the skill with occlumency to guard the secret of a false betrayal, > Dumbledore could only keep it from him. But in that case, nurturing > trust between Snape and Harry would be no use, since it would be > broken when the 'betrayal' took place. Alla: So, does Dumbledore know everything or does he not? I mean, how long could he plan the betrayal if he did? Since Harry come to school? I thought Ceridwen was saying that as a Headmaster it would make perfect sense for DD to step in and resolve growing hatred ASAP, which I am completely with her by the way and that it came into conflict with DD as Head of the Order. I mean, even if DD indeed planned that betrayal for the years before, would it still made more sense to make sure Harry and Snape does not hate each other, but then for Harry to be just as shocked as everybody else did? That would made his education from Snape more um... educational IMO. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jan 9 14:22:25 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:22:25 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163620 Pippin: > But what if Dumbledore had always planned that Snape would appear to betray him once Harry was ready to leave Hogwarts? Snape is not going to be much use hanging around Hogwarts while Harry is off hunting for horcruxes, so why not send Snape back to the enemy camp as mole and saboteur? Ceridwen: This would mean that from the beginning, Dumbledore knew about multiple horcruxes, I think. He probably suspected a horcrux after Godrick's Hollow, but the idea of multiples may only have popped up after CoS, when Harry destroyed one of the HXs and something expected didn't happen. After DD ascertained, of course, that the diary was in fact a horcrux. Pippin: > Once it became clear that Harry would not have the acting ability or the skill with occlumency to guard the secret of a false betrayal, Dumbledore could only keep it from him. But in that case, nurturing trust between Snape and Harry would be no use, since it would be broken when the 'betrayal' took place. Ceridwen: I agree that it would have been a bad move for DD as head of the Order, to have given Harry any information about Snape, with the possibility, and in OotP the actual realization, of a connection with LV through the scar. If I recall right, DD did know from PS/SS that Harry felt something in his scar when LV was around, and a connection always seemed likely once LV figured it out. But he could have given Snape information on Harry. Maybe not the Prophecy, since there was a chance of a future reconstituted LV becoming displeased with Snape and pulling a Bertha Jorkins on him. But, other things, things that would have affected Snape's overall treatment and handling of the boy. I believe that Snape really did think Harry was some pampered celebrity boy when he came to Hogwarts, and nothing he's seen has changed his mind. Dumbledore's assessment, along with examples of, say, the Dursleys' treatment of him, appealing to sympathy for a child who grew up without parents, whatever it took, might have made the relationship less strained from the beginning. Since I'm one of those people who believe that Harry will have to let go of his overwhelming hatred of Snape (see his performance in Flight of the Prince, which is abysmal), I see the two- way hate-fest to be a hiderance to the ultimate defeat of LV. Hm. Sorry for the tangent! ;) Anyway, yes, Harry is incapable of acting as if he hates someone he doesn't. In the sort of covert planning necessary to hoodwink LV as long as possible, that is a negative. He doesn't have the skill to become a good Occlumens, and in part because of his feelings against Snape, he was unable to attain even a rudimentary grasp of the subject. But I don't think Dumbledore could have known that from the beginning if he had any idea whatsoever of the Dursleys' poor treatment of their charge. This is something he would have had to know from the beginning in order for him to have made a conscious decision not to intervene, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary, of course, and be different on the highway than in town. By the way, I've been swayed to agree with the idea that Harry may need to close his mind in order to fight the secondary bad guys, the Death Eaters, before facing LV. There may be a gauntlet to go through aside from the HXs before that final confrontation takes place. Others might take these challenges for him, because the book will be too long if Harry has to do everything himself, but I do think Snape totally believes his advice is worthwhile or he plain would not have given it. Just mentioning. Alla: > So, does Dumbledore know everything or does he not? I mean, how long could he plan the betrayal if he did? Since Harry come to school? Ceridwen: As Head of the Order, he may have made plans as early as the day after Godrick's Hollow. He didn't think LV had gone, and neither did Hagrid. I thought when I first read what Hagrid said about LV's supposed death, that he got the idea from Dumbledore, whom he obviously adores. So, yes, I could see Head of OotP Dumbledore making plans that early. (Segueing into...) Alla: > I thought Ceridwen was saying that as a Headmaster it would make perfect sense for DD to step in and resolve growing hatred ASAP, which I am completely with her by the way and that it came into conflict with DD as Head of the Order. Ceridwen: Exactly. As Head of Hogwarts, Dumbledore has a very different mission than he would as Head of the OotP. When Harry shows up at Hogwarts, and LV decides to possess Quirrell in the same year, the two positions, which until then had not been in conflict, crashed head-on into each other. All of the plans he had made were scuttled by the boy Harry turned out to be. A lot of people here have mentioned that a boy raised the way Harry was could have turned out to be secretive. That he didn't, and was as normal as he was, was good for Harry, but not good for any plans to let him in on strategic or tactical secrets. Alla: > I mean, even if DD indeed planned that betrayal for the years before, would it still made more sense to make sure Harry and Snape does not hate each other, but then for Harry to be just as shocked as everybody else did? Ceridwen: Possibly. There's something to say for some level of bad blood between them, for LV's benefit, especially given the scar connection in OotP. But as I said, if there was some master plan, and it seems there may have been because Dumbledore mentioned a plan himself, then Harry being who he was, changed it radically. Alla: > That would made his education from Snape more um... educational IMO. Ceridwen: Yes. Which is why I think that Dumbledore wore too many Organizational Head hats. It isn't unusual for a person to belong to several organizations, but I think that in Real Life, it would be too much for one person to be head of more than one. Sooner or later, there will be some sort of conflict. Ideally, Dumbledore should have stepped aside for someone else to head the Order. But then, we get back to an isolated Dumbledore who has no confidantes, and also no equals. I'm sure everyone thought he was the best man for both jobs, and he agreed. Maybe another of his mistakes was thinking that he could manage both roles and not have them in conflict with one another. Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 14:35:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:35:58 -0000 Subject: Eyeglasses: the key to Harry's vulnerability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kibakianakaya" wrote: > > I've once again thinking about the role Harry's eyes play in the > story. For a while I was satisfied that the importance lies in > Harry's ocular resemblance to Lily that shamed Slughorn into giving > up his memory. But I started wondering about the importance of his > glasses per se. A search revealed a very old thread, back in 2001, > that mentioned a Reader's Digest article where Jo said that Harry's > *glasses* (not eyes) are the key to his vulnerability. But that > thread was very short (4 posts) and not very informative. > > So I put it to the group - how do Harry's glasses reveal or > symbolize his vulnerability? One thought is that Harry usually > needs outside help to see things clearly. He often is so focused > on "what is right in front of his face" that he doesn't see consider > the bigger picture. His urgency in going to the Ministry to rescue > Sirius comes to mind. For what it is worth, when I first heard the > title "Half-Blood Prince" the first thing that popped into my head > was "Harry Potter: the Half-Blind Seeker." Harry needs outside help > (his friends) to help him see clearly. > > But I am sure I am missing a lot here. Any ideas. > > Lilygale > Carol responds: On a real and practical level, Harry's eyesight makes him vulnerable. Remember how he gropes around when they're broken? If voldemort or a De were to Accio his glasses when he's duelling, for example, he'd he in very bad shape. Even the glasses themselves can be a liability, as when he's playing Quidditch in the rain and is almost blinded by the water until Hermione hits the glasses with an Impervius. So, if nothing else, the need for glasses give Harry a weakness that many of us can identify with. On a more symbolic level, he can be myopic at times (especially regarding today's birthday boy, Severus Snape?). Maybe he'll learn to "see" in what Trelawney calls "the mundane world" in the next book? I'm guessing that Harry, like most people who wear glasses, is near-sighted. It's interesting (to me, at least) that Trelawney (who, it seems, really is a Seer though she doesn't always interpret the omens correctly and doesn't know she's made at least two Prophecies relating to the Dark Lord) is far-sighted, as indicated by the glasses that enlarge her eyes. (*Far*-sighted, get it? She can see omens, but she trips over a chair in her classroom--though that part is also a spoof of blind Seers like Tiresias, i think.) So Harry can see things in "the mundane world," but can't understand their significance? Carol, who is far-sighted like Trelawney but can't see the future, alas From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Jan 9 15:04:45 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:04:45 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163622 Carol responds: I agree that to the best of DD's knowledge only he and Harry know the full contents of the Prophecy. Certainly, Voldemort doesn't. But Snape, being a Legilimens who can take memories from his own head, could have placed the memory of the Prophecy in DD's Pensieve and listened through the door to the rest of the Prophecy while his younger self and Aberforth were scuffling, oblivious to his presence. Just a thought. *(snip)* Ceridwen: I can see the eavesdropping incident being one of the memories Snape unloads into the Pensieve. But for him to take enough interest in that memory to revisit it, he would have to know or suspect that there was substantially more to the prophecy than he overheard the first time around. I'm not sure that Dumbledore would ever give him any evidence that some of his actions were based on a portion of the prophecy that Snape missed. If Snape does think that there was more, then of course, I'd have expected him to review it once Harry came to the school and he decided that Harry wasn't the stuff to defeat LV according to Snape's assessment. However, if he regretted giving that prophecy to LV as much as Dumbledore implies, it may be too painful for him to revisit that memory. Carol: > As for Snape being told what he needs to be told, I think that's true, but I also think he knows a great deal more than, say, McGonagall, simply because he has to deal with the DEs and later with Voldemort himself in person. DD trusts Snape *completely*. That's canonical and, as such, more important to me in interpreting the books than anything JKR says in an interview. (BTW, I think she was talking about McGonagall and DD when she asked, "Where is his equal, his confidante, his partner?" I'd say not the feminine "e" but we're quoting a transcript.) Ceridwen: Hee, I just thought - maybe JKR couldn't find a 'ship for DD, and so made this comment? Since you're putting it into the feminine and all. ;) Yes, Snape would have to have different information than McGonagall, and very possibly more, of a sensitive nature, to maintain his cover. But there are things that DD wouldn't want LV to know, and until the end of OotP at least, the prophecy was one of them. If Snape was mistrusted and subjected to torture which may have cracked his Occlumency enough for LV to get through, then it would be better if Snape didn't know the entire prophecy. Carol: At any rate, Snape is some 115 years DD's junior and is also his employee, so of course he's not Dumbledore's equal, any more than Aragorn is Gandalf's despite his power and talents. Age and experience combined with intellect produce wisdom, which in turn produces isolation if there are no others of similar age and experience. By wizarding standards, Snape at 38 or so (end of HBP) is still young, especially compared with Dumbledore. DD could almost be his great-great-grandfather, so it's hardly surprising that he sometimes gives him orders or silences him with a look. And yet there are things that Snape needs to know (I think that one of those things is the existence of the Horcruxes). Ceridwen: I think Snape does know, or at least suspect very highly, the existence of HXs. He was the one to save DD's life after his hand was killed, or whatever it was, when he destroyed the HX in the Peverell ring. I think more and more that the potion in the cave did something to that hand, reactiveated the curse or something dire having to do with it, which was why only Snape and not Madam Pomphrey could help him at that point. There may have been other things, sure, but I am leaning more and more to the idea that LV's protections on his various HXs are connected somehow with one another, making it more certain that if one or two are destroyed, the others will kill off whoever found them out. Carol: I do agree that there are some things about Harry that Snape wouldn't understand--the Harry he sees really is an arrogant rule-breaker, an occasional liar who's cheating in Potions in sixth year, and a mediocre wizard (though it's to Harry's and DD's advantage to have Snape tell Voldemort and the Death Eaters that he, Harry, is mediocre- -best for the good side that the bad side underestimate the Chosen One. Possibly, Snape cultivates that image of Harry to the point that he believes it or can at least conjure it in his mind whenever he speaks to LV about Harry.) Ceridwen: I think Snape sees Harry as a rule-breaker because he is one. But I also think that Dumbledore gives him latitude where he wouldn't another student, not because Harry's had a bad life, or because he feels sorry for Harry having lost his parents, but because Harry will need these sneakier - dare I say more Slytherin? - traits honed in order to defeat LV. And it would certainly help to have LV underestimate Harry. I think LV undersestimates everyone anyway, but if he thought Harry was competent at all, he might pay more attention to what he's doing and accidentally do some real damage to the Good Side. ;) Carol: > Snape questioned DD's judgment in hiring Lupin back in PoA, and hedared to suggest that Lupin was helping Black into the castle. What he got for his pains was a cold look and a rebuke. And yet Snape was right that someone was helping Black get in (it turned out to be Crookshanks) and that Lupin was concealing knowledge about Black (the fact that he was an Animagus and, later, the Marauder's Map, which revealed other ways into the castle that Black knew about). Ceridwen: Yes, and as a master of the school, it would be Snape's duty to bring up concerns having to do with the school. Where I think Dumbledore really doesn't want any challenges is where the mission of the Order is concerned. Since Lupin was a member of the Order, I think the two hats came into conflict here. And, since Lupin is a werewolf, and apparently one of the few (if not the only) Hogwarts-educated ones, Snape's criticisms of Lupin may have gone against DD's desire to open Hogwarts to all deserving students. So, Order conflict, and special project conflict. Carol: > But I do think that HBP!Snape is under some such orders as Harry was under because of the UV--essentially, do what you must do to save Draco even if it means killing me, or something of that sort. "You take too much for granted, Dumbledore" could mean that DD is wrong, in Snape's view, to think they can avoid confronting Draco and activating the UV. But there's no question that DD expects Snape to keep his promise, whatever it is, and that DD is firmly in charge of the operation. Snape *chooses* to obey orders, but they are orders, nonetheless. Ceridwen: Snape also has little to no choice on the Tower. If his orders from DD were to do what he had to do to save Draco, then that was what he had to do. If he cared about Draco as much as is implied by agreeing to the UV (third surprise provision added later), then he also would have had to do what he did. If he noticed the second broom and deduced that Harry was on the tower, then he had to do what he did to protect Harry as well. We're talking DDM!Snape when discussing Harry on the tower, of course. I think he had to know that Harry was on the tower. I think he knew that Harry left with Dumbledore that night. Snape didn't pass Harry in the hall coming up; he didn't see him in the fight downstairs; he knew that Hermione was taking part in the night's events because he had told her and Luna, another DA member, to see to Flitwick; and I think that it was planned, by Dumbledore, that Harry would rouse Snape, and Snape would stun him and put him out of action. When it was Flitwick who roused him and was stunned instead, he knew something had gone wrong. No Harry in the halls, no Harry in the fight, no Harry when Hermione and Luna were involved, leads to Harry on the tower under the cloak. Snipping your next paragraph, because I do think we agree that because Snape doesn't have enough information, he sees Harry as arrogant and woefully unprepared, and that Dumbledore's reticence to release information only makes Snape resent Harry more. *(snip)* Carol: I think Snape's advice to Harry to shut his mouth and close his mind so that the DEs can't second-guess him and/or his emotions don't get in his way is perfectly sensible, whether or not it will work against Voldemort himself, just as I agree with Snape that Harry shouldn't be casting Unforgiveable Curses--not for the reasons Snape gives, which IMO are for the benefit of any listening DEs and necessary to keep his cover even with Harry, but because Harry, the Chosen One, shouldn't use the weapons of the enemy, especially if he has to defeat Voldemort using Love. *(snip)* Ceridwen: Agreed. If Harry is to fight a gauntlet of DEs to reach his showdown with LV, he will probably need to shut his mouth and close his mind. But will Harry have to fight that gauntlet? His friends and Order members may take that on instead. In the end, it will be only Harry and Voldemort, as per the prophecy. Before then, one of Harry's strengths is having friends and well-wishers ready and able to help him. The DEs may be left to the others as their part in the final downfall of LV. And, agreed about Harry not using Unforgivables. Crouch's example, for one thing, and for another, if Bellatrix is right and Harry has to enjoy what he does, has to want it, then this would be counter to the Power of Love that DD believes will vanquish Voldemort. Such a mastery could even destroy this power so that Harry is unable to complete his mission, since the emotions involved are so contrary to Love. Ceridwen. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 15:49:45 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 07:49:45 -0800 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? Message-ID: <700201d40701090749i3d4d8b25pcdebe96681516476@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163623 In the Chapter discussion, colebiancardi synopsized: Snape drops the big truth on Harry - he tells Harry that he, Snape, is the Half-Blood Prince. Harry tells Snape to kill him like he killed Dumbledore and again he calls Snape a coward. Snape yells at Harry, his face looking inhuman, "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" I, Kemper, wondered in one of my answers, what does Snape consider to be cowardice? Even though some have suggested that he loses his cool hear because of some Marauder issues, I'm having difficulty buying it. What would Snape consider cowardice acts during the events in the Lighting Struck Tower or the Flight of the Prince? Kemper, who realizes his question in the Discussion may have been overlooked... or probably more accurately, underread From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 15:57:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:57:46 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. General vs Specific In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163624 Carol earlier: > > If the house were hidden by the charms that the elder Blacks placed on it, the order members wouldn't be able to see it, "propriety" or not. Sirius black would have to remove those charms, and I think they're still there > > But once Harry reads and memorizes the note Moody hands him, he can see 12 GP. It's knowing the Secret, as told to him in writing by the Secret Keeper, that enables him to see the house > > Mike now: > I was trying to reconcile logically what JKR wrote (using Flitwick as her mouthpiece) about how the "Fidelius" functions with how the charm manifests itself in canon. This might be a fruitless effort seeing as how JKR herself doesn't seem to be concerned with consistency in how this charm works. > Start with DD's note about 12 GP. It read: "The headquarters of the > Order of the Phoenix may be found at number twelve, Grimmauld Place, > London." (OotP ch 3) To me, that reads that the secret is the headquarters location, IOW, where the headquarters was is the secret, not number twelve. Or, equated to the Potter's "Fidelius", the headquarters equals the Potters and #12 equals 'address', GH. IF you see it differently, the rest of this explanation becomes nonsense ;-) Carol responds: But the problem is, we have two different kinds of Secrets. One is the location of the Potters (people), the other is the location of the Order HQ (a building). so in the first case, while the charm is in effect, the Potters' house can be seen but the Potters themselves are invisible as long as they're in that house. To repeat the canon already cited by Brothergib: "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who could search the village where Lily and James were staying for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose pressed against their sitting room window!" (PA10) So the *house* is never hidden. But in the second case, the house *is* the Order HQ; therefore, the location itself must be hidden. So the Order members standing in Grimmauld Square are not themselves invisible. Harry is still "disillusioned" but not technically invisible. The rest of the Order could be seen if they weren't careful. Moody has to use DD's Put-Outer to keep them from being seen, exactly as DD does in SS/PS, where neither he nor McGonagall nor Hagrid is invisible to any Muggles who may be out and about at that hour ("That'll take care of any Muggles looking out of the window, see?" OoP Am. ed. 58). Harry, unlike a hypothetical Voldemort wandering through Godric's Hollow without having been told the Secret, cannot see *the house*, even after he has read the Secret on the paper that Moody hands him. "Harry looked around at the houses again. They were standing outside number eleven; he looked to the left and saw number ten; to the right, however, was number thirteen." He has to think about what he's memorized, the address where the Order of the Phoenix may be found, before he sees the house. "Harry thought, and no sooner had he reached the part about number twelve, grimmauld Place, than a battered door emerged out of nowhere between numbers eleven and thirteen, followed swiftly by dirty walls and grimy windows" (59). Until he knows (and understands) the Secret, the house is invisible. Clearly, the invisibility is directly related to the Secret (which is why Moody immediately burns the paper so that no one else will read it). It cannot be a charm placed by Orion Black or none of the Order members would be able to see their own HQ. One thing that Orion Black did do, apparently (besides probable anti-Muggle charms, given his neighborhood) is remove the doorknob and any normal means of accessing the house: "There was no keyhole or letterbox," only a door knocker in the form of a twisted serpent (60). Lupin opens the door by tapping it with his wand--either the house recognizes him as an Order member or he knows the proper nonverbal charm to open it (60). So the two Fidelius Charms can't be equated. One hides the Potters but not their house; the other hides the Order HQ but not the Order itself. In the one case, someone who doesn't know the Secret can see the house but not the Potters if they're in it (Voldemort can see them after they've been betrayed, whether the charm is still in effect or not). In the other case, someone (like Harry) who doesn't know the Secret can see the Order members, even when they're standing in front of Order HQ, but he can't see the house until he's memorized and understood the Secret. So if a traitorous SK were to tell Voldemort (or Bellatrix) the Secret, they'd be able to see (and enter) the House. (Snape, not being the SK, can't speak the name of the place even if he wanted to, which I'm sure he doesn't. And with Dumbledore as SK, there's no chance that Bella or LV or anyone else can see the house--unless they get hold of that note, which is why Moody immediately destroyed it.) It will be interesting to see how this relates to the Dursleys, who were rather indirectly informed of the Secret (without understanding it) by the SK himself in HBP. Will they see the house, or will any anti-Muggle charms placed by Orion Black still be in place? And are owls, not being magical "beings," exempt from Fidelius Charms? As for the Potters' Secret, once the Potters were no longer hidden, the Secret, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist. The deaths of two out of three Potters made the Secret untrue--they were no longer hiding anywhere, and when the house itself was destroyed, the hiding place itself no longer existed, so there was no Secret to keep even if it had been in place up to that poing. Consequently, Harry (and presumably the bodies of his parents) was visible to Hagrid, who, IMO, had never been told the Secret, by note or any other means. And, again, I'm sure that the breaking of the Charm alerted Dumbledore to the Potters' danger, which would suggest that the betrayal itself, the breaking of the Faith or Trust placed in Peter Pettigrew, broke the Charm. Otherwise the name, Fidelius Charm, is meaningless. Carol, who wonders if Dumbledore made the building itself the Secret in the case of the Order because hiding the Potters rather than their house was such a spectacular failure From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 16:09:41 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:09:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163625 Quick_Silver wrote: > I'm not convinced that Snape had any idea that Harry was actually on the Tower and witnessed what he did to Dumbledore. Carol responds: How could he not know? His eyes swept the room. If Draco saw the two brooms, it's almost a given that Snape did. We know that Snape can put two and two together and that he knows about Harry's Invisibility Cloak. He probably knows that Harry is having private lessons with Dumbledore. Even if he doesn't know about the Horcruxes (and given DD's trust in him, his own reasoning abilities, and his role in healing the ring Horcrux curse, it seems highly unlikely that he doesn't), he must know that the other person in the room has to be an invisible Harry. (Unlike Draco, though, he doesn't call attention to the brooms. Why not? Because he's DDM and doesn't want the DEs to know that Harry is there.) Snape certainly shows no sign of surprise that Harry is chasing him and trying to curse him. Harry's presence may be one reason why Snape hesitates to fulfill the UV despite Dumbledore's pleading. Even after the exchanged glance he doesn't raise his wand until DD says, "Severus, please. . . ." I can well imagine that he doesn't want to do the deed, anyway, but surely Harry's presence makes it even harder. Carol, who thinks that Harry's presence is the main reason that Snape sent DD's body over the battlements and rushed the DEs off the tower From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jan 9 17:05:17 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:05:17 -0000 Subject: Eyeglasses: the key to Harry's vulnerability In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0701082032y88e6291r1d59130bc7459d46@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163626 Debbie: > Much is made of the fact that Harry's eyes are Lily's eyes. In her > sacrifice, Lily exhibited the same talent for doing the right > thing. > She didn't have time to analyze the situation; she acted, > instinctively, out of love. Their green eyes symbolize their great > capacity for love, and Harry's glasses symbolize how easy it can be > to underestimate the power of love. > > Or something like that. Jen: DH is the last chance for Harry to 'find his mother inside himself' as he did in POA with James. I have high hopes for DH in that respect, high hopes JKR will explore the symbolic connection of Harry having Lily's eyes. As with the oft-repeated, 'I trust Severus Snape', Harry having Lily's eyes is a repetitious phrase of significance that wasn't fully explained by the Slughorn memory. The similarity of the undeveloped phrases and the general lack of information about both characters are the main two reasons I see Snape's and Lily's stories wrapping up together (in some form). Then Dumbledore's reason for trusting Snape and Harry's connection with Lily will both play an important role in transforming Harry's anger and hatred into forgiveness. The Slughorn moment did show how Harry's eyes being like Lily's helped him, yet there wasn't a poignancy to it, a moment when Harry recognized how Lily is still with him even after her death. I expect we'll see how her memory lives on in Harry when he acts in ways she would have acted, just as Harry showing mercy to Peter was an example of James inside Harry. I've used the word 'compassion' to describe the character trait Harry shares with Lily but that doesn't quite cover what Lily was doing in the Pensieve scene or Harry's 'saving people thing'. There is a basis of compassion there, an awareness of someone else's pain and wanting to help relieve it, yet Harry's and Lily's actions go beyond that and involve what is right, as Debbie mentioned. Compassion alone can cause a person to act in a wrong manner to relieve someone's pain. What Harry and Lily do has a component of justice as well, they act spontaneously (if imperfectly) because they feel empathy for another and act out of that feeling to do what is right and just in the situation. This explanation feels like a better fit. What would that trait be called though? Is it sacrificial love? Being able to love, I guess, that's how Dumbledore described it in HBP, 'You can love'. Jen, who thought Lilygale's "Half-Blind Seeker' was a perfect description for Harry. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 17:09:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:09:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163627 Brothergib wrote: > Hagrid was at Godric's Hollow soon after LV attacked - FACT! > How did he get there? Portkey - very, very unlikely IMO. Apparition - I think canon evidence suggests that Hagrid would not possess those > skills. Side-along apparition - i.e. DD takes Hagrid with him to GH. > > But why would DD go to GH? If he had information that an attack was imminent, then I'm sure he would have prepared a defence. If DD was ignorant to LV's plan, then someone had to inform DD that LV had attacked GH. An obvious candidate would be someone who a) was trusted by LV or b) could at least track his movements. Obvious candidate - Severus Snape. > > Therefore Hagrid trusts Snape because he had seen direct proof of his allegiance at GH that night. Carol responds: I agree that Hagrid probably knows something about Snape relating to the night of Godric's Hollow, and I like your suggestion of side-along Apparition (helping Hagrid get to GH), but why not Snape rather than DD as Hagrid's escort? I don't see how Snape, who was teaching at Hogwarts and did not know the Secret, could have been at GH or why he would be there since his supposed DE task was to spy on Dumbledore, not hang around with Voldemort. I think that Snape had no clue that the Potters had been betrayed until he felt a pain in his Dark Mark and then watched it fade, which could only mean that Voldemort had been attacked and defeated. I think that snape ran up seven or eight flights of stairs to see Dumbledore, who had been alerted to the broken Fidelius Charm (see my previous posts), perhaps by a nightmare, perhaps by the sudden realization that he knew where the Potters were and a sense that they were in peril. IMO, neither of them knew had been told the Secret by note or any other means, but they deduced, by comparing notes and perhaps consulting DD's instruments, what must have happened. The adult Potters were dead and Voldemort was vanquished (though most likely not dead), which could only have happened if Harry, the Prophcy Boy, had somehow "defeated" him. The Secret Keeper, as far as they knew, was Sirius Black, and it was imperative to rescue Harry before the seeming traitor arrived and claimed him as Harry's godfather and guardian. (Hagrid, however, was not entrusted with this knowledge; he knew only that he was not to give Harry to anyone except DD. Hence, he "comforted the murderin' traitor" when he arrived and accepted the motorcycle without understanding why Black, whether he was the traitor or the Potters' avenger, might no longer have a use for it.) I suppose that Snape could have Apparated with Hagrid to GH and then returned to Hogwarts immediately to consult with Dumbledore about Harry's future and how to protect him. He certainly was not with Hagrid when Sirius Black arrived. I would not be surprised if Snape examined the baby after Hagrid's return in front of both Hagrid and Dumbledore to make sure that he wasn't possessed or cursed before DD placed the protective spell on him, extending Lily's love protection, and returned Harry to Hagrid's care. DD would then probably have had to deal with the MoM and maybe give a statement regarding Sirius Black as SK--hence, "No trouble, was there?" when he finds out where Hagrid got the motorcycle. Carol, thinking that Snape was not at GH when the Potters were killed (he was at Hogwarts) but agreeing that he probably played some part in rescuing Harry after the fact, which accounts for Hagrid's trust in him From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 17:50:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:50:35 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: <700201d40701090749i3d4d8b25pcdebe96681516476@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163628 Kemper wrote: > In the Chapter discussion, colebiancardi synopsized: > > Snape drops the big truth on Harry - he tells Harry that he, Snape, is > the Half-Blood Prince. Harry tells Snape to kill him like he killed > Dumbledore and again he calls Snape a coward. Snape yells at Harry, > his face looking inhuman, "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" > > I, Kemper, wondered in one of my answers, what does Snape consider to > be cowardice? Even though some have suggested that he loses his cool > hear because of some Marauder issues, I'm having difficulty buying it. > > What would Snape consider cowardice acts during the events in the > Lighting Struck Tower or the Flight of the Prince? > > Kemper, who realizes his question in the Discussion may have been > overlooked... or probably more accurately, underread > Carol responds: I did see your question but didn't know how to answer. It seems to me that (DDM!)Snape had only two choices, to kill DD but save the boys and get the DEs out of Hogwarts or to die futilely along with (DD) who could not have been saved regardless, taking Draco and, more important, the Chosen One along with him. That would have been the easy choice--avoiding infamy and a split soul and all the rest and revealing his loyalties before dying--but it would have been dishonorable and cowardly because it would have left the DEs free to kill Draco and Harry and run through Hogwarts wreaking havoc and murdering at will. To refuse the burden laid on him at that moment would have been to hand the victory to Voldemort. That, in Snape's view, would be cowardice. And he would be right. Carol, hoping this is the kind of response you were looking for and wishing Severus a happy 48th birthday (I think he was born in 1959, regardless of the Lexicon's suggesting 1958) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 17:58:00 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:58:00 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163629 Carol: > I would not be surprised if Snape examined the baby > after Hagrid's return in front of both Hagrid and Dumbledore to make > sure that he wasn't possessed or cursed before DD placed the > protective spell on him, extending Lily's love protection, and > returned Harry to Hagrid's care. zgirnius: Interesting post as always, Carol! But this bit seems inconsistent with PS/SS. Upon Hagrid's arrival, Dumbledore asks Hagrid where he got the motorcycle, and asks Hagrid to tell h im what he foudn at the house. This suggests to me that Hagrid (and therefore Harry) have not been together with Dumbledore since Dumbledore sent Hagrid to GH in the early morning hours. Yet Dumbledore knows some details about Harry (the scar does not surprise him). Also, I presume his very quick decision to leave Harry with Petunia has to do with the blood protection. So my guess would be that Dumbledore went there *before* Hagrid. Why did he leave Harry there? Perhaps something he saw there required his urgent attention, and this is why he sent Hagrid? (Checking out some suspicion about Voldemort? Preparing the charm that would protect Harry at the Dursleys?) If Snape and Dumbledore went there together, maybe he left Snape there until Hagrid could arrive, and Snape left just before Black did? From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 9 21:07:22 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:07:22 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163630 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Quick_Silver wrote: > > I'm not convinced that Snape had any idea that Harry was > actually on the Tower and witnessed what he did to Dumbledore. > > Carol responds: > How could he not know? His eyes swept the room. If Draco saw the two > brooms, it's almost a given that Snape did. We know that Snape can put > two and two together and that he knows about Harry's Invisibility > Cloak. He probably knows that Harry is having private lessons with > Dumbledore. Even if he doesn't know about the Horcruxes (and given > DD's trust in him, his own reasoning abilities, and his role in > healing the ring Horcrux curse, it seems highly unlikely that he > doesn't), he must know that the other person in the room has to be an > invisible Harry. (Unlike Draco, though, he doesn't call attention to > the brooms. Why not? Because he's DDM and doesn't want the DEs to know > that Harry is there.) Snape certainly shows no sign of surprise that > Harry is chasing him and trying to curse him. Harry's presence may be > one reason why Snape hesitates to fulfill the UV despite Dumbledore's > pleading. Even after the exchanged glance he doesn't raise his wand > until DD says, "Severus, please. . . ." I can well imagine that he > doesn't want to do the deed, anyway, but surely Harry's presence makes > it even harder. Quick_Silver: I can see it going either way really though. Yes Snape's eyes sweep the Tower top but unlike Draco's they aren't described as falling on brooms not even for a second despite the fact that the narrator describes him taking in the scene and mentions the slumped Dumbledore, the Death Eaters, and Draco. Nor are there any subtle changes in his demeanor that imply he knows Harry is there...in GoF when Snape puts two and two together Harry can tell when Snape makes the connection that Harry's there in his invisibility clock. Quick_Silver (whose mind isn't made up on this issue) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 9 21:43:20 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:43:20 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163631 > Alla: > > So, does Dumbledore know everything or does he not? I mean, how long > could he plan the betrayal if he did? Since Harry come to school? Pippin: How long was Dumbledore planning to use Snape as a double agent? Probably since GH. So when would he start planning Snape's exit strategy? At once. Snape couldn't keep up his double agent dance indefinitely. Sooner or later his bridges would be burnt. If Snape appeared to abandon an active Voldemort, then he would be out of the fight, so the only way to keep Snape in it would be to have him appear to abandon Dumbledore. Alla: > I mean, even if DD indeed planned that betrayal for the years > before, would it still made more sense to make sure Harry and Snape > does not hate each other, but then for Harry to be just as shocked > as everybody else did? > > That would made his education from Snape more um... educational IMO. > Pippin: Um, where does this idea that Dumbledore can resolve hatred come from? Is there anybody in the Potterverse with that power? Harry might have it, but he hasn't learned to use it yet. How can Dumbledore make sure Snape and Harry do not hate one another? Tell them to shake hands and be friends? That didn't exactly work with Snape and Sirius. Why shouldn't Harry hate the way Snape treats him? And why shouldn't Snape hate the way Harry reminds him of James? Would it be better for Snape to be forced to hide his feelings? Maybe, if he could do so completely, but we know he can't. Being forced to pretend he doesn't hate would only make things worse in the end, especially given Voldemort's gift for exploiting enmity and discord. As it is, perhaps Harry's potions grades suffered. But he has the rest of his life to learn potions. Getting the ministry to bend its rules about who gets to be an auror will be a lot easier than bending the rules to bring a dead Harry back to life. Snape was just more important to Harry, to Hogwarts, and to the Order, than Harry's potions grade. That's not a quesiton of Dumbledore having too many hats, that's a question of realizing there are more important things in life, even for teachers, than grades or being successful in every class. Pippin From pennygbrooks at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 18:06:29 2007 From: pennygbrooks at yahoo.com (Penny Brooks) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:06:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Secret 'All Along' Plan? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163632 I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts about Dumbledore, speculating on how much he knew about LV, and when, and what his plans may have been throughout the book series. (It's like Court TV.) I myself had been of the mind that Dumbledore: 1) was aware of LV's existence, and his plans to reemerge 2) was aware of LV's thoughts about Harry, and the danger against Harry 3) had some idea about the horcruxes, and has been piecing together the evidence since COS But in my recent rereading of the books (for the hundredth time, although with six books worth of information now, I guess I'm growing more critical), certain questions are emerging--you all may have dealt with them previously, but I did some searches and didn't find anything conclusive. 1) Why would Dumbledore hire Lockhart? In COS, Dumbledore's comments about him indicate he's fully aware of Lockhart's incapabilities. It's hard to believe he hired him because no one else would do the job (except Snape, of course). If you suspect that the most dangerous wizard has a gripe with one of your students (a student you're fond of, as well), why would you hire an incompetent to teach him (and the other students) how to defend himself? 2) Why did Dumbledore agree to hold and host the Triwizard Tournament at Hogwarts? It's known as a dangerous event in its own right, but if you suspect that (again) the most dangerous wizard is still trying to get into your school to take out a student, why would you allow the state, and officials and students from other schools (including those with dark pasts, like Karkaroff) free entry into your school? It's hard to believe that he thought Moody by himself would be enough to protect Harry and the other students. I won't even go into the whole occlumency with Snape fiasco--even Dumbledore admits it was a bad idea. So, I'm wondering: if Dumbledore knew all along about LV's possible plans and the horcruxes, and such, then either: 1) He's making a lot of inexplicable decisions 2) He's purposefully trying to get Harry to LV (oooh, a bad Dumbledore. There have been worse ideas, I guess, but wouldn't that be a twist--one that would have me shouting at my book 7, I'm afraid). 3) He was using Harry as bait to draw LV out, where the Order can get him. Didn't work, but now Harry is old enough to handle things (maybe). There must be more ideas. Any thoughts, anyone? Penny Bee From IrishScorpion at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 21:20:44 2007 From: IrishScorpion at gmail.com (irishred9scorpio) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:20:44 -0000 Subject: Book Differences Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163633 Does anyone know if there are any major or minor changes between the US and UK version of the books? The reason im asking is because with the James Bond novels there are many changes by the time it hit the US shelves. Thank you. -- Robert Emmett Stephen Doyle IX From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 22:31:44 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:31:44 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Houses: Unite! (was:Re: The Power of Harry ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163634 > >>samajdar_parantap: > > One wild dramatic guess for your kind judgement : we already now > Voldemort is a heir of Slytherin. Is it possible that Dumbledore is > actually a heir of Ravenclaw ( given his cunning ) and Harry a heir > of Gryffindor ( courage ), thus bringing a thousand year old > fatefull drama to conclusion? Don't know how to fit Hufflepuff in > this theory , though :-). Don't know if there is any Huffy > important enough. Betsy Hp: I do suspect that the ancient rift between the Houses will need to be delt with. Otherwise the Sorting Hat's song in OotP will remain a gun that never goes off (IMO). But I suspect that it's going to take Harry's generation to heal the rift; that Harry will need to work with a symbolic representative of each House in order to defeat Voldemort; and that the House breakdown will occur thusly: Slytherin: Draco Malfoy Gryffindor: Ron Weasley (or maybe Neville Longbottom?) Ravenclaw: Luna Lovegood (or maybe Marietta Edgecombe or Cho Chang?) Hufflepuff: Zacharias Smith Slytherin was easy. No other Slytherin of Harry's generation has such an intense and meaningful relationship (though of course all negative) with Harry. It's a perfect inversion (IMO) of the great friendship between Godric and Salazar. Gryffindor could obviously be Harry himself. But if Harry (as hero) is supposed to stand *in front of* a group representing the Houses it would make sense for someone else to hold the Gryffindor banner. Ron is an easy guess since his family have all been Gryffindors since forever (as per family legend anyway). However, Neville has always struck me as the best example of a Gryffindor in the books. So I don't want to rule him out. (Especially if Ron and Hermione have another role to play -- another support behind Harry.) Ravenclaw depends on how easy we want to make it for Harry (or the Trio). Luna Lovegood (while a tad frustrating for Hermione, I think) would be pretty easy to work with, and seems the obvious choice given her experience in the DA. But wouldn't Marietta and Cho make for some delicious conflict? Hufflepuff was pretty easy if the assumption is made that Zacharias Smith is the grandson (great-grandson?) of Hepzibah Smith of the Hufflepuff cup fame. Of course, it'd be easier on Harry et al if the Hufflepuff was Ernie Macmillan. But where's the fun in easy? Honestly, if Harry has to deal with Draco, it almost seems more fair to make Ron deal with Zach and Hermione deal with either Marietta or Cho. (Though there seems to be some level of tension between Hermione and Luna. At least, Hermione seems to have issues with Luna, though Luna doesn't respond in kind.) The gathering of the Houses is one of the things I hope for in DH, and one of the reasons I think the Horcrux hunt might just make for some exciting reading. Betsy Hp From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 23:04:01 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:04:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Lilly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0701091504g44e1e3c7nf29b39bcda2b7002@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163635 Irishshedevil: I got the feeling that perhaps he felt something for her during the flash backs Harry had about his parents school days. After all Lily did defend Snape when no one else would even against James himself. Also perhaps he had more then one motivating factor in saving Harry in the first book and other times when he has protected him. I think Lily had more then a little to do with it. What do you guys think? Lynda: And was called a mudblood for her efforts! I've never gotten the feeling, from the texts that there was any sort of schoolboy/girl crush from either Snape or Lily, but I know that some people think there was. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 9 23:20:30 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:20:30 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book Differences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701091520w6790077dpb74444183b46e42e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163636 Jeremiah: Story line: No. No differences.(I have both the US and UK Hardcovers) Wording, scentence structure and phrasing? Oh yeah... at least, up until HBP. Scholastic (the US Publisher) had lots of letters "correcting" the improper grammar in the book. LOL. It was UK English and that differs slightly from US English. The biggest changes, however, can be seen between the hardcover editions and the paperback. The most glaring is GoF. In the hardcover James comes out of Voldemort's wand first and Lilly second. That would mean that Lilly died first and James died second (Oh, the conspiracy theories i had in my head!) Then the paperbacks came out and I got into an argument with another fan who'd read the paperbacks... What a messed up converstaion that was. The paperback had chaged/corrected the event and Lilly came out first and James second thereby placing their deaths the other way around (meaning, the hardcover has Harry's recolection of theor deaths as incorrect but the paperback changes that so Harry's recolections are, indeed, correct). Otherwise the changes are minimal between the 2 versions (UK & US). I think there may be mention of a character or two in the UK vesions that are not in the US editions but I don't think that changes any of the storylines. ========================================================= On 1/9/07, irishred9scorpio wrote: > > Does anyone know if there are any major or minor changes between the US > and UK version of the books? > > The reason im asking is because with the James Bond novels there are > many changes by the time it hit the US shelves. > > Thank you. > > -- > > Robert Emmett Stephen Doyle IX > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 9 23:35:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:35:12 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163637 > Pippin: > How long was Dumbledore planning to use Snape as a double agent? > Probably since GH. So when would he start planning Snape's exit > strategy? At once. Snape couldn't keep up his double agent dance > indefinitely. Sooner or later his bridges would be burnt. > > If Snape appeared to abandon an active Voldemort, then he would > be out of the fight, so the only way to keep Snape in it would be > to have him appear to abandon Dumbledore. Alla: So, are you saying that Dumbledore planned and anticipated the events on the Tower since GH? > Pippin: > Um, where does this idea that Dumbledore can resolve hatred come > from? Is there anybody in the Potterverse with that power? > Harry might have it, but he hasn't learned to use it yet. > > How can Dumbledore make sure Snape and Harry do not hate one > another? Tell them to shake hands and be friends? That didn't > exactly work with Snape and Sirius. Alla: Oh, I don't know whether Dumbledore has this power or not, but in my view he should have tried and tried much much earlier than Occlumency lessons. Like say stepping in and fast after Harry and Snape first lesson. What could he do? Oh, maybe did what Ceridwen suggested ( the way I read her at least) - give Snape more information about Harry, about his home life. It is quite possible that Snape could have cared less that Harry had such a hard life , BUT if there was a small chance that Snape could have a tiny bit of pity for Harry, for what he endured, DD IMO should have capitalised on that. Pippin: > Snape was just more important to Harry, to Hogwarts, and to > the Order, than Harry's potions grade. That's not a quesiton > of Dumbledore having too many hats, that's a question of > realizing there are more important things in life, even for > teachers, than grades or being successful in every class. Alla: Nope, for me it **is** precisely a question of Dumbledore having too many hats, way too many. It is a question of Dumbledore as Head of the order taking the precedent over Dumbledore the Headmaster for me. I think Harry potions grade may have ruined his career and fast, but you are right there are questions more important than grades. Like if Snape is DD!M, for Harry being able to trust him instead of feeling such a rage towards him, it is also a question of the possibility that Harry's hatred of Snape may stop him from tapping into love power, whatever it is going to manifest itself as. And yeah, I think this is in many ways thanks to Dumbledore. JMO, Alla From rkdas at charter.net Tue Jan 9 23:58:32 2007 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:58:32 -0000 Subject: Book Differences In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701091520w6790077dpb74444183b46e42e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163638 > > ========================================================= > > > On 1/9/07, irishred9scorpio wrote: > > > > Does anyone know if there are any major or minor changes between the US > > and UK version of the books? > > > > The reason im asking is because with the James Bond novels there are > > many changes by the time it hit the US shelves. > > > > Thank you. > > > > -- > > > > Robert Emmett Stephen Doyle IX > > Jen D. here, I think one of the most interesting differences comes in with the British slang vs. American. Earlier on, Scholastic regularly Americanized things. My daughter and I got hold of a UK edition of POA and had so much fun going through to see what had been changed. We have noticed in OOP and HPB that much more of the British words are being used such as trainers, jumper, taking the mickey out of someone, many more that I can't remember right off the bat. Jen, thinking she might do her nut if she doesn't find her keys! From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed Jan 10 00:03:58 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 16:03:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Secret 'All Along' Plan? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701091603m4ec81a2eube11a39bb7c10252@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163639 There must be more ideas. Any thoughts, anyone? Penny Bee Jeremiah: Jiminy Christmas, Bee! Ok, your first list: 1) was aware of LV's existence, and his plans to reemerge 2) was aware of LV's thoughts about Harry, and the danger against Harry 3) had some idea about the horcruxes, and has been piecing together the evidence since COS 1) Yes, I think that DD's response to McGonagall's inquiry on whether or not Voldemort is really gone (i.e. dead) he says something like "It certainly seems so." Meaning, "Looks like it, but I don't know?" 2) Yes. DD was aware that LV though Harry was a threat and wanted to kill him? and still does want to kill him. 3) Well, I'm sure DD knew about Horcruxes, he's been around the block a few too many times to be unaware of the possibility. However, the idea that there were 7? I'm sure he wasn't prepared to think in those terms? until CoS, that is. Your second list: 1) Why would Dumbledore hire Lockhart? -Why not? He's very popular with the parents and it would look good for the school. Also, I'm sure that any wizard could look in a book and find out how to get rid of pixies or grindylows and the possibility for that lack of knowledge being passed on to Harry is Harry's and DD's least concern. It would buy DD enough time to find a suitable replacement without having to worry that LV was going to attack Harry with Hiknkypucks or something of that nature. 2) Why did Dumbledore agree to hold and host the Triwizard Tournament at Hogwarts? -Hmmm why, indeed. In reading GoF I was under the impression that the Ministry was pushing the TriWizad Tournament. However, DD has to grant permission for people to be there and I think that DD it the kind of guy who wants to have faith in people? like Karkarof. Maybe DD truly believed IK's renouncement (and was right? IK did run and hide? and was killed). I think DD was persuaded, felt there was enough of a ministry presence to handle the tournament and sonce Hogwarts is the safest place (until HBP) then it was logical to go ahead with it. The only threat was to Harry's life during each event and DD was sure he'd set up a system in which Harry would never be afforded the chance to compete? but that backfired a bit, didn't it? Ah, well. DD is human afterall! Yeah, let's not talk about Snape and Harry's "incident" shall we? It's like seeing first cousin's kiss? you really don't want to look but you can't take your eyes away? it's that freaky. Ok, your last list: 1) He's making a lot of inexplicable decisions -Hmmm, I don't see it like that. I think he's making decisions based on preparing Harry to fight to the death? like a soldier training for battle, you don't just stand by and yel, "Kaboom! Rattatatattataa? Boom!" You throw them into real-life situations and that have safety nets but are still risky. DD has just been trying to prepare Harry. 2) He's purposefully trying to get Harry to LV - Kinda-Sorta? I think that Harry has been pretty good at getting himself into some trouble of the LV kind? like The Department of Mysteries. DD never sent him there. However, One must know one's enemies. And: There's no time like the present. I think DD's mindset is that Harry has to face LV and Harry would benefit from each encounter whereas LV is so arrogant about his own powers that he won't learn anything from his encounters with Harry. 3) He was using Harry as bait to draw LV out, where the Order can get him. Didn't work, but now Harry is old enough to handle things (maybe). - No, no, no? well, ok, maybe? I think that DD felt there was a possibility that LV was going to get the PS/SS and so hid it at Hogwarts. Harry, however, found out about it and it was the perfect opportunity to have Harry meet LV. However, to LURE LV? I'm not so sure. I think DD's motivation throughout is to protect Harry but not baby him. To prepare Harry but not soften the reality of Harry's situation. Does Harry's presence provoke LV? Absolutely. Can DD make LV want to come after Harry? No. LV's desire to hunt down Harry is not DD's responsibility and DD can't change the world to protect Harry from LV's desire to kill Harry. It's a "Half-Full/Half-Empty" argument, I think. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jan 10 00:01:15 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:01:15 -0000 Subject: Book Differences In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701091520w6790077dpb74444183b46e42e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163640 > On 1/9/07, irishred9scorpio wrote: > > > > Does anyone know if there are any major or minor changes between the US > > and UK version of the books? > > > > The reason im asking is because with the James Bond novels there are > > many changes by the time it hit the US shelves. > > > > Thank you. > > HBP in the lightning-struck tower chapter had some sentences added in the US version which was not in the UK version. If I remember correctly, it was when DD was talking to Draco and he mentions that line of "He cannot kill you if you are already dead" - I believe there was another line as well, but for the life of me, I cannot remember it. I do know there was a huge discussion about this when HBP came out on these boards. colebiancardi> From muellem at bc.edu Wed Jan 10 00:54:08 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:54:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: Thanks for all the responses!! I really liked all of your answers - some of the questions I asked because I had no real answer to them and now I do!! So, I don't know if this bad form or not, but I would like to add my own answers now :) But keep 'em coming! > > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > > 1. Why so much blood? The blood in the corridor by the tower, bloody > footprints, blood on the flagstones. Who was wounded? Malfoy? Snape? > The blond DE? The brother & sister act was behind Harry, so it could > not have been them. > colebiancardi: I thought it might be Bill's blood; but I was struck on how much blood tracked from the tower (many flights up) all the way to the front door. I agree with Ceridwen (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163603) ? it is too much fresh blood and I think that someone else got wounded. > 2. Harry's state of mind is understandably chaotic and confused Yet, > Harry seems to be holding his own with the Death Eaters and he is able > to jinx them successfully. However, against Snape, he was unable to > get one jinx or curse off fully. Why is that? > and > 3. Since Snape is able to deflect every one of Harry's spells, do you > think that Snape is an extremely powerful wizard or do you think it is > due to Harry's lack of experience in comparison with Snape? If the > latter, explain why Harry didn't have this problem in the battle from > Order of the Phoenix? If the former, who trained Snape to be so powerful? > colebiancardi: I agree with those who stated that Snape has the upper hand in this battle. IMHO, Snape is an extremely powerful wizard and has experience way beyond Harry's and he uses it to his advantage. Also, the fact that someone very beloved to Harry has just been "murdered" by the man he loathes also blinds Harry's ability to fight properly. Harry is seeing red and if it was a lesser wizard, he might have defeated him. But Snape is not a lesser wizard. Snape is using Legilimency in this battle and is a master at non-Verbals. > 4. Much discussion has already been had on whether Snape was imparting > his last lesson to Harry with his advice of no Unforgivable Curses, > his reference to Harry's lack of nerve and ability, and his > instruction to shut his mouth and close his mind. Explain why you > think Snape did this if it was not in order to help Harry in the long run. colebiancardi: Well I think he was helping Harry ? giving his last lesson in his usual Snape-like way, so I have no reason to answer this question :) > > 5. Snape has the same expression of hatred on his face as he did right > before he killed Dumbledore. This is right before he tells Harry that > he is the Half-Blood Prince. A lot of discussion has been generated > around this expression when we've talked about Dumbledore's death and > the parallel of Harry's feelings in the cave. We've never talked about > this particular chapter and this same expression on Snape's face. Do > you think it really is the same expression? The same feelings behind > it? Those who believe that Harry's feelings of hatred and revulsion > are the same as Snape's look of hatred and revulsion (self-loathing, > perhaps?), explain this same expression that it is this chapter. I > hope question made sense!! colebiancardi: I agree with those who stated that we are seeing this thru Harry's eyes and the expressions are not the same. I really liked Carol's explanation (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163600) > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. colebiancardi: I believe that it was Harry's accusation of Snape killing Dumbledore that pushed Snape over the edge. To be called a coward is one thing, but then to follow up with that with Harry's declaration of "kill me like you killed him" was the last straw. I agree with Julie in post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163607 > > 7. When a DE curses Harry, Snape states that "Potter belongs to the > Dark Lord" and the curse is lifted. However, that doesn't explain why > Snape only deflects Harry's spells during the battle. Snape could have > issued a "Petrificus Totalus" curse on Harry, which would not have > harmed him. Why didn't Snape do such a spell? And who lifted the > curse from Harry? colebiancardi: I don't know if the DE who cast the curse lifted it or if Snape forced the DE to stop the curse. But I was very curious on seeing the answers to why Snape didn't do a curse like "Petrificus" on Harry. Carol & Julie gave me the answer I was seeking, as I was at a loss for why he didn't. Carol and Julie explain it better than I could, but I will just summarize that Snape was still protecting Harry by not leaving him defenseless and at the mercy at the other DE's. Very well thought out answers and I agree!! > > 8. Hagrid has always defended Snape's trustworthiness. Why is that? Is > it just because of Dumbledore's steadfastness or something else? After > all, Hagrid was around at Hogwart's when Snape was a student - does he > know something more about Snape than the rest of the Order? colebiancardi: The reason why I asked this question is because I noticed the same thing that Julie did ? we never hear Hagrid's opinion of Snape at the end, like we do with the other adults. And Hagrid is never without an opinion on those he dislikes or hates. So, I think there is more and hopefully, we will hear about it in DH. > 9. Do you think Harry got rid of important clues when he rearranged > Dumbledore's glasses and wiped the blood away? > colebiancardi: Ahhh, I just threw this one in for Pippen but I do wonder about the "fresh" blood on DD's mouth. It was a trickle, so it should have died by the time Harry got to the body. > 10. > So, the question is about R.A.B.- if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is > it? If you believe it is Regulus, do you think he is really dead or > in hiding (RE: Dumbledore's conversation with Draco). If in hiding, > why didn't Dumbledore already know that this locket was not the real > Horcrux? Why would he put himself through the whole experience in the > cave? Was it a setup? colebiancardi: Well, I am a HUGE Regulus fan and I wrote a very detailed theory back in July 2005 about Regulus and Snape & why Snape turned, etc, blah, blah. You can read it here(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135011 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/13511). I still stand by it I think RAB is Regulus, he is alive & in hiding. DD didn't know about the fake locket, because Regulus went mad after drinking the potion. Okay, that's my story and I am sticking by it. Unless, DD wanted this to be an exercise for Harry, to see the dangers first hand, to see if Harry could give someone up for the greater good(the force-feeding of the potion to DD), to hone him for what may lie ahead. I don't really like that theory, but there is a WAR going on and people take drastic actions to win. > > 11. Did you feel that Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands was subtle? > Or too obvious and expected? Was this in keeping with Rowling's normal > style of ending her books? colebiancardi: Sorry for the confusion with the word subtle ? I could not find the word I was looking for ? Snape's betrayal was clearly outlined within the second chapter and there was foreshadowing that something was very wrong with DD. Snape's "killing" of DD had no subtlety at all ? the blast, the throwing of DD off the tower ? not really Snape's style ? I've always thought of Snape being more secretive and would not be so "showy". As I believe Rowling when she states that book 6 & 7 are really one book, we are in the middle of this huge masterpiece and as with all of HP books, the one that Harry feels is the villain is not the villain at the end, and instead is really one of the good guys. > > 12. Finally, what do you think of this chapter thematically? Do you > feel this is the best chapter Rowling has written? > colebiancardi: I love this chapter ? I thought it was fantastic ? Snape & Harry yelling at each other defiantly, all the lies and duplicity that was in their relationship ? right out in the open finally a huge, bloody wound, instead the scab they had been picking at for the last 6 years. I was shocked when Snape issued the AK on DD. But I never did think he was anything but DDM!Snape ? even with that. colebiancardi(who really picked up those small details when writing the summary - some of those details I never noticed before, so this was great fun for me and I hope that I can grab a chapter in book 7 to discuss as well) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 01:03:21 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:03:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Secret 'All Along' Plan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163642 --- "Penny Brooks" wrote: > > ... I myself had been of the mind that Dumbledore: > > 1) was aware of LV's existence, and his plans to reemerge bboyminn: Not quite, Dumbledore thought that perhaps Voldemort was not entirely dead. That some how some way he still existed in some form, and was therefore likely at some time return to the wizard world. That is a lot of 'maybe's and with each passing year, I'm sure Dumbledore grew more confident in Voldemort's absents. > Penny: > 2) was aware of LV's thoughts about Harry, and the > danger against Harry bboyminn: Dumbledore assumed that is was likely that IF Voldemort ever returned he would likely still have a grudge against Harry, the cause of his downfall. That's still pretty IFFY, but none the less a likely assumption. > Penny: > 3) had some idea about the horcruxes, and has been > piecing together the evidence since COS > bboyminn: No problems here. Dumbledore gradually put the pieces together and arrived at the Horcrux conclusion. This was absolutely confirmed when he found a Horcrux of his own. > Penny: > ..., certain questions are emerging--... > > 1) Why would Dumbledore hire Lockhart? In COS, > Dumbledore's comments about him indicate he's fully > aware of Lockhart's incapabilities. ... > bboyminn: First, the DADA job has been in jeopardy for a long time. We pick up the story when Harry arrives and see, so far, six DADA teachers, each ending with his own bit of bad luck. However, you must remember that this curse on the DADA job has been going on for over 20 years. It has been curse from the time many many years ago when Voldemort himself applied for the job. So, they have gone through over 20 (estimate) DADA teachers, none has lasted more than a year, and all have ended is some type of bad luck or misfortune. So, it is very probably that there real was no one other that Lockhart who applied for the job. Certainly the wizard world is filled with people who are more than qualified to DO the job, but if they don't apply, if they don't want it, you really can't force them. I say the Dumbledore really is scraping the bottom of the barrle. In the year the Umbride was DADA professor she got the job because Dumbledore simply could not find ANY ONE to take the job. > Penny: > 2)Why did Dumbledore agree to hold and host the > Triwizard Tournament at Hogwarts? ... > bboyminn: Why? Because life goes on. You can't stop living because you thing some dark wizard who /might/ still be alive, and he /might/ still come back, and if he does he /might/ cause problems. It seems that Dumbledore and the others have been working on this project for years. The Tri-Wizard's Tournement has a long and respected history in the wizard world. In a sense, it is like the Wizard Olympics; or perhaps the European Games. Yes, Dumbledore has an obligation to Harry, but he also has an obligation to history and to the wizard world at large. Further, Dumbledore put in place certain protections that should have prevented Harry from being part of the tournement. Like I said, life goes on, and you take reasonable precautions but you don't stop living because something /might/ happen. > Penny: > I won't even go into the whole occlumency with Snape > fiasco--even Dumbledore admits it was a bad idea. > bboyminn: I think the Occlumency lessons were a large fiasco relative to the book they appeared in (OotP), but I think Harry is better at it than it seems, and I full expect those lessons to pay off at some point in the last book. Note: while I said Harry is better than he seems, he's still never going to be great at it. > Penny concludes: > So, I'm wondering: if Dumbledore knew all along about > LV's possible plans and the horcruxes, and such, then > either: > > 1) He's making a lot of inexplicable decisions > 2) He's purposefully trying to get Harry to LV > 3) He was using Harry as bait to draw LV out, where > the Order can get him. Didn't work, but now Harry is > old enough to handle things (maybe). > > There must be more ideas. Any thoughts, anyone? > > Penny Bee > bboyminn: Dumbledore has made his mistakes, but I think he as taken reasonable precausion based on what was known at the time. I don't agree with 1) or 2) above, and I can only give the slightest nod to item 3). Dumbledore knows that Harry and Voldemort's fate are intertwined and there is nothing he can do about that. Voldemort is calling the shots. Voldemort decides when, where, and if he will attack Harry. What can Dumbledore do about that? Lock Harry up in a cell to protect him? Even that is not safe, and it is certainly not a morally acceptable solution. So, once again, we are stuck with 'life goes on', and what will come will come and they have to deal with each event when it arrives. Though as Dumbledore gathers more knowledge, he is more able to find ways of ultimately defeating Voldemort. Many of the tragic events that have happened to Harry, are the very events that gave Dumbledore the clues he needed. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From chnc1024 at bellsouth.net Wed Jan 10 01:29:05 2007 From: chnc1024 at bellsouth.net (Chancie) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 19:29:05 -0600 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! Message-ID: <004701c73456$b7dc2c00$0201a8c0@your4dacd0ea75> No: HPFGUIDX 163643 Chancie: I read this quote that was written in the "Dumbledore's secret plan all along" Thread and it mad me think... **************************************************************** bboyminn: First, the DADA job has been in jeopardy for a long time. We pick up the story when Harry arrives and see, so far, six DADA teachers, each ending with his own bit of bad luck. However, you must remember that this curse on the DADA job has been going on for over 20 years. It has been curse from the time many many years ago when Voldemort himself applied for the job. So, they have gone through over 20 (estimate) DADA teachers, none has lasted more than a year, and all have ended is some type of bad luck or misfortune. ************************************************************ Chancie: Jk has bombarded us with the "DADA teacher position is cursed" thing from the first book. Could she have meant this as a clue? I think we all find it hard to believe that Dumbledore would actually beg for his life. So maybe it's true that Dumbledore was begging to be killed and that is Snape's punishment from the curse. What I mean by that is if Snapes true goal was to kill Dumbledore, wouldn't that have gone against the curse? He would have gotten what he wanted-that's not a curse that's a blessing! Does that along with the other circumstantial evidence PROVE that Snape is DDM? Does that make any since or have the past few months of no sleep finally made me loose my mind? Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 10 01:47:20 2007 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:47:20 -0000 Subject: Snape and Lilly In-Reply-To: <2795713f0701091504g44e1e3c7nf29b39bcda2b7002@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > Irishshedevil: > > I got the feeling that perhaps he felt something for her during the > flash backs Harry had about his parents school days. After all Lily > did defend Snape when no one else would even against James himself. > Also perhaps he had more then one motivating factor in saving Harry > in the first book and other times when he has protected him. I think > Lily had more then a little to do with it. What do you guys think? > > Lynda: > > And was called a mudblood for her efforts! I've never gotten the feeling, > from the texts that there was any sort of schoolboy/girl crush from either > Snape or Lily, but I know that some people think there was. > > Lynda > > I can speak from experience (and now utter embarrassment) that schoolboys sometimes say and do inappropriately horrible things even about and/or to girls they are attracted to. Especially if they are on the defensive anyway. I remember punching a girl I liked in the shoulder over something and feeling terrible when saw the tear well up in her eye. We're not fully in command of our hormones or senses at that age unfortunately. Joe From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 02:01:50 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:01:50 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. General vs Specific In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163645 --- In /HPforGrownups/message/163614, "esmith222002" wrote > Brothergib replies; > I think the implication is that DD may have suggested that the > Potter's use the house in Godric's Hollow. Therefore he would > suspect that they are at GH, but wouldn't be able to find them if > he turned up there - without spending a considerable amount of time > trying to break through the magic (as he did in 'The Cave'). Mike: Yep, that works... to a degree. Clearly, DD knew the Potters had intended to use the "Fidelius". But ...but, don't you suspect that the "Fidelius" does more than just make the object invisible? What I mean is, if you only allow for invisibility, the "Fidelius" comes across as too limited and quite a bit short of potent for the ultimate hiding charm. Besides, what about other types of secrets that don't involve hiding something or someone? For example, what if your secret is: 'I know where all of Voldemort's Horcruxes are hidden'? Couldn't you hide that knowledge inside a secret keeper so that no-one could extract that knowledge from you? I suspect that the "Fidelius" not only protects the secret, it also disavows anyone of knowledge associated with the reason for the "Fidelius" along with some kind of protection for the secret keeper. That is IF this complex spell is cast *correctly*, which I also suspect it wasn't in the case of the Potters. JMO. > Brothergib - (who is a Cowboys supporter, and is convinced that > dark (magic?) forces conspired against them this week! Mike: Now I get your yahoo ID, Emmett --- In HPforGrownups/message/163624, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > But the problem is, we have two different kinds of Secrets. One is > the location of the Potters (people), the other is the location of > the Order HQ (a building). So in the first case, while the charm is > in effect, the Potters' house can be seen but the Potters > themselves are invisible as long as they're in that house. > > > But in the second case, the house *is* the Order HQ; therefore, the > location itself must be hidden. Mike: :: smacks himself in forehead:: This is the way I wrote it up in the pamphlet. I shouldda remembered! I confused myself by rereading the note. Thanks for setting me straight, Carol. > Carol cont: > It will be interesting to see how this relates to the Dursleys, who > were rather indirectly informed of the Secret (without understanding > it) by the SK himself in HBP. Will they see the house, or will any > anti-Muggle charms placed by Orion Black still be in place? And are > owls, not being magical "beings," exempt from Fidelius Charms? Mike: I *do* hope JKR goes there. This might be the only comic relief we get in the whole book. > Carol, who wonders if Dumbledore made the building itself the Secret > in the case of the Order because hiding the Potters rather than > their house was such a spectacular failure Mike, who rather expects the Potter's problem was a combination of errors as well as a poor choice of SK. Is it possible PP will be exonerated for his part? .... not a chance! From cdayr at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 02:27:52 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:27:52 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: <004701c73456$b7dc2c00$0201a8c0@your4dacd0ea75> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163646 > Chancie: > > Jk has bombarded us with the "DADA teacher > position is cursed" thing from the first book. Could > she have meant this as a clue? I think we all find it > hard to believe that Dumbledore would actually > beg for his life. So maybe it's true that Dumbledore > was begging to be killed and that is Snape's punishment > from the curse. What I mean by that is if Snapes true > goal was to kill Dumbledore, wouldn't that have gone > against the curse? He would have gotten what he > wanted-that's not a curse that's a blessing! Does > that along with the other circumstantial evidence > PROVE that Snape is DDM? > > Does that make any since or have the past few months > of no sleep finally made me loose my mind? > CDR: You make sense to me! I remember the horrid feeling in the pit of my stomach that I got when I read that Snape would finally get the DADA position in HBP. I felt slapped. It was an ominous sign for Snape. This was based on the, as you say, bombardment from JKR that no good ever comes to the DADA teacher, and the knowledge that Snape was going to have to leave Hogwarts by the end of the book. (Of course, DD knows this as well, and I can only assume Snape must also have known. Either DD told him, or 15 years is long enough to see a pattern. Can anyone point me to a thread/threads concerning why Snape would accept this obviously cursed position? Or any ideas? To me it leads right back to a "big plan" with DD, but I'd love other ideas.) The issue brought up for me by your post is: What is the goal of the DADA curse? I'm sure this has been brought up before, but here is my view. Two choices: 1. The curse just makes sure whoever is in the job is gone by the end of the year through whatever means necessary. 2. The curse actively turns against the person in the position, not only making them lose their job, but making them miserable, harming them. IMO, there is quite a bit of evidence to point to choice #2 as the more possible action of the curse. The oft-cited list of past DADA teachers is the main evidence: Quirrell- dead, Lockhart- mad, Lupin- jobless, penniless, laws passed against him, Moody- 9 months in trunk, Umbridge- disturbing interlude with the centaurs. I have to say, though, the effect of the curse in these five people is not equal. Certainly Quirrell got the worst of it, and really in the end, Moody is basically the same now as he was before. So is Umbridge. How can these differences be explained? If choice #2 is the effect of the curse, then Snape killing DD would have to be an action which is repelent to him or otherwise traumatizes him. He has to leave the school in bad shape, harmed in some way. On the flip side, there are many other cursed DADA teachers that we know nothing about. Perhaps some of them just got better job offers or won the lottery or needed to care for a sick uncle in Canada. For all we know, the curse is fine with the person being happy, as long as they LEAVE (choice #1). I say that, and it is possible, but I don't believe it at all. I think Voldemort would have cast a curse that stings. And for Snape to be stung as he leaves the job, he would have to be DDM. SO basically, I totally agree with you. One small opinion from, CDR (still working on the New Year's Resolution to be brave and post) From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 10 02:44:05 2007 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:44:05 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: <700201d40701090749i3d4d8b25pcdebe96681516476@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > In the Chapter discussion, colebiancardi synopsized: > > Snape drops the big truth on Harry - he tells Harry that he, Snape, is > the Half-Blood Prince. Harry tells Snape to kill him like he killed > Dumbledore and again he calls Snape a coward. Snape yells at Harry, > his face looking inhuman, "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" > > I, Kemper, wondered in one of my answers, what does Snape consider to > be cowardice? Even though some have suggested that he loses his cool > hear because of some Marauder issues, I'm having difficulty buying it. > > Kemper I remember how Snape in OOP teased Sirius mercilessly insinuating that he, Sirius, was a coward because the other members of the Order, including Snape himself, were out risking their lives while Sirius was safe inside the mansion. This angered Sirius who was more eager to go to the MoM when Harry met the DEs there. Psychologists say that people project their own feelings on others and I believe that Snape was hypersensitive about being thought a coward all along. This due in part to his role as a double agent. Having just killed DD (and I believe following DD's orders in doing that) his fear of being seen a coward was even more pronounced. Joe From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 10 03:28:24 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:28:24 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: <700201d40701090749i3d4d8b25pcdebe96681516476@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163648 Kemper wrote: > In the Chapter discussion, colebiancardi synopsized: > > Snape drops the big truth on Harry - he tells Harry that he, Snape, is > the Half-Blood Prince. Harry tells Snape to kill him like he killed > Dumbledore and again he calls Snape a coward. Snape yells at Harry, > his face looking inhuman, "DON'T CALL ME COWARD!" > > I, Kemper, wondered in one of my answers, what does Snape consider to > be cowardice? Even though some have suggested that he loses his cool > hear because of some Marauder issues, I'm having difficulty buying it. > > What would Snape consider cowardice acts during the events in the > Lighting Struck Tower or the Flight of the Prince? > > Kemper, who realizes his question in the Discussion may have been > overlooked... or probably more accurately, underread > Potioncat: I suddenly saw the events on the Tower as Harry (and probably Alla) saw them. It's really hard for those of us who have been at this awhile to separate Alphabet!Snape from Snape. (I love Alphabet!Snape...I should go back and see who came up with it.) Now, Harry has his own filter, different from Draco, different from the readers. But to Harry, Snape shows up, sees a helpless, injured, wandless old man and AKs him. Oh, yeah, real brave, wasn't it? If that is real!Snape, then he's protesting at something that is true. However, some version of DDM!Snape who has made a difficult decision, with or without any planning, has done something very horrible and very brave. If he knows he's brave, and he shouldn't expect Harry to understand, then why the reaction? Someone else has just pointed out that Snape taunted Sirius with cowardice. So it is an issue between them, isn't it? And between Snape and the other Marauders? Now, I have to dig deep for a long running debate between me, Carol(I think) and one of our Australian members. All I can remember is the name started with a V and I'd recognise them at once.....(showing my age) So, the point is, the debate had to do with the name Snivellus. While Carol and I maintained that the Marauders could have discovered a young Severus crying,(snivelling) and gave him the name, the other point of view was that snivelling itself denotes lack of character, as in "snivelling coward." So, to Kemper's question, I think Harry's use of the spell recalled to Snape's mind James, and the accusation of 'coward' hit an unhealed wound and he reacted as he did. I think Snivellus has to do with some event that the Marauders identified as cowardly. Whether Snape thought it was or not is a different matter, the charge is still powerful. At least, that's my theory. I know it comes right back to the Marauders, but I think it must, given how the dialogue between Harry and Snape plays out. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 10 03:31:22 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:31:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Secret 'All Along' Plan? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45A45E0A.4010404@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163649 Penny Brooks wrote: > There must be more ideas. Any thoughts, anyone? Dumbledore is working for the ultimate good, rather than the immediate good. He was willing to use Harry as a pawn, albeit a well-protected one, until he made the mistake of getting emotionally involved. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 04:02:49 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:02:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Secret 'All Along' Plan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163650 > >>Penny Bee: > > I myself had been of the mind that Dumbledore: > 1) was aware of LV's existence, and his plans to reemerge Betsy Hp: I totally agree that Dumbledore knew Voldemort wasn't *completely* dead yet. We have Hagrid quoting Dumbldore in PS/SS regarding Voldemort not being dead, and Dumbledore obviously went through a lot of trouble to make Harry as untouchable as wizardly possible while a vulnerable child. Also, Dumbledore knew the full prophecy, and it hadn't been fulfilled after that first attack. Only part one, the marking, had occured. So, while I don't think Dumbledore had any definite ideas (probably a lot of theories) about *how* Voldemort would emerge, I'm quite sure Dumbledore did his best to prepare for it happening. > >>Penny Bee: > 2) was aware of LV's thoughts about Harry, and the danger against > Harry Betsy Hp: Again, Dumbledore knew the prophecy, knew Voldemort knew part of the prophecy, so he'd know that Harry'd be Voldemort's number one target. (Gosh, even without the prophecy I don't think Voldemort would be capable of ignoring the "one that got away".) > >>Penny Bee: > 3) had some idea about the horcruxes, and has been piecing > together the evidence since COS Betsy Hp: I don't think Dumbledore was sure about (or possibly even leaning towards) horcruxes until the end of CoS. I'd be surprised if a horcrux wasn't one of the many theories Dumbledore was tossing around in his mind, but it's not until he saw the destroyed diary that he realized this was the method. I think it's after he gets the diary that he starts his horcrux hunt. (Isn't there a quote in HBP saying just this? I should probably grab my books, but I'm too darned lazy at the moment... ) > >>Penny Bee; > 1) Why would Dumbledore hire Lockhart? > > If you suspect that the most dangerous wizard has a gripe with one > of your students (a student you're fond of, as well), why would you > hire an incompetent to teach him (and the other students) how to > defend himself? Betsy Hp: Easy answer is, I think Dumbledore *was* that desperate. The WW isn't that big, so I'm sure Quirrell's death wasn't all that much of a secret. Added on to a job that's been rumored cursed, I can see the wiser DADA types among the WW steering clear. More difficult answer: I'm not sure Dumbledore really thought along the lines of Harry ever *dueling* Voldemort. I mean, he's never really emphasized Harry improving his WW martial skills. Which of course leads to the question, why not? > 2) Why did Dumbledore agree to hold and host the Triwizard > Tournament at Hogwarts? > Betsy Hp: I was always under the impression that Dumbledore was the one who raised the idea of doing the Tournament for the purpose of uniting the various members of the European WW against Voldemort. (Isn't there a quote where Dumbledore says something just like that in GoF... still too lazy.) It was a calculated risk, I suppose. And a real Moody was supposed to be a helping hand, I think. It's just unfortunate that he's the one who got taken. > >>Penny Bee: > I won't even go into the whole occlumency with Snape fiasco--even > Dumbledore admits it was a bad idea. > Betsy Hp: Hind sight? Yeah it was. Going into it? Dumbledore did ask one of his better teachers, one of his more trusted Order members, and one of the better practitioners of Occlumency to teach Harry a rather arcane art. Dumbledore underestimated the animosity Harry and Snape had for each other. (It wouldn't surprise me if he thought throwing Snape and Harry together might not help end that animosity. Kind of like putting two fighting kids in detention together.) But since Dumbledore doesn't seem to get that passionate himself about those he dislikes (not even Voldemort raises Dubmledore's ire) I think it's hard for him to put himself in either Snape's or Harry's shoes on this issue. > >>Penny Bee: > So, I'm wondering: if Dumbledore knew all along about LV's > possible plans and the horcruxes, and such, then either: > 1) He's making a lot of inexplicable decisions Betsy Hp: Eh, if you take Dumbledore as slightly wiser than the average wizard, but not of Gandalf, or even Yoda standards (which the books supports, I think) than his decisions, for the most part, make a certain amount of sense. You just have to take into consideration that Dumbledore doesn't really know everything about what's going on. I think he's often making it up on the fly, personally. > >>Penny Bee: > 2) He's purposefully trying to get Harry to LV > Betsy Hp: Actually, I think one of Dumbledore's biggest weaknesses is he's overprotective of Harry. He tries to keep Harry off the playing field and tucked into "normal school boy" mode. I believe Dumbledore says as much at the end of OotP. [My one issue with this way of looking at Dumbledore is PS/SS. I have a way of looking at that particular book so Dumbledore's character makes sense, but it's unfortunately unsupported in future books -- except in the sense that Dumbledore remains a consistent character... Which makes me sad, I'll admit.] > >>Penny Bee: > 3) He was using Harry as bait to draw LV out, where the Order can > get him. Didn't work, but now Harry is old enough to handle things > (maybe). Betsy Hp: Nah... I can't buy this one either. Not unless Dumbledore is supposed to turn out evil in the end (which I sooo don't see happening). For one, Dumbledore isn't setting the Order up to take on Voldemort; none of them know about the horcruxes. For another Dumbledore does his best to keep Harry *away* from Voldemort (except for PS/SS, which again is a problem). Until HBP of course, when Dumbledore finally decides it's time for Harry to step onto the field. > >>Penny Bee: > There must be more ideas. Any thoughts, anyone? Betsy Hp: For me the key to Dumbledore is this: he's never been the "bearded guy" before. He's been the hero, and he did a great job at it and still has his fans. But this thing with Harry is brand new for him. And, as per Dumbledore himself, he found himself *not* wanting Harry to take on the role of hero. Dumbledore wanted to keep Harry as a school boy, no matter what Voldemort wanted. So I do think Dumbledore is making a lot of this up while he goes along. I think most of the twists in the various books take him by complete surprise. So mistakes were made. Of course they were made. Dumbledore managed to keep things from falling into complete disaster because he's pretty smart, but he's had to scramble like a mad man to do so. IMO, anyway. (PS/SS remains a problem. And that bugs me. It really, really does. Betsy Hp (posting this waay too late so it probably makes no sense, but I've worked on this on and off all night, gosh darn it, so I'm posting it...) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 04:05:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:05:07 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163651 > Potioncat: > I suddenly saw the events on the Tower as Harry (and probably Alla) saw > them. It's really hard for those of us who have been at this awhile to > separate Alphabet!Snape from Snape. (I love Alphabet!Snape...I should > go back and see who came up with it.) > > Now, Harry has his own filter, different from Draco, different from the > readers. But to Harry, Snape shows up, sees a helpless, injured, > wandless old man and AKs him. Oh, yeah, real brave, wasn't it? If that > is real!Snape, then he's protesting at something that is true. Alla: Yep, Potioncat, that is one of many things that I love about you - that while being a Snape fan, you can still put yourself in Harry shoes. Harry just had what probably was one of the most horrifying experiences of his life. Feeding that potion to Dumbledore, trying desperately to save him, being unable to and here we go Snape shows and finishes the job, fast. Yes, Potioncat again to what you said - that is real brave for me - **not**. Potioncat: > So, to Kemper's question, I think Harry's use of the spell recalled to > Snape's mind James, and the accusation of 'coward' hit an unhealed > wound and he reacted as he did. I think Snivellus has to do with some > event that the Marauders identified as cowardly. Whether Snape thought > it was or not is a different matter, the charge is still powerful. > Alla: Yeah, Okay, so hopefully this paragraph will save this post from making it to be complete **me too*, even though I also agree with general idea of it. I absolutely think that accusations of cowardice that hit Snape the most was something connected to Marauders. Not because I believe that Snape did the **brave** thing on the Tower, of course not. You describe very nicely what I believe Snape did. BUT if Snape is ESE, why would he care that Harry calls him a coward, since if he made this decision, he made it conscientously, etc. If he is DD!M, again, why would he care about Harry's name calling, since supposedly they cooked this plan with Dumbledore and Snape should be well prepared himself to hear accusations worse than that? I happen to believe that it was somehow connected to Lily, that Snape dearest acted as a real coward to her at one point in his life, and may still regret it. I like the speculation that Snape was too cowardly to pursue Lily openly since as half blood, who wanted to be accepted by purebloods, he would not dare to show the world his affections for muggleborn witch, but it can be anything. Alla, who cries for Dumbledore and Harry every time she rereads the Tower, and who does not spare anything but disgust for Dumbledore's murderer. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jan 10 03:30:44 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:30:44 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163652 Chancie wrote: Jk has bombarded us with the "DADA teacher position is cursed" thing from the first book. Could she have meant this as a clue? I think we all find it hard to believe that Dumbledore would actually beg for his life. So maybe it's true that Dumbledore was begging to be killed and that is Snape's punishment from the curse. What I mean by that is if Snapes true goal was to kill Dumbledore, wouldn't that have gone against the curse? He would have gotten what he wanted-that's not a curse that's a blessing! Does that along with the other circumstantial evidence PROVE that Snape is DDM? Does that make any sense or have the past few months of no sleep finally made me loose my mind? CDR wrote: You make sense to me! ( Snip) CDR continues: The issue brought up for me by your post is: What is the goal of the DADA curse? I'm sure this has been brought up before, but here is my view. Two choices: 1. The curse just makes sure whoever is in the job is gone by the end of the year through whatever means necessary. 2. The curse actively turns against the person in the position, not only making them lose their job, but making them miserable, harming them. IMO, there is quite a bit of evidence to point to choice #2 as the more possible action of the curse. (Snip) Anne Squires now: I think Chancie and CDR are both correct. I would also like to add that ESE!Lupin did not succeed in his goal of killing Peter Pettigrew which, as I understand the theory, is what he truly wanted to do in the Shack. Also, I think we can count Couch Jr. because although he didn't officially hold the DADA position he did conduct classes for an entire year. He was the defacto DADA instructor fourth year. A couple of his goals were not accomplished: 1. Harry was NOT murdered by LV. and 2. Lucius Malfoy and other DEs whom Crouch JR. considered less loyal were not punished. Of course in the end he was kissed by a Dementor. CDR says that Umbridge is basically the same as she was before she held the DADA position. I really don't think this is true because I think she was raped by the Centaurs in the forest. Regardless of how she might appear to be holding up at DD's funeral, I am certain that this experience has deeply affected her. I would bet that she feels that her life is cursed. Anne Squires (who had to go back to work this week and wonders if there are any jobs out there that pay people to read and discuss HP.) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Jan 10 11:42:52 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:42:52 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Brothergib wrote: > > > Hagrid was at Godric's Hollow soon after LV attacked - FACT! > > How did he get there? Portkey - very, very unlikely IMO. Apparition > - I think canon evidence suggests that Hagrid would not possess those > > skills. Side-along apparition - i.e. DD takes Hagrid with him to GH. > > > > But why would DD go to GH? If he had information that an attack was > imminent, then I'm sure he would have prepared a defence. If DD was > ignorant to LV's plan, then someone had to inform DD that LV had > attacked GH. An obvious candidate would be someone who a) was trusted > by LV or b) could at least track his movements. Obvious candidate - > Severus Snape. > > > > Therefore Hagrid trusts Snape because he had seen direct proof of > his allegiance at GH that night. > > Carol responds: > > I agree that Hagrid probably knows something about Snape relating to > the night of Godric's Hollow, and I like your suggestion of side- along > Apparition (helping Hagrid get to GH), but why not Snape rather than > DD as Hagrid's escort? > > I don't see how Snape, who was teaching at Hogwarts and did not know > the Secret, could have been at GH or why he would be there since his > supposed DE task was to spy on Dumbledore, not hang around with > Voldemort. I think that Snape had no clue that the Potters had been > betrayed until he felt a pain in his Dark Mark and then watched it > fade, which could only mean that Voldemort had been attacked and > defeated. I think that snape ran up seven or eight flights of stairs > to see Dumbledore, who had been alerted to the broken Fidelius Charm > (see my previous posts), perhaps by a nightmare, perhaps by the sudden > realization that he knew where the Potters were and a sense that they > were in peril. Brothergib replies: I like the theory about Snape. The one thing I couldn't resolve was this - If Voldemort's wand was retrieved by PP after his demise, then surely Snape would have seen this (although I am still not completely convinced that this wasn't an oversight by JKR). A fading Dark Mark is certainly a good way to bring Snape into the scenario. However, I am firmly in the camp that believes that the Fidelius wasn't broken. PP told Voldemort (which was perfectly within his rights as SK) and it was Voldemort who then attacked the Potters - therefore the charm should still be in place. Therefore, in your scenario, Snape would be the one who told DD that something bad has happened to LV. DD's knowledge of the prophecy would suggest that Harry was to blame, and that would lead DD to Godric's Hollow (since he had offered the house to the Potter's, he would suspect that they were there, even if he hadn't been told directly by PP). Carol again: I suppose > that Snape could have Apparated with Hagrid to GH and then returned to > Hogwarts immediately to consult with Dumbledore about Harry's future > and how to protect him. He certainly was not with Hagrid when Sirius > Black arrived. I would not be surprised if Snape examined the baby > after Hagrid's return in front of both Hagrid and Dumbledore to make > sure that he wasn't possessed or cursed before DD placed the > protective spell on him, extending Lily's love protection, and > returned Harry to Hagrid's care. DD would then probably have had to > deal with the MoM and maybe give a statement regarding Sirius Black as > SK--hence, "No trouble, was there?" when he finds out where Hagrid got > the motorcycle. > Brothergib again: I'm not sure I totally follow this. I think you are saying that Snape & Hagrid went to GH to get Harry. Snape returned to Hogwarts. Hagrid meets up with Sirius and gets the motorcycle. Hagrid flies to Hogwarts and meets up with Snape and DD. DD leaves and they meet up at Privet Drive later. For me DD's comment 'No trouble, was there?' suggests that this was the first time he had met up with Hagrid since Hagrid had been entrusted with Harry. An alternative scenario (following on from your theory); Snape informs DD about the fading Dark Mark. DD and Snape apparate to GH. They find a destroyed house but no Potter's. However, DD can detect traces of magical concealment (a la 'The Cave) and sets about breaking down the 'Fidelius Charm'. Once he was successful, he sends Snape to fetch Hagrid (side-along apparition). It is Hagrid who picks baby Harry up from the rubble! Perhaps they all check him over at this point. I would imagine that DD would send Snape to the other DEs to see if he could ascertain what had happened. DD had many things he would have needed to do, but he insisted that Hagrid alone cared for the baby and would bring him to DD when requested - lets face it, who could have forcibly taken Harry off Hagrid. DD and Snape leave and Hagrid is left to make his own way home with Harry. He then meets up with Sirius and ends up with the bike. Brothergib (who likes this theory, but still isn't totally convinced that Snape didn't play some part in the events at GH) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Jan 10 12:18:19 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:18:19 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163654 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla wrote: > > > BUT > if Snape is ESE, why would he care that Harry calls him a coward, > since if he made this decision, he made it conscientously, etc. If > he is DD!M, again, why would he care about Harry's name calling, > since supposedly they cooked this plan with Dumbledore and Snape > should be well prepared himself to hear accusations worse than that? > I happen to believe that it was somehow connected to Lily, that > Snape dearest acted as a real coward to her at one point in his > life, and may still regret it. > > I like the speculation that Snape was too cowardly to pursue Lily > openly since as half blood, who wanted to be accepted by purebloods, > he would not dare to show the world his affections for muggleborn > witch, but it can be anything. > > Alla, who cries for Dumbledore and Harry every time she rereads the > Tower, and who does not spare anything but disgust for Dumbledore's > murderer. > Brothergib responds: >From the point of view of DDM Snape. DD is very, very ill due to the ring curse (enough canon to support this IMO. Snape & DD argue about using DD's inevitable death to help defeat LV. DD reminds him of his promise! On the Tower, DD pleads with Snape to keep his promise, and against his better judgement Snape agrees. Snape's confrontation with Harry. The initial verbal conflict (and Harry's first use of 'coward') seems centered on James & the Marauders. A topic that frequently causes Snape to be unpleasant, but rarely forces him to lose his cool. When Harry associates cowardice with DD's murder, Snape flips. So let us consider DDM Snape's mindset at this point. Snape has just been forced to murder the one person who he seemed to have any respect for. Why did he have to do it? To facilitate a final confrontation between LV and Harry Potter - a boy who DD thinks is the key to LV's demise, but who, in Snape's eyes can't even manage a non-verbal spell and is the son of a hated enemy. And that same boy (the very reason he has been forced to murder DD) is now calling him a coward. Yes I think that might force him to get very angry. Brothergib From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Wed Jan 10 11:25:59 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:25:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: <700201d40701072303p6d6018c0ja6dfbecfe71efdcc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <673616.1785.qm@web8408.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163655 hi May be it was discussed earlier, I am not aware of it so no offence. I was thinking and got confused how it all got started, that Potters realised that Tom Riddle is behind their son. Prophecy was something ' he will mark other to his equal' but why he chosen Potters' son. Also how DD and others so convinced that it is going to be HP whom Tom is going to mark and which led to all this FC, SK etc, and how Tom decided about Potters's son. aki From irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 05:46:18 2007 From: irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com (irishshedevil333) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:46:18 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Houses: Unite! (was:Re: The Power of Harry ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163656 > Betsy Hp: > I do suspect that the ancient rift between the Houses will need to > be delt with. Otherwise the Sorting Hat's song in OotP will remain a > gun that never goes off (IMO). But I suspect that it's going to take > Harry's generation to heal the rift; that Harry will need to work > with a symbolic representative of each House in order to defeat > Voldemort; and that the House breakdown will occur thusly irishshedevil: I have to agree that the houses must unite in order to defete LV but what about the teachers themselves? Since they do represent the houses. (Mcg for griffendoor, Snape for slitherin,) It may be that the teachers may play a lager role in the seventh book. From violet_verdi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 12:48:56 2007 From: violet_verdi at yahoo.com (:::: Violet ::::) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:48:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape and Lilly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <990763.42954.qm@web59107.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163657 Lynda says: <> Violet now: One thing you must keep in mind is that Snape was a Slytherin and therefore socialized with purebloods. Also, he was desperately trying to fit in the pureblood stereotype. A relationship with a muggleborn, even a simple crush, the smallest amount of feelings towards a muggleborn would make him a target for everyone he socialized with. So, obviously he couldn?t show his feelings in public and what a better way to hide your feelings than attacking the person you like/love? School days were horrible to Snape?s love life. If you accept that he liked/loved Lily Evans, he not only had to hide that fact but also had to watch James Potter, the one boy he hated more than anything in the world (and I do believe it was mostly jealousy of James? coolness about being himself that began their enmity), was doing everything he could to go out with her. So, I agree with Joe when he said: << (...) that schoolboys sometimes say and do inappropriately horrible things even about and/or to girls they are attracted to. Especially if they are on the defensive anyway.>> ~*~ Violet ~*~ "Who knows, maybe a lightening can strike." --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 10 15:31:59 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:31:59 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: <673616.1785.qm@web8408.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163658 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Akash aki wrote: > > hi > May be it was discussed earlier, I am not aware of it so no offence. > I was thinking and got confused how it all got started, that Potters realised that Tom Riddle is behind their son. Prophecy was something ' he will mark other to his equal' but why he chosen Potters' son. > Also how DD and others so convinced that it is going to be HP whom Tom is going to mark and which led to all this FC, SK etc, and how Tom decided about Potters's son. Geoff: I think there is a fairly clear explanation of some of your questions in the books themselves. If you read the last few pages of "The Lost Prophecy" - chapter 37 of OOTP - which is about pages 740-744 UK edition, Dumbledore tries to show Harry how Voldemort's thoughts had been moving. It's just after he explained why he had not told Harry everything and then there is the exchange: 'Harry waited but Dumbledore did not speak. "I still don't understand." "Voldemort tried to kill you when you were a child because of a prophecy made shortly before your birth..." Hope this will help. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 16:20:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:20:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Secret 'All Along' Plan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163659 Penny Brooks wrote: > > > > ... I myself had been of the mind that Dumbledore: > > > > 1) was aware of LV's existence, and his plans to reemerge > > bboyminn: > > Not quite, Dumbledore thought that perhaps Voldemort was > not entirely dead. That some how some way he still existed > in some form, and was therefore likely at some time return > to the wizard world. > > That is a lot of 'maybe's and with each passing year, I'm > sure Dumbledore grew more confident in Voldemort's absents. Carol responds: I agree with Steve (bboyminn). Dumbledore suspected from the first that Voldemort wasn't dead. As Hagrid puts it, "He didn't have enough human left in him to die." (Quoted from memory so it may be slightly off.) Dumbledore saw Voldemort in, I think, the late 1950s, and even if he didn't suspect a Horcrux or multiple Horcruxes, then, he suspected "multiple transformations"--LV was doing something unnatural to prevent his death. He also knew that Voldemort feared death above all else and had done so since he learned about his mother's death (reasoning that she must have been a Muggle or she wouldn't have died). And DD was also aware of the entire Prophecy ("he will mark him as his equal," etc.) Parts of the Prophecy hadn't come to pass yet. Baby Harry hadn't done anything to show himself as LV's equal nor had he shown "power the Dark Lord knows not. (It was Lily's sacrifice, not anything Harry himself did, that vaporized Voldemort.) So Dumbledore didn't *know* that LV wasn't dead (unless Snape's Dark Mark had faded to a trace but not disappeared entirely), but he had some strong suspicions. (It seems odd to me that he dismisses the Prophecy almost contemptuously in HBP since he seems to understand that Voldemort activated or validated it by trying to prevent it and that, obscure and slippery as the wording is, allowing either LV or Harry to be the victor, it nevertheless is true and Harry *is* the Chosen One.) Under the circumstances, he would wait and watch and prepare, and I'm sure that from the outset, his plans and preparations included Severus Snape. > > > Penny: > > 2) was aware of LV's thoughts about Harry, and the danger against Harry > > bboyminn: > > Dumbledore assumed that is was likely that IF Voldemort > ever returned he would likely still have a grudge against > Harry, the cause of his downfall. That's still pretty > IFFY, but none the less a likely assumption. Carol: Again, I agree with Steve. Dumbledore doesn't have a mind link to Voldemort and can't read his thoughts, but he knows him well. He also knows the entire Prophecy. If Voldemort is not dead, Harry is in danger. Voldie tried to kill him once to thwart the Prophecy. He will keep trying till Harry is dead or he himself is destroyed. That's a given. > > > Penny: > > 3) had some idea about the horcruxes, and has been piecing together the evidence since COS > > > > bboyminn: > > No problems here. Dumbledore gradually put the pieces > together and arrived at the Horcrux conclusion. This > was absolutely confirmed when he found a Horcrux of > his own. Carol: I think he suspected Horcruxes, or a single Horcrux, long before CoS. I suspect that Grindelwald, whom DD defeated in 1945--exactly the time that Tom Riddle would be leaving Hogwarts--had a Horcrux that DD destroyed. (He indicates to Harry that both he and Voldemort know of at least one wizard who had one.) Voldemort's altered appearance in the DADA interview, especially the red eyes, would arouse DD's suspicions othat Voldemort had made one or more Horcruxes. The diary confirms those suspicions, but its destruction should have prevented his return to "human" form if it were the only one. It didn't, so DD knew there must be more--how many, he didn't yet know. So I think that DD must have begun his research into various people's memories and Voldemort's history to find out as much as he could about the Horcruxes even before he knew that the diary existed. Caractacus Burke, Morfin Gaunt, Bob Ogden, and the house-elf Hokey had all died years before CoS. He could not have obtained those memories after finding out or figuring out that the diary was a Horcrux. (BTW, I think he shared his suspicions with a certain Dark Arts expert on his staff, who confirmed them through his own knowledge and research.) > > > Penny: > > 1) Why would Dumbledore hire Lockhart? In COS, Dumbledore's comments about him indicate he's fully aware of Lockhart's incapabilities. ... > > > bboyminn: > > First, the DADA job has been in jeopardy for a long time. > We pick up the story when Harry arrives and see, so far, > six DADA teachers, each ending with his own bit of bad > luck. > > However, you must remember that this curse on the DADA > job has been going on for over 20 years. It has been > curse from the time many many years ago when Voldemort > himself applied for the job. So, they have gone through > over 20 (estimate) DADA teachers, none has lasted more > than a year, and all have ended is some type of bad luck > or misfortune. > > So, it is very probably that there real was no one other > that Lockhart who applied for the job. Certainly the > wizard world is filled with people who are more than > qualified to DO the job, but if they don't apply, if > they don't want it, you really can't force them. > > I say the Dumbledore really is scraping the bottom of > the barrle. In the year the Umbride was DADA professor > she got the job because Dumbledore simply could not > find ANY ONE to take the job. Carol responds: I'm not sure that the WW is "filled with people who are more than qualified to do the job," especially since many of those people would have died in VW1, and anyone who took DADA at Hogwarts after the curse was placed on it would have had a string of increasingly incompetent professors for the class. (I'm betting that Severus Snape, with his detailed answers to the DADA OWL questions, did a lot of reading on his own in both DADA and Potions in addition to practical research in the form of developing his own spells and potions improvements.) So the pool of qualified teachers was limited to begin with and became more so as each of those twenty or so teachers lost his job (or life or limb or mind--we don't know what happened to them, but if the fates of the teachers we see in the HP books is any indication, it wasn't pretty). What few qualified teachers were left would hesitate to apply because the position was clearly jinxed (or worse). But DD needed a DADA teacher every year because the students needed to pass their OWLs (not much hope for the NEWTs unless the student was self-motivated and talented). At the least, they could read the books and practice on their own, DADA being a favorite class of most students (except in Umbridge's year). He was probably relieved that Quirrell only asked for a leave of absence after his first year of teaching DADA, which meant that DD wouldn't have to search for a teacher for Harry's first year. As for Lockhart, he was eager for the job and *seemed* to have exceptional qualifications. Maybe the books really contained practical advice on banishing Banshees and vanquishing Vampires. Once DD had hired him and recognized his incompetence (as Snape and the other teachers did, too), he could only hope for the best. He soon had other things to worry about--the Chamber of Secrets being opened and its monster loose. Fortunately, he had an Herbology teacher who could grow Mandrakes and a Potions master who could prepare the Mandrake Restorative Potion. (I think, BTW, that both DD and Snape knew that the monster was a Basilisk, hence Snape's reaction when Harry speaks Parseltongue.) Lockhart's incompetence was of no consequence. I agree that by Harry's fifth year, DD was scraping the bottom of the barrel. No one applied for the job; he had no choice but to accept a Ministry teacher. True, he could have hired Snape, but, IMO, he was holding Snape in reserve. He wanted him with him on the staff; he could not afford to lose him to the DADA curse. But in Harry's sixth year, with Voldemort back in power, no longer focused on the Prophecy but actively killing people and wreaking havoc with giants and DEs and ordering a sixteen-year-old to kill him, DD had no choice but to hire Snape. The only obstacle was a replacement Potions master (and head of Slytherin after the DADA curse struck). The answer was Slughorn, whom he needed for another reason. Snape was available and highly qualified to teach students in dangering of facing everything from Inferi to Death Eaters. The only hitch was one they both must have known all along--at the end of the year, he would have to leave the staff and join the Death Eaters. > > > Penny: > > 2)Why did Dumbledore agree to hold and host the Triwizard Tournament at Hogwarts? ... > > > > bboyminn: > > Why? Because life goes on. You can't stop living > because you thing some dark wizard who /might/ still > be alive, and he /might/ still come back, and if he > does he /might/ cause problems. It seems that > Dumbledore and the others have been working on this > project for years. Further, Dumbledore put in place > certain protections that should have prevented Harry > from being part of the tournement. > > Like I said, life goes on, and you take reasonable > precautions but you don't stop living because > something /might/ happen. Carol responds: I would add that the TWT was part of DD's attempt to unify the (European) WW, rather like the Sorting Hat's attempt to unify the Houses. Voldemort had not yet returned, but it was clear by that time that he would do so. DD needed allies, or better still, friends, who would aid him and his staff and students in the war to come. And at least three students (seventeen-year-olds, he thought) would have extra preparation that only a TWT (its dangers reduced from old times) could provide. International Magical Cooperation was the stated goal, an alliance against Voldemort the unstated one. The age line was supposed to prevent Harry, or any other underage wizard, from entering or competing. And Moody as DADA teacher was supposed to keep an eye on Karkaroff just in case his loyalties still lay with the not-yet-restored Voldemort. (Snape, as always, would keep an eye on Harry.) No one, not even Dumbledore, could have anticipated the usurpation of Moody's position by an imposter, a supposedly dead Death Eater who would put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. > > > Penny: > > I won't even go into the whole occlumency with Snape fiasco--even Dumbledore admits it was a bad idea. > > > > bboyminn: > > I think the Occlumency lessons were a large fiasco relative > to the book they appeared in (OotP), but I think Harry is > better at it than it seems, and I full expect those lessons > to pay off at some point in the last book. Note: while I > said Harry is better than he seems, he's still never > going to be great at it. Carol responds: The only mistake, IMO, was not explaining to Harry why he had to learn it--and that he must stop having that dream. Snape was exceptionally patient (for Snape) with a resentful and uncooperative Harry and explained as much as he was allowed to explain. it was Harry himself, entering the Pensieve, who caused the lessons to end--a point that DD could hardly make when Harry was furious over the death of Sirius Black. > > > Penny concludes: > > So, I'm wondering: if Dumbledore knew all along about > > LV's possible plans and the horcruxes, and such, then > > either: > > > > 1) He's making a lot of inexplicable decisions > > 2) He's purposefully trying to get Harry to LV > > 3) He was using Harry as bait to draw LV out, where > > the Order can get him. Didn't work, but now Harry is > > old enough to handle things (maybe). > bboyminn: > > Dumbledore has made his mistakes, but I think he as taken > reasonable precausion based on what was known at the time. > I don't agree with 1) or 2) above, and I can only give > the slightest nod to item 3). Dumbledore knows that Harry > and Voldemort's fate are intertwined and there is nothing > he can do about that. Voldemort is calling the shots. > Voldemort decides when, where, and if he will attack Harry. > What can Dumbledore do about that? Lock Harry up in a cell > to protect him? Even that is not safe, and it is certainly > not a morally acceptable solution. > > So, once again, we are stuck with 'life goes on', and > what will come will come and they have to deal with each > event when it arrives. Though as Dumbledore gathers more > knowledge, he is more able to find ways of ultimately > defeating Voldemort. Many of the tragic events that have > happened to Harry, are the very events that gave Dumbledore > the clues he needed. Carol: Again, I agree with Steve. Although DD gives Harry more leeway for rule-breaking and facing dangers than he would give to any other student, it's because Harry *must* have experience facing dangers if he's going to survive the encounter(s) with Voldemort. He has to learn by doing. There's no other way. So DD's decisions are not inexplicable. He's a flawed human being but wiser than most; he knows what Harry must face in the end; he knows that he must be prepared. The decision to teach Harry Occlumency, and to have Snape teach it instead of DD, makes perfect sense under the circumstances. The reason the lessons failed has nothing to do with Snape's hatred for James; if Harry hadn't entered the Pensieve, he still would have failed to learn it. He wanted to have that dream, so he didn't learn even the most rudimentary form of it. He didn't clear his mind when he went to sleep; he invited the dream to enter. And because he'd been having that dream all along, trying to find out what was in the corridor, he believed the "vision" when it came. I don't blame either DD or Snape. The failure to learn, or at least try to learn, is Harry's. The only failure on DD's part was to explain what was going on--why Harry had to learn it and why DD couldn't teach it himself. Harry did need to know why DD was avoiding him, but I can see why DD didn't want to tell him. The TWT had, to begin with, nothing to do with Harry. It, too, can be explained, as can his hiring of incompetent DADA teachers. And though he's not omniscient, DD does keep an eye on Harry via Snape and the portraits and perhaps the ghosts. (I don't think he knew about Umbridge's detentions, though. Umbridge's gamboling kittens don't report to Dumbledore.) Dumbledore certainly is not purposely trying to get Harry as LV or using him as bait to draw LV out. He's trying to train him to face him, and at the same time give him as normal a life as possible. Incompatible goals, perhaps, but perfectly understandable in view of a wise and good but humanly flawed Dumbledore. Carol, who believes that Harry has learned a great many lessons thanks to Dumbledore and that these lessons will prove crucial in DH From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 16:03:44 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:03:44 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163660 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > > Nope, for me it **is** precisely a question of Dumbledore having too > many hats, way too many. It is a question of Dumbledore as Head of > the order taking the precedent over Dumbledore the Headmaster for me. > > > Like if Snape is DD!M, for Harry being able to trust him instead of > feeling such a rage towards him, it is also a question of the > possibility that Harry's hatred of Snape may stop him from tapping > into love power, whatever it is going to manifest itself as. > > And yeah, I think this is in many ways thanks to Dumbledore. > Exactly. Dumbledore allows Snape to abuse Harry, thus setting up the catastrophe of HBP -- and contributing to the catastrophe of OOTP. The Isolated!Dumbledore syndrome definitely seems at work in this. Or perhaps we might want to call it PlotDevice!Dumbledore, as this seems to be a symptom of the problems Dumbledore has as he weaves back and forth between plot device and actual character. A similar problem is evident in DD's abominable failure to intervene at the Dursleys. DD is not alone in this, to be fair. Other characters seem to slip in and out of Plot Device mode as needed. The primary culprit (or victim, depending on your viewpoint) other than DD is Lupin, who has been parked in Plot Device mode -- indeed, in Place Holder mode -- for two books now. If one wants to talk about a gun on the wall, we have a werewolf on the couch. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 17:24:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:24:24 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163661 Chancie wrote: > > > > Jk has bombarded us with the "DADA teacher position is cursed" thing from the first book. Could she have meant this as a clue? [I]f Snapes true goal was to kill Dumbledore, wouldn't that have gone against the curse? He would have gotten what he wanted-that's not a curse that's a blessing! Does that along with the other circumstantial evidence PROVE that Snape is DDM? > CDR: > > You make sense to me! > I remember the horrid feeling in the pit of my stomach that I got > when I read that Snape would finally get the DADA position in HBP. I > felt slapped. It was an ominous sign for Snape. This was based on > the, as you say, bombardment from JKR that no good ever comes to the > DADA teacher, and the knowledge that Snape was going to have to > leave Hogwarts by the end of the book. (Of course, DD knows this as > well, and I can only assume Snape must also have known. Either DD > told him, or 15 years is long enough to see a pattern. Can anyone > point me to a thread/threads concerning why Snape would accept this > obviously cursed position? Or any ideas? To me it leads right back > to a "big plan" with DD, but I'd love other ideas.) Carol responds: As the author of a very long and rather notorious post on the DADA curse, I think I can point you to some threads! None of them *proves* that Snape is DDM, but, needless to say, I believe that he is. I'll just link you to my own posts and you can follow the threads in either direction (Yahoo isn't much help in reconstructing the sequence, unfortunately) as desired. (BTW, CDR, I agree with everything you say, including a "big plan" that involved placing Snape in the cursed DADA position when the time was ripe for his (seeming) return to Voldemort.) Re: Possible reason[s] for giving Snape the [DADA] job http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135642 Why would Snape want the DADA position? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137706 The DADA jinx and its victims http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961 Those should keep you busy for awhile! Carol, who had that same sinking feeling when Snape was announced as DADA teacher, especially after all the ominous imagery in the last few sentences of "Spinner's End" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 19:18:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:18:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163662 Carol earlier: > > I don't see how Snape, who was teaching at Hogwarts and did not know the Secret, could have been at GH or why he would be there since his supposed DE task was to spy on Dumbledore, not hang around with Voldemort. I think that Snape had no clue that the Potters had been betrayed until he felt a pain in his Dark Mark and then watched it fade, which could only mean that Voldemort had been attacked and defeated. I think that snape ran up seven or eight flights of stairs to see Dumbledore, who had been alerted to the broken Fidelius Charm (see my previous posts), perhaps by a nightmare, perhaps by the sudden realization that he knew where the Potters were and a sense that they were in peril. > > Brothergib replies: > I like the theory about Snape. The one thing I couldn't resolve was this - If Voldemort's wand was retrieved by PP after his demise, then surely Snape would have seen this (although I am still not completely convinced that this wasn't an oversight by JKR). Carol responds: I'm sure that PP transformed into a rat immediately after showing Voldemort the house. James didn't see him, either. He merely shouted to Lily that he (Voldemort) was at the house. And yet PP had to be there to retrieve the wand afterwards. I think he watched the whole thing in rat form, briefly switched back to human form to hide the wand, then scampered away in rat form before Hagrid arrived. I'm sure there's no oversight involved. Why else make PP a rat Animagus and not something bigger, like a skunk? brothergib: A fading Dark Mark is certainly a good way to bring Snape into the scenario. However, I am firmly in the camp that believes that the Fidelius wasn't broken. PP told Voldemort (which was perfectly within his rights as SK) and it was Voldemort who then attacked the Potters - therefore the charm should still be in place. Carol: I don't think that informing Voldemort was "within [PP's] rights as SK" since it's Voldemort the Potters were hiding *from* and PP was knowing endangering them, even bringing about their deaths, by revealing it to him, whereas he would not be endangering or betraying them by telling, say, Lupin, whom he knew was not their enemy (assuming that Lupin is not ESE!). Voldemort was the whole reason the Fidelius Charm was cast in the first place. So, IMO, revealing the Secret to Voldemort *was* a breach of faith and could therefore have broken the charm. See my posts on the etymology of "Fidelius." (And, again, once the two Potters were dead, Harry exposed, and the hiding place destroyed, there was no Secret to be kept, so if the charm wasn't broken by the betrayal, it must have been broken by the nonexistence of the Secret.) Glad you like my idea about Snape's Dark Mark, though! brothergib: Therefore, in your scenario, Snape would be the one who told DD that something bad has happened to LV. DD's knowledge of the prophecy would suggest that Harry was to blame, and that would lead DD to Godric's Hollow (since he had offered the house to the Potter's, he would suspect that they were there, even if he hadn't been told directly by PP). > Carol: Sort of. Harry wouldn't be "to blame," of course, but he would somehow be indirectly responsible for thwarting Voldemort. But I'm quite sure that no one told DD the Secret or he's have known that Black was not the SK (PP would not have told him, though he might have pretended to). I'm also sure that Snape didn't know it. I think that the house in Godric's Hollow belonged to Dumbledore, that he had offered it to them for their use either before or at the same time that he offered to be SK, and his remembering the house, along with some foreboding of danger (a nightmare?) alerted him to their danger at the same time or just before Snape felt a searing pain in his Dark Mark signalling the AK rebounding on Voldemort. I think they put their heads together and figured out that the adult Potters were dead, Voldemort was vanquished but not dead, and Harry was alone and in danger. So DD sent Hagrid to rescue him (possibly with Snape as his escort but that isn't really part of my theory). I also think that Snape examined baby Harry and made sure he wasn't cursed or possessed, which would explain Hagrid's certainty that Snape is on their side. I agree that DD's remark, "No trouble, was there?" implies that he hasn't seen Hagrid since he sent him to GH, but it doesn't mean that *Snape* didn't see Harry, examine him to be sure he was unharmed, and then describe the cut to Dumbledore. He would also have seen the dead Potters, the ruins of the house, and possibly bits of Voldemort's exploded body. (Not the wand, though, since PP had hidden it.) Possibly Snape and DD together figured out from the cut on Harry's forehead that the AK had been deflected and burst out of his head, leaving the lightning-bolt (eihwaz rune?) shaped cut. DD must have figured out the part about Lily's sacrifice being ancient Love magic. I don't think Love magic is Snape's forte! brothergib: > An alternative scenario (following on from your theory); > Snape informs DD about the fading Dark Mark. DD and Snape apparate to GH. They find a destroyed house but no Potter's. However, DD can detect traces of magical concealment (a la 'The Cave) and sets about breaking down the 'Fidelius Charm'. Once he was successful, he sends Snape to fetch Hagrid (side-along apparition). It is Hagrid who picks baby Harry up from the rubble! Perhaps they all check him over at this point. Carol: Too time-consuming, I think. We know that Sirius Black checked on PP (perhaps he had a foreboding as a result of the broken charm) and hurried to GH (not quite as fast as he might if he'd Apparated but still quickly). He got there before the Muggles arrived. And the Muggles would have been alerted by the exploding house, which was not hidden by the Fidelius Charm. I don't think DD was present at GH. Maybe he was using his instruments to figure out what had happened. After talking to Snape, he would have had to concoct the protective Charm, which would need to be in place before Hagrid arrived with Baby Harry. And someone would have to talk with the Ministry officials. I doubt that he's want that person to be Snape, nor does it seem that Hagrid had time to do it. (I think Hagrid must have been babysitting, a variation on COMC for him. Yes, I know he was just the groundskeeper at this point!) brothergib: I would imagine that DD would send Snape to the other DEs > to see if he could ascertain what had happened. Carol: Maybe, but that seems needlessly dangerous, and Snape would be needed back at the school to make sure that the students were safe. I think DD and Snape could ascertain what happened (except for the identity of the traitor) from the available evidence--dead Potters, destroyed house, open cut on Harry's forehead, Snape's Dark Mark, possibly the bits of LV, the Prophecy, etc. Certainly, the DEs could not have known about the Love magic. I doubt that even Bellatrix knew what LV had planned. And if Snape had spoken with her, he'd have known that Wormtail was the spy and traitor, as he clearly didn't. Brothergib: DD had many things he would have needed to do, but he insisted that Hagrid alone cared for the baby and would bring him to DD when requested - lets face it, who could have forcibly taken Harry off Hagrid. DD and Snape leave and Hagrid is left to make his own way home with Harry. He then meets up with Sirius and ends up with the bike. Carol: I agree except tht I don't think DD was at GH and *if* Snape was there, it was only briefly, before Sirius showed up. (Hagrid clearly didn't know that Sirius was supposedly the SK, or he'd never have comforted him.) > Brothergib (who likes this theory, but still isn't totally convinced that Snape didn't play some part in the events at GH) > Carol: I'm glad you like my theory, but I'm certain that Snape didn't play a part in the events at GH, even as a witness. As I said, he was at Hogwarts, teaching and supposedly spying on Dumbledore. He could not have known the Secret. And we know he wasn't hiding under James's Invisibility Cloak. There's no reason why he'd have been at GH, and James's words suggest that LV was alone (except for Wormtail, hiding in rat form). Carol, sure that Snape was not at Godric's Hollow when the Potters were killed but believing that he helped DD in some important way after their deaths From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 20:00:14 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:00:14 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: <673616.1785.qm@web8408.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163663 --- Akash aki wrote: > > hi > ... > I was thinking ... how it all got started, that Potters > realised that Tom Riddle is behind their son. Prophecy > was something 'he will mark other to his equal' but why > he chosen Potters' son. Also how DD and others so > convinced that it is going to be HP whom Tom is going to > mark and which led to all this FC, SK etc, and how Tom > decided about Potters's son. > > aki > bboyminn: The problem is, we don't have all the information, so we can only take the information we do have, and use that to lead us to limited understanding of events. We don't know that Dumbledore or the Potter's decided IN ADVANCE that Harry definitely was the main target. They concluded it with certainty after Voldemort attacked Harry. Now it is entirely possible, based on our limited information, that Voldemort really didn't choose Harry. Perhaps he was going to kill both Neville and Harry, and just, by chance, got the information on the location of Harry first. So, it may not have been Voldemort's first choice, merely his first chance. Now, I'm not saying this is true. I'm just saying that based on the actual information we have, it is possible. It seemed certain that both Harry and Neville were at risk; both fit the requirements of the Prophecy. We don't know that Dumbledore did not give equal protection to Neville. So, again, before the event, they really didn't know who Voldemort would attack. After the event, it doesn't matter if Voldemort got it right or wrong, the 'fate' was cast. By attacking Harry, Voldemort made Harry the Chosen One. Before the attack, they are just taking reasonable precautions; after the attack, they are acting with reasonable certainty. It is only after Harry comes to Hogwarts and then Voldemort returns, that it become absolutely crystal clear that Harry is indeed 'The One'. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 10 22:25:17 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:25:17 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Houses: Unite! (was:Re: The Power of Harry ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163664 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I do suspect that the ancient rift between the Houses will need to > > be delt with. > > > >>irishshedevil: > I have to agree that the houses must unite in order to defete LV > but what about the teachers themselves? Since they do represent the > houses. (Mcg for griffendoor, Snape for slitherin,) It may be that > the teachers may play a lager role in the seventh book. Betsy Hp: My gut reaction is that it'd be a bit boring. I mean, the teachers all get along so well already. And aside from Snape (the Slytherin teacher, I assume?) none of them have any interesting tension with Harry. Plus, I think a full on healing of the rift will need to be represented by the current generation. Because I think Harry will be the one to bring about the healing, I also think the House representatives need to come from Harry's generation. If that makes sense. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 10 22:42:14 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:42:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Secret 'All Along' Plan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163665 Penny Bee: > 1) Why would Dumbledore hire Lockhart? In COS, Dumbledore's comments > about him indicate he's fully aware of Lockhart's incapabilities. It's > hard to believe he hired him because no one else would do the job > (except Snape, of course). If you suspect that the most dangerous > wizard has a gripe with one of your students (a student you're fond of, > as well), why would you hire an incompetent to teach him (and the other > students) how to defend himself? Pippin: To add to what others have said, I think Dumbledore has theorized that the DADA curse will reveal the unworthy secret of anyone who attempts to hold the job. IMO, that's all it does. The dire effects come into play as a result of the hapless professors' attempts to cover up their secrets. Those who accepted being outed (Quirrell's first term, Lupin, Real!Moody, and Snape) lost their jobs but took no other harm. I think Dumbledore suspected but could not prove Lockhart's little racket, and while hoping that he was mistaken (innocent until proven guilty) he was also certain that if he wasn't, the curse would expose Lockhart for what he was. Dumbledore does not teach by offering only the finest examples of wizardkind. For one thing, there is no consensus in the WW on who the finest examples are. He teaches by offering a varied sample, and letting the students decide for themselves whom they should admire. Penny Bee: > 2) Why did Dumbledore agree to hold and host the Triwizard Tournament > at Hogwarts? It's known as a dangerous event in its own right, but if > you suspect that (again) the most dangerous wizard is still trying to > get into your school to take out a student, why would you allow the > state, and officials and students from other schools (including those > with dark pasts, like Karkaroff) free entry into your school? It's > hard to believe that he thought Moody by himself would be enough to > protect Harry and the other students. > Pippin: Plans to revive the Tri-wizard tournament had been underway long before Pettigrew's escape. Though Dumbledore feared the Dark Lord's return, it would only make international magical cooperation more important than ever. Voldemort counts on distrust and emnity between peoples to keep them weak and divided. Those within Hogwarts are protected by many ancient spells as well as by Dumbledore himself. By inviting the TWT contestants to Hogwarts, Dumbledore was extending his protection to those most likely to be Voldemort's targets if he returned, and offering Karkaroff protection in a form that Karkaroff might accept. Dumbledore's strategies, like Gandalf's, were not based on withdrawing to safety. Ultimately he knew no fortress would be safe if those within lacked the moral courage to confront evil. Penny Bee: > So, I'm wondering: if Dumbledore knew all along about LV's possible > plans and the horcruxes, and such, then either: > > 1) He's making a lot of inexplicable decisions Pippin: I don't think any of Dumbledore's decisions are supposed to be inexplicable or the result of Rowling charley-horsing the characters to fit the plot. To judge from her interviews, she always tries to find in-character reasons for what she wants her people to do. So what *is* Dumbledore doing? I think it is a major misconception that Dumbledore had the prophecy in mind when deciding what was best for Harry. IMO, Dumbledore did his best to keep the prophecy out of his thinking except when he was strategizing from Voldemort's point of view. Dumbledore had a healthy distrust of the prophecy and all forms of divination -- just because a prophecy is 'genuine' in that it comes from something outside the seer's own knowledge doesn't mean that it contains knowledge or truth. That would be why some of Harry's abilities, even though predicted by the prophecy, (and taken for granted by longtime fans of heroic adventure) seem to take Dumbledore by surprise. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 10 23:44:32 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:44:32 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163666 > > Pippin: > > If Snape appeared to abandon an active Voldemort, then he would > > be out of the fight, so the only way to keep Snape in it would be > > to have him appear to abandon Dumbledore. > > Alla: > > So, are you saying that Dumbledore planned and anticipated the > events on the Tower since GH? Pippin: No one is allowed to retire or defect from the Death Eaters. Therefore Voldemort can only transfer Snape or allow him to die 'in the cold'. If Dumbledore thinks he might not want to keep Snape at Hogwarts till Snape dies, or would prefer to decide for himself when Snape should leave rather than reacting to Voldemort's whims, then staging a betrayal or exposure of the spy is the most obvious means. Dumbledore can thus anticipate the need to make Snape's defection credible long before he has any idea of the tactics he'll use to bring it about. > > Alla: > > Oh, I don't know whether Dumbledore has this power or not, but in my > view he should have tried and tried much much earlier than > Occlumency lessons. Like say stepping in and fast after Harry and > Snape first lesson. What could he do? Oh, maybe did what Ceridwen > suggested ( the way I read her at least) - give Snape more > information about Harry, about his home life. It is quite possible > that Snape could have cared less that Harry had such a hard life , > BUT if there was a small chance that Snape could have a tiny bit of > pity for Harry, for what he endured, DD IMO should have capitalised > on that. > Pippin: Oh dear. Such grand hopes. No wonder you're disappointed in Dumbledore. But if Snape is not a sociopath then he already feels pity for Harry. It just isn't as important to him as as other things. If Snape *is* a sociopath then he won't feel any pity no matter how much he learns. Snape's problem isn't ruthlessness, it's aggression, IMO. He's developed a talent for petty cruelty and a habit of being unfair, but his cruelty and unfairness are, sad to say, well within the norms of wizard behavior. If Harry had come to Hogwarts as a House Elf instead of a privileged member of the wizarding overclass, he'd have learned that a long time ago. What's not normal is Snape's animus towards Harry. The cause of that is, as we all know, buried in Snape's past. But in Rowling's world anger and fear always have a source -- they don't magically appear when a character dons a black robe and decides to be a villain. IMO, when the sources of his anger and fear are dealt with, Snape will be able to let his aggression go. But he probably wouldn't have felt the need while he was tasked with defending the students against Voldemort. Aggressive instincts are also protective ones. > Alla: > > but you are right there are questions more important than grades. > > Like if Snape is DD!M, for Harry being able to trust him instead of > feeling such a rage towards him, it is also a question of the > possibility that Harry's hatred of Snape may stop him from tapping > into love power, whatever it is going to manifest itself as. > Pippin: But if Harry has to overcome hatred in order to tap into his power, then he must be allowed to hate. Also, if Dumbledore doesn't allow Harry to hate anyone, then it is Dumbledore controlling Harry's hatred, not Harry himself, and what will happen when Dumbledore isn't around to do it any longer? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 01:14:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:14:41 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163667 > > Alla: > > > > but you are right there are questions more important than grades. > > > > Like if Snape is DD!M, for Harry being able to trust him instead of > > feeling such a rage towards him, it is also a question of the > > possibility that Harry's hatred of Snape may stop him from tapping > > into love power, whatever it is going to manifest itself as. > > > > Pippin: > But if Harry has to overcome hatred in order to tap into his > power, then he must be allowed to hate. Also, if Dumbledore > doesn't allow Harry to hate anyone, then it is Dumbledore controlling > Harry's hatred, not Harry himself, and what will happen when > Dumbledore isn't around to do it any longer? Alla: Well, no, we don't know IMO that Harry must overcome hatred in order to tap into his power. What we do know IMO or at least can assume with reasonable degree of certainty is that Harry **must not hate" to tap into his power. SO, I think that it is quite a reasonable assumption to make that if Harry's hatred for Snape stops his powers from developing or from him tapping into his **love** powers, again, no matter how they will manifest, then it would be better for such hatred *never to exist* rather than for Harry going through *overcoming it*. And based on what I said above it would not be Dumbledore not allowing Harry to hate anymore, it would be Dumbledore stopping Harry's hatred from developing from the beginning. And I honestly fail to see anything **but** positive in this development. Say Dumbledore, who watches Harry closely, sees how Snape attacks him after the first lesson. What do I think DD should have done? Sit Snape down and let him know some harsh truths about Harry's life, at least trying to appeal to Snape's humanity ( if there is any humanity left in this bastard) and to make him see that Harry is not James. And yes, if after such conversation Snape woud have continue do what he does to Harry, I think Dumbledore should have put him in the place as boss puts his employee in place. As Headmaster of the school puts the teacher in place. Too bad of course that Dumbledore as Head of the order of the Phoenix may have different things in mind for Snape IMO. JMO, Alla. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 08:44:33 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:44:33 -0000 Subject: Backlash? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163669 sorry, but my mention of Ghandi and Martin Lurther King JR. I only meant tha passive resistance could be extremely valuable...and, also, viable.... DD From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 11:49:00 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:49:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's Characterization (was: Satisfaction of the story to date ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163670 As for Harry's powerful patronus... at several occasions. His training (with the luck of having Dementor for a boggart) showed me, that more than his magical skill of doing it, it was more the ability to gain a powerfully happy thought/memory in the precense of a dementor than magical skill. Many would not have that sort of thought/memory, particudnlarly with Voldemort having been around for 11 years pre-hollow, for the older ones. Most of the young wouldn't have the emotional maturity required to concentrate on a happy thought in midst of Dementor-caused depression. Bad enough for an adult, nearly impossible for a child. And, of course, Harry didn't get the powerful feeling he had until 1) Sirius had offered him a way to be rid of Dursleys for good -- 2) trough Time-Travel experience, he had become overjoyed at learning that he really CAN do it(not happening unless he DID have several frustrating fails), plus he did that from afar. And what did Harry concentrate on in OOP? His friends. After HBP it may well be Ginny, and therefore not a stag anymore. Tonks certainly is thinking of Lupin... As far as magical power goes, there appears to be two main sorts/ways: Magic of Heart (Harry) Magic of Mind (Hermione) In addition there's a third, 'special talents' section. Either you have it, or you don't - it cannot be learned if you don't have it, but it if you do, you can learn better control and depth. Now then, main difference is the Mind means study, Heart - though learning can be done trough practice - can be instictive. Most magical spells can be accessed trough both ways. Potions, however, require Magic of Mind. And spells like Riddiculus (laughter to overcome fear) and Patronus (joy, happiness, hope - where there is none) -- DADA, that is - is more into Magic of Heart. Flying too... Divination - or Sight - is, of course, a special talent. And one that cannot be accessed trough magic of mind -- in fact, strong aspect in that is likely to supress it. (OR what Trelawney calls a 'mundane mind') Parseltongue is another Special Talet, as well as Metamorphmagi. The special abilities some wizards can learn - Animagi, Occlumency, Legilimency -- well, if Snape didn't lie about suppressing emotions in Occlumency, it's so clearly in the Mind-part that I doubt it was ever even possible for Harry to learn it at fifteen, partly because of his puberty and partly because of his nature. (Extreme emotions ARE a part of puberty, you know... it's biologically impossible for a teen full of testosterone and adrenaline as Harry was the entire fifth year, to shut them down...) Finwitch From maccanena at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 12:39:06 2007 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 12:39:06 +0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device Message-ID: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163671 I am usually the last person to critizise JK Rowling, but upon rereading OOTP, a thought has been lingering on my mind. The two-way mirror is not used at all during OOTP, except to make Harry feel even worse for his actions. He got himself, all his friends and the Order members, in great danger in his attempt to save Sirius from the Department of Mysteries. There were other things he could have done to notify the Order about his dream, like telling Snape, as he realized too late. He discovers the mirror only too late, and feels even worse if that can be. But I wonder... why? Why did Rowling write the mirror into the story? It's not needed to make him feel regrets or guilt, he already does that. It's not needed for any other reason so far. And, if it appears again the Deathly Hallows, she could have introduced the device into the story by other means, like part of the things Harry inherited from Sirius. So, why did Rowling need to make things even worse for Harry? It's not like she needed filler material to make the book longer, if anything it could have used a trim here and there. I think it was a bit cruel to make Harry realize the mirror was there despite everything else he went through. Maria From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 13:55:04 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:55:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50701110555u6af2a2ccx447bc15d7e4ea0b0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163672 > Maria: > So, why did Rowling need to make things even worse for Harry? It's not > like she needed filler material to make the book longer, if anything > it could have used a trim here and there. I think it was a bit cruel > to make Harry realize the mirror was there despite everything else he > went through. Random832: She's said it will be important in the seventh book. Of course, she's said a lot of things will be important in the seventh book, and it's hard to imagine how she'll fit all of them AND a horcrux hunt in a book that's not as long as the other six combined, but that's beside the point. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Jan 11 13:22:45 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 06:22:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device References: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002e01c73583$94d47d10$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 163673 Good Question! I am really thinking that this is a learning device for Harry. Didn't he think, when he wrapped it and threw it into his trunk, that he would never use this? There's the mistake right there- Harry being independent, thinking he won't need Sirius's help, or thinking that he won't need to talk things over with Sirius. I think Rowling is trying to show a critical mistake that Harry makes, and because he has resigned in his mind "not" to use the mirror, he forgot about it later when he "needed" the mirror. It's my prediction, that in Book 7, something else will come up again, and he will want to think, as he did the first time, about writing it off, but then will remember his regret at having done that the first time. I think it's a plot device to teach Harry that he indeed needs his friends, that he is not alone in this world, and this fight will be won only if he doesn't shut out everyone that cares about him. Shelley >I am usually the last person to critizise JK Rowling, but upon > rereading OOTP, a thought has been lingering on my mind. > > The two-way mirror is not used at all during OOTP, except to make > Harry feel even worse for his actions. He got himself, all his friends > and the Order members, in great danger in his attempt to save Sirius > from the Department of Mysteries. There were other things he could > have done to notify the Order about his dream, like telling Snape, as > he realized too late. He discovers the mirror only too late, and > feels even worse if that can be. But I wonder... why? Why did Rowling > write the mirror into the story? It's not needed to make him feel > regrets or guilt, he already does that. It's not needed for any other > reason so far. And, if it appears again the Deathly Hallows, she could > have introduced the device into the story by other means, like part of > the things Harry inherited from Sirius. > > So, why did Rowling need to make things even worse for Harry? It's not > like she needed filler material to make the book longer, if anything > it could have used a trim here and there. I think it was a bit cruel > to make Harry realize the mirror was there despite everything else he > went through. > > Maria > > > Lots of great events happening in summer 2007, so start making your travel > plans now! > > Phoenix Rising: New Orleans, May 17 - 21 http://www.thephoenixrises.org/ > Enlightening 2007: Philadelphia, July 12 - 15 > http://enlightening2007.org/ > Sectus: London, July 19 - 22 http://www.sectus.org/index.php > Prophecy 2007: Toronto, August 2 - 5 http://hp2007.org/ > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 14:27:53 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:27:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50701110627k50dccfbcs32b9041b3b393032@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163674 Steve/bboyminn: > I just can't picture Harry lying in the rubble with no food or water > for 24 hours. That means that the mysterious Missing 24 hours that we > have all speculated about is not missing at all. I think this essay > may have so merit in speculating that the spell was broken, but I just > can't accept the alteration to the standard assumed timeline. Actually - I don't think there's a "Missing 24 hours" at all. I think it's more JKR bad math. She needed both scenes to be at night, and didn't realize how out of line it is to have Hagrid spending a full day in transit. We don't, after all, speculate on the strange way the moon seems to jump around in the sky, or how there can be two mondays in a row (yes, I know that was fixed. But it did make it in there in the first place) From maccanena at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 15:11:17 2007 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:11:17 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <002e01c73583$94d47d10$c0affea9@MOBILE> References: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73583$94d47d10$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: <1f40e2480701110711y537a1c1cs837ebc6c31f44e50@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163675 Shelley wrote: > I think it's a plot > device to teach Harry that he indeed needs his friends, that he is not alone > in this world, and this fight will be won only if he doesn't shut out > everyone that cares about him. Maria again: That's a good theory. I was just thinking about what Random832 just reminded us, that JK has said that it is important for book 7. But what is important? The mirror itself? Or the fact that he forgot the mirror? Your answer is in line with the second option, that Harry learns that he must be more careful and less forgetful in the future. Maria From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 15:25:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:25:04 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163676 Maria wrote: > The two-way mirror is not used at all during OOTP, except to make Harry feel even worse for his actions. He discovers the mirror only too late, and feels even worse if that can be. But I wonder... why? Why did Rowling write the mirror into the story? It's not needed to make him feel regrets or guilt, he already does that. It's not needed for any other reason so far. And, if it appears again the Deathly Hallows, she could have introduced the device into the story by other means, like part of the things Harry inherited from Sirius. Carol responds: As others have said, it will probably be used in DH. JKR often introduces plot devices (or characters) long before they become significant (Polyjuice is introduced in CoS and becomes important in GoF; "young Sirius Black" is introduced in the first chapter of SS/PS (when he's only 22) but becomes important in PoA (when he's 34 or 35). I could mention other examples (Bezoars?), but those should suffice. In OoP, the mirror serves in part to prove to Harry and the reader that Sirius Black, who only fell through the Veil, is really dead. But its use as a plot device also illustrates Harry's tendency to forget important things--it's there; he could have used it if he hadn't forgotten about it (as he also forgot about Sirius's knife during the Second Task in GoF). If Black had told him what it was, he might have used it. Instead, he gave it to him crudely wrapped and told him to use it if Snape gave him a hard time. Instead, he forgets about it--never even opens it, in fact--because he's he's never in danger from Snape and because he's trying to protect Black: "It would not be he, Harry, who lured Sirius from his hiding place" (quoted from memory. There's a double irony here--it *is* Harry who unwittingly lures Black from his hiding place (if it weren't for Harry falling victim to Voldemort's false vision, Black would not have gone to the MoM to save him) and using the forgotten mirror instead of the fireplace would have told him that Black was safe. Ironies of this sort are common in the HP books. Harry will start to say or do something and then change his mind (e.g., he starts to tell Lupin about the "Grim" and decides not to; he tells Trelawney to talk to DD about her experience in the RoR then prevents her from doing so after the eavesdropper revelation). Actions have unintended or unexpected consequences. Good intentions backfire (sparing PP) as do bad ones (Voldemort AKing Harry). I expect the mirror to be used in DH as a means of communication Harry and some other living person (say Ginny if she's at Hogwarts and he isn't). But it *has* served several purposes already, illustrating a character flaw in Harry that rather neatly links him with Neville, forgetfulness of easy, practical solutions to some of his problems or dilemmas; proving that SB is really dead; providing a tiny bit of backstory on James and Sirius; and, most important of all, illustrating situational irony (when an event directly contradicts the reader's expectations--Snape killing Dumbledore is a more obvious example). Cruel, perhaps, but not useless. Harry does need to know that his godfather is dead and not just hiding behind the Veil, and he does need to stop throwing things into his trunk and forgetting about them until it's too late. And, of course, the mirror will have its uses in DH or JKR would never have introduced it. Carol, who thinks that JKR's gift for depicting ironic situations is one of the most enjoyable aspects of her writing From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Jan 11 15:27:45 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:27:45 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163677 Maria: > It's not needed to make him feel regrets or guilt, he already does > that. It's not needed for any other reason so far. And, if it appears > again the Deathly Hallows, she could have introduced the device into > the story by other means, like part of the things Harry inherited > from Sirius. > So, why did Rowling need to make things even worse for Harry? It's not > like she needed filler material to make the book longer, if anything > it could have used a trim here and there. I think it was a bit cruel > to make Harry realize the mirror was there despite everything else he > went through. Jen: When Harry discovers the mirror and thinks he may be able to talk to Sirius again...that was a poignant moment to me, a magical representation of how people react when they've lost someone they love. Muggles do the same thing in different ways, like dreaming about a loved one and waking up convinced the person is still alive for a moment, or catching a glimpse of someone in a crowd and thinking it's the lost friend, child or parent even as their brain is telling them, 'that's impossible'. Harry is doing the magical equivalent, hoping against hope he might actually talk to Sirius again and reasoning he couldn't because Sirius didn't have the other mirror--that moment was particularly moving, Harry thinking the reason he couldn't talk to Sirius was because Sirius didn't have the mirror, not because Sirius was dead and they would *never* talk again in the same way. That entire sequence of Harry dealing with his grief in OOTP was so well done to me, so *real*, especially the part about Harry feeling hopeful again after he talked to Luna, who was saying something similar to Dumbledore in POA: 'You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us?' From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 15:45:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:45:39 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50701110627k50dccfbcs32b9041b3b393032@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163678 Jordan Abel wrote: > Actually - I don't think there's a "Missing 24 hours" at all. I think it's more JKR bad math. She needed both scenes to be at night, and didn't realize how out of line it is to have Hagrid spending a full day in transit. > Carol responds: I've considered that possibility as well. For me, the most glaring math error involves the Quidditch Cup, which Gryffindor hasn't won for seven years in a row in both SS/PS and PoA (two years apart), despite the legendary Charlie Weasley being their Seeker (and later, the team captain) for about five of those years. The number of students in Harry's year (and Hogwarts) also seems to increase significantly in GoF and especially OoP from the 40 for Harry's year (or roughly 280 for the school) in earlier books. So, yes, there's no question that JKR is bad at math and the copyeditors apparently didn't consider the errors and inconsistencies worth querying. (I would have!) But the carefully planned (IMO) first chapter of SS/PS is different. Notice that she has McGonagall spend a whole day at the Dursleys, watching them until Dumbledore arrives late that night. She also depicts Vernon Dursley's day, making it clear that "shooting stars" were seen all over Britain the previous night and that the wizards in the street are celebrtaing that day (November 1), even allowing themselves to be seen by Muggles. So the announcement that Voldemort was dead or defeated, thwarted by a baby (toddler), had already been made about twenty-four hours before Hagrid arrives with baby Harry. I don't see how JKR could be *that* bad at math. She knows what she's doing in this instance, I'm certain. Too bad we don't! Carol, who does wish that JKR paid as much attention to dates as she does to planting clues and red herrings From maccanena at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 15:48:01 2007 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:48:01 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: References: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1f40e2480701110748v7d3061aeu8abc8751b5a50afb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163679 Both Carol and Jen bring up very good points: Carol: In OoP, the mirror serves in part to prove to Harry and the reader that Sirius Black, who only fell through the Veil, is really dead. But its use as a plot device also illustrates Harry's tendency to forget important things--it's there; he could have used it if he hadn't forgotten about it (as he also forgot about Sirius's knife during the Second Task in GoF). If Black had told him what it was, he might have used it. Instead, he gave it to him crudely wrapped and told him to use it if Snape gave him a hard time. Instead, he forgets about it--never even opens it, in fact--because he's he's never in danger from Snape and because he's trying to protect Black: "It would not be he, Harry, who lured Sirius from his hiding place" (quoted from memory. and Jen: Harry is doing the magical equivalent, hoping against hope he might actually talk to Sirius again and reasoning he couldn't because Sirius didn't have the other mirror--that moment was particularly moving, Harry thinking the reason he couldn't talk to Sirius was because Sirius didn't have the mirror, not because Sirius was dead and they would *never* talk again in the same way. Maria: You both are right, and I can see that the mirror serves many purposes in the book besides the one for which it was designed and never occurred (communicating with Sirius).. My point, however, comes from the sadness and pain Harry goes through in the hours and days after Sirius goes through the veil... he feels incredibly guilty, and the discovery of the mirror serves to increase this guilt upon realizing that he coudl have reached him with it and saved everyone the trouble and Sirius his life. In that sense, he doesn't need the extra guilt. But I see that the mirror can still offer a lot of other uses, like you all point out very well. Maria From unicornspride at centurytel.net Thu Jan 11 15:58:04 2007 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:58:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device References: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> <002e01c73583$94d47d10$c0affea9@MOBILE> <1f40e2480701110711y537a1c1cs837ebc6c31f44e50@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01fa01c73599$4776e0b0$2f01a8c0@Lana> No: HPFGUIDX 163680 > Shelley wrote: > >> I think it's a plot >> device to teach Harry that he indeed needs his friends, that he is not >> alone >> in this world, and this fight will be won only if he doesn't shut out >> everyone that cares about him. > > Maria WROTW: > > That's a good theory. I was just thinking about what Random832 just > reminded us, that JK has said that it is important for book 7. But > what is important? The mirror itself? Or the fact that he forgot the > mirror? Your answer is in line with the second option, that Harry > learns that he must be more careful and less forgetful in the future. > Lana writes: I have to agree with this as well. I think that not only is it a learning experience in responsibility, but it taught Harry that he still needs adults in his life and that he cannot take care of everything on his own. Not taking care of everything on his own leads to the knowledge that he needs his friends to help with whatever is to come. Honestly, I cannot see Ron staying behind at the school while Harry leads out on his own.. Just doesn't seem like the thing for a friend to do. I would insist on going no matter what my friend said. Therefore, the mirror would be a reminder to Harry that he does need Rons help. Along with all the others. But.... I also think that we will see the mirror in a different form than just as a reminder of a huge mistake. I think that it must at some point become a useful tool for Harry to use. I don't see it for communicating with anyone at the school, but don't really think it will be with Sirius either. It may be used as a template for another communicating tool ( like what Hermoine did with the coins and using the death mark for a template). I just get pricklies when I think about it, so I have this nagging feeling we have missed something in the books that will come out to play with the mirror. Not sure what it is that could have been missed, but there is something I think.. LOL Lana From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 11 16:06:18 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:06:18 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163681 > Potioncat: > > Someone else has just pointed out that Snape taunted Sirius with > cowardice. So it is an issue between them, isn't it? And between > Snape and the other Marauders? Now, I have to dig deep for a long > running debate between me, Carol(I think) and one of our Australian > members. All I can remember is the name started with a V and I'd > recognise them at once.....(showing my age) Hi Potioncat! Hehe ;) Yeah, it was me who was so shocked and shaken at the idea that "sniveller" as in colloquial late 20th century english term for a weak grovelling git, was anything short of a given for some readers. > > So, the point is, the debate had to do with the name Snivellus. While > Carol and I maintained that the Marauders could have discovered a young > Severus crying,(snivelling) and gave him the name, the other point of > view was that snivelling itself denotes lack of character, as > in "snivelling coward." > > So, to Kemper's question, I think Harry's use of the spell recalled to > Snape's mind James, and the accusation of 'coward' hit an unhealed > wound and he reacted as he did. Hmmm, now I like where you're going here. This makes sense to me. The conversation (lol if you could call it that) had turned to James by this time, and yes I don't think at all, that the exchange between Sirius and Ol' Snapey at Grimmauld place centred on the very same 'issue', getting both their backs up very, very high. I'd be willing to run with this.... and lets just say, assuming that we're on the right track, what then, was it that Snape did which Sirius considered cowardly. Lets try a process of elimination - Q. Snapes older and sinister DE friends, would he hide behind them? A. I think we are given the clue to eliminate this one, Snape holds it very tightly against James that he was usually with backup when he carried out his taunting. Undoubtedly this is Snapes Idea of cowardice. Q. Was this related to affection for Lily? A. What would James and Sirius care about that? James was soft on Lily, the less competition the better, right? Q. A Muggle????? A. Bingo!! Snape's father was a muggle, and by what appears to be accounts, Snape's father was also an a***ole. Petunia recalls a horrible boy... which may or may not have been James. And.... What if it wasn't James, what if it was Snape come to see Lily that day only to encounter one of the "worst kinds of muggles imaginable" to quote McGonagall. Petunia can make Harry's head swim in boiling sap on a good day, imagine what she might provoke out of a short-tempered, emotional young Severus Snape... James and Sirius would definitely call attacking a defenseless, and pretty stupid, Muggle with a nasty spell, cowardly. Whereas, Snape might not have felt he had much choice given that is hot buttons had been pressed by someone with the same traits as the man who tortured him and is mother many years.. Ahhh Theory... I enjoyed that. But the big question is.. Does it fly??? Valky From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jan 11 16:07:57 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:07:57 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480701110748v7d3061aeu8abc8751b5a50afb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163682 > Maria: > You both are right, and I can see that the mirror serves many purposes > in the book besides the one for which it was designed and never > occurred (communicating with Sirius).. > > My point, however, comes from the sadness and pain Harry goes through > in the hours and days after Sirius goes through the veil... he feels > incredibly guilty, and the discovery of the mirror serves to increase > this guilt upon realizing that he coudl have reached him with it and > saved everyone the trouble and Sirius his life. In that sense, he > doesn't need the extra guilt. Magpie: I think the extra guilt is more important than just guilt, though. Harry's guilt is a big part of what fuels his escalated anger at Snape in HBP. He needs to think Snape killed Sirius to avoid his own guilt. So there might be a good emotional reason for Harry to need a symbol of that in the mirror that brings his own mistake painfully to mind. Besides which, since I do think the mirror will probably be important, having it come from Sirius might make for a more healing emotion later on. Harry could have used it but he somehow wasn't "supposed" to use it or wasn't "ready" to use it in OotP in terms of his emotional development and how the story was going. But he still has it as a charged reminder of Sirius. It may work as a deeper symbol for that reason; not only does it let Harry communicate with people he's separated from, but it connects him to Sirius beyond the veil because he owns something of his, as he owns his father's invisibility cloak. Actually, that makes me wonder if there's something more to be seen in that--I mean, if we can find a sort of resonance in the things he's inherited. Does an invisibility cloak "fit" James or James' role in Harry's life in a way that the two-way mirror fits Sirius? A cloak is by nature protective, and by being invisible it protects Harry as he finds things out in the world--something a father would do. The mirror represents communication, and Sirius was a living connection for Harry in the world, one that both connected him to his parents and family and one who made him feel like he wasn't truly as alone as he thought he was. -m From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 11 16:17:53 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:17:53 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163683 Oops just two things I forgot.. This part is meant to read... --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > I don't think at all, that the exchange between > Sirius and Ol' Snapey at Grimmauld place centred on the very same And I'd like to add to my theory the possibility that this could also explain why Snape was so deeply determined that Sirius has done Peter's crime of killing fifteen Muggles in the Street. If some of the great heat between Sevvie and Sirius was that Severus had attacked a muggle, with Snape feeling he had a defense of circumstance then wouldn't Snape consider it justice to believe that Sirius too, could buckle under circumstances, making him a hypocrite. hmmm. It sounded better in my head. LOL, Oh well. Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 11 16:41:53 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:41:53 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Chancie wrote: > > > > [I]f Snapes true goal was to kill Dumbledore, wouldn't that > have gone against the curse? He would have gotten what he > wanted-that's not a curse that's a blessing! Does that along with > the other circumstantial evidence PROVE that Snape is DDM? > > > CDR: > > > > You make sense to me! > > I remember the horrid feeling in the pit of my stomach that I got > > when I read that Snape would finally get the DADA position in HBP. > > I felt slapped. It was an ominous sign for Snape. > > Carol responds: > As the author of a very long and rather notorious post on the DADA > curse, I think I can point you to some threads! Hi Carol, When I read this thread I immediately thought of your post about the curse, I highly recommend it. fr Chancie and CDR the gist of Carols Theory is not unlike yours in proposing that the curse acts in a specific way. I'm not totally agreeing with Carols take on it, personally, so I'll give mine for now and let you read both - If we look at the Dada teacher successively, I think we can see that the teachers worst intentions are turned upon them by the curse. Quirrel's darkest intentions were to kill, ad Quirrel ended up dead. Lockharts darkest intentions were to steal others memories, and he lost his. Skipping Lupin for the moment. Crouch, another killer who tortured Mad Eye Moody for a year, dies in a most awful way to be tortured for eternity. Umbridge, her intentions were to punish and oppress, the centaurs punish her and keep her captive for quite a long time. So we come to Lupin and Snape. It's possible Lupin didn't have any bad intentions to use against him, he lost his job when Snape leaked his werewolf status, this was an emotional blow to Lupin, and fitting if his worst intentions were to give Snape a hard time ocassionally. So what were Snape's worst intentions.... I think they were to deceive. And so it is deceit in the end that has turned on him and prevented him from returning to the DADA post. This again could lead to DDM snape, as the thing preventing him from returning is tat he is Dumbledores murderer.. so then is this the lie? If we first establish that anyone who intends to kill while they hold the position will die, if they intend to torture they will be tortured, if they intend to harm, that same harm will return upon them; If we establish that this is how the curse works, then Snape never intended to kill anyone, if he had done *he* would be the one who died as per the curse. And so my conclusion. Snape intended worst of all, to lie, and so now a lie is his downfall. That is, the lie that he killed Dumbledore. Valky From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 16:12:26 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:12:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Student Population, SOLVED (sort of) WAS Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. Message-ID: <7b9f25e50701110812t75c12b99n1d7997f3c75abc6c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163685 > Carol responds: > The number of students in > Harry's year (and Hogwarts) also seems to increase significantly in > GoF and especially OoP from the 40 for Harry's year (or roughly 280 > for the school) in earlier books. Actually, there's a perfectly good explanation. Check out this page: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ElaborateUniversityHigh Note in particular the sentence "Although a story may only follow a few characters, backgrounds and wide angle shots clearly show that the student body is quite large." Now, consider the students named in the sorting ceremonies, even JKR's notebook, to be loosely equated with which "few characters" we "follow"* while the seating for thousands etc are the "backgrounds and wide angle shots". *or, rather, as a sort of 'sketch' of a cross-section of notable and typical students in each house, since a great many of those sorted are never mentioned again, and some of the notebook names aren't even shown sorted. It's telling that _everything_ that goes to numbers at all, from the seating arrangements to the crowded hallways in a seven-story castle, points to there being many more students, teachers, elves, etc, than are ever shown by name or face. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 11 17:13:07 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:13:07 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480701110748v7d3061aeu8abc8751b5a50afb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163686 > Maria: > My point, however, comes from the sadness and pain Harry goes through > in the hours and days after Sirius goes through the veil... he feels > incredibly guilty, and the discovery of the mirror serves to increase > this guilt upon realizing that he coudl have reached him with it and > saved everyone the trouble and Sirius his life. In that sense, he > doesn't need the extra guilt. But I see that the mirror can still > offer a lot of other uses, like you all point out very well. > Pippin: ::sputters:: But Harry doesn't realize that! AFAWK, it never dawns on him that he could have used the mirror to talk to Sirius instead of trying to reach him through the Floo network. The cruel irony is obvious to the reader, but Harry is completely oblivious. Harry only feels angry and disappointed because the mirror won't let him talk to Sirius *now*, not because he didn't think of using it earlier. We may ask why Harry didn't have the guilty feelings you seem to be imagining he had. It's always easier to feel guilty than helpless. But once Harry had escaped his feelings of helplessness by turning them into guilt, and escaped the guilt by shunting it onto Snape, IMO, he didn't need to find reasons to feel guilty anymore. Pippin From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 17:30:12 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:30:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470701110930qcc81aa0vdf692228a5a5dd30@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163687 Maria But I wonder... why? Why did Rowling write the mirror into the story? It's not needed to make him feel regrets or guilt, he already does that. It's not needed for any other reason so far. And, if it appears again the Deathly Hallows, she could have introduced the device into the story by other means, like part of the things Harry inherited from Sirius. ========================== Jeremiah: Well, there are a lot of things that are useless in the stories but none, IMO, that are so emotionally charged. As others have noted: JKR says it's important in Book 7, however, there is a more immediate and significant use for the mirror in OotP. Rowling uses the mirror as a way to show that Harry plays the hero, forgets that there are easier ways to solve problems and reacts emotionally rather than intellectually. (Funny, isn't that what Snape shouts at him near the end of HBP)? The mirror is a way to show us, and hopefully Harry, that he must use his wit to win the battle. As it stood in OotP, Harry (and this it my opinion, so, please, no shouting...)... sorry... Harry is a whiner and all around moody dork in OotP. The mirror was supposed to cut him deeply because of his own actions. He "should have" used the mirror. Harry would have known the truth and nobody would have been hurt. Harry had choices and he chose unwisely. That is the point of the mirror in OotP. Sometimes things pop up that seem silly or useless, but there are reasons for them that don't have to do with action but, rather, with character development. I think that this was one of those objects in OotP. If JKR uses it in Book 7 it may be for an entirely different reason. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maccanena at gmail.com Thu Jan 11 17:40:48 2007 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:40:48 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: References: <1f40e2480701110748v7d3061aeu8abc8751b5a50afb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1f40e2480701110940h64bd62ebi54d802f471fd7324@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163688 > Pippin: > ::sputters:: But Harry doesn't realize that! AFAWK, it never dawns > on him that he could have used the mirror to talk to Sirius instead > of trying to reach him through the Floo network. The cruel irony is > obvious to the reader, but Harry is completely oblivious. Maria again: You know, I had to reread this again to actually realize this! It was MY sadness and MY feelings that I kind of reflected on Harry. You are completely right, his first thought was to talk to Sirius, while I was left wondering over and over what would have happened if he had not forgotten the gift from Sirius. Sorry I missed the point, everyone, but I think it also brought some nice insights into the mirror which I had not thought about. Maria From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 11 17:46:04 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:46:04 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device. In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163689 Maria wrote: > There were other things he could have > done to notify the Order about his dream, > like telling Snape Harry did tell Snape, although in light of future events his first instinct not to trust Snape may turn out to be correct. > I think it was a bit cruel to make > Harry realize the mirror was there > despite everything else he went through. Yes but there is nothing wrong in a author being cruel to one of her fictional characters if it makes a better story; and they all lived happily ever after is a bit of a bore. Eggplant From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Jan 11 17:52:21 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:52:21 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Houses: Unite! (was:Re: The Power of Harry ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163690 > Betsy Hp: > I do suspect that the ancient rift between the Houses will need to > be dealt with. Otherwise the Sorting Hat's song in OotP will remain > a gun that never goes off (IMO). But I suspect that it's going to > take Harry's generation to heal the rift; that Harry will need to > work with a symbolic representative of each House in order to > defeat Voldemort; Jen: I'm with you thinking JKR will address house unity in the current generation. We've seen Riddle's generation, including Hagrid, McGonagall and Eileen Prince (maybe Irma Pince ), couldn't do any healing and in fact made the split worse. That's how I read it anyway, that Riddle isolated Slytherin even more by recruiting his first followers from his own house and making it more likely the next generations would follow the same path. So by the time the Marauder/Snape generation arrived the house situation had grown extremely divisive, esp. between Gryffindors and Slytherins. Plus there's that whole juicy tidbit about people being condemed to repeat history, first when the DA formed and then with Draco helping the DE's into Hogwarts. In the first case the Slytherins were excluded by the choice of both sides (my guess), another battle in the ongoing war between the houses, and Slytherins chose to retaliate by joining Umbridge and working against the rest of the students. I'm expecting something similar happened to Salazar Slytherin, that the other three Founders begin to exclude him long before he was actually thrown out and he started to retaliate. Draco finding a way to let 'evil' inside the castle in the form of a prejudiced hate-group infiltrating Hogwarts reminded me in a figurative sense of Slytherin bringing the basilisk inside Hogwarts. There's not a huge literal connection between the two acts, the situations are vastly different in their scope and Draco had little control over the situation once he opened the cabinent, unlike Salazar who knew exactly what he was building and for what purpose. Still, I had a sense of history repeating itself. So I'm thinking JKR will take the house unity storyline back to the history of the Founders and then bring it forward to the current generation to learn how to stop the cycle. Betsy Hp: > and that the House breakdown will occur thusly: > > Slytherin: Draco Malfoy > Gryffindor: Ron Weasley (or maybe Neville Longbottom?) > Ravenclaw: Luna Lovegood (or maybe Marietta Edgecombe or Cho Chang?) > Hufflepuff: Zacharias Smith > > Slytherin was easy. No other Slytherin of Harry's generation has > such an intense and meaningful relationship (though of course all > negative) with Harry. It's a perfect inversion (IMO) of the great > friendship between Godric and Salazar. Jen: Yes! This one is a given for your reasons and the fact that Harry started to see Draco in a *slightly* different way by the end of HBP, there's the sense that the ice might break a little between them. I'd like to see them reach a detente and remain exactly as they are in their characterizations though, don't want a contrite Draco dragging himself back to Harry. There's always been a sense Draco is talented in the way Hermione is, although maybe not as productive, and HBP pretty much proved that in my mind with him mending the cabinent and all the things he had to do to get the DE's into Hogwarts. He just needs to direct his talents toward a better *cause*. Betsy hp: > Gryffindor could obviously be Harry himself. But if Harry (as > hero) is supposed to stand *in front of* a group representing the > Houses it would make sense for someone else to hold the Gryffindor > banner. Ron is an easy guess since his family have all been > Gryffindors since forever (as per family legend anyway). However, > Neville has always struck me as the best example of a Gryffindor in > the books. So I don't want to rule him out. (Especially if Ron > and Hermione have another role to play -- another support behind > Harry.) Jen: I'm liking Neville here, especially if Luna is the Ravenclaw since she's a little, um, strange to work with and Neville understands her better than most if the end of HBP was any indication. But what about your favorite character, Ginny? Hehe, you didn't mention her. Gack, I sincerely hope not though it's really unlikely she's letting Harry go on the quest without her if Hermione and Ron get to go and *especially* if a whole crowd of kids are involved. You were talking about all this in terms of the Horcrux hunt--maybe what will happen is when it comes to the actual locating of a Horcrux for each house, one person will represent that part of the quest, like soliciting Zacharias Smith specifically during the seach for the Hufflepuff cup? I'm not sure if that would work since Harry and Co. know where the Slytherin locket is, not Draco. The prospect *does* makes the Horcrux hunt sound more exciting, however it works out. Betsy Hp: > Ravenclaw depends on how easy we want to make it for Harry (or the > Trio). Luna Lovegood (while a tad frustrating for Hermione, I > think) would be pretty easy to work with, and seems the obvious > choice given her experience in the DA. But wouldn't Marietta and > Cho make for some delicious conflict? Jen: Luna's easier to work with from a conflict perspective, but not in many other ways! Cho and Marietta are gone from the story imo, maybe one or two references. Luna's proven she can offer something the Trio--with their Heart, Mind and Soul--lack, meaning the power of Intuition. From warrenworthington4 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 17:49:40 2007 From: warrenworthington4 at yahoo.com (warrenworthington4) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:49:40 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163691 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Maria wrote: > But I wonder... why? Why did Rowling write the mirror into the story? > It's not needed to make him feel regrets or guilt, he already does > that. It's not needed for any other reason so far. And, if it appears > again the Deathly Hallows, she could have introduced the device into > the story by other means, like part of the things Harry inherited >from Sirius. > > So, why did Rowling need to make things even worse for Harry? It's > not like she needed filler material to make the book longer, if > anything it could have used a trim here and there. I think it was a > bit cruel to make Harry realize the mirror was there despite > everything else he went through. I think that although its good that we care about a character such as Harry, we shouldn't feel like the author has done him some sort of injustice by instilling some feelings of guilt by using a plot device such as the mirror. It made me frustrated to read that too, but thats the goal of a writer, isn't it? To make us so invested in the characters that we feel strongly about things happening in the book. warrenworthington4 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 17:58:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:58:57 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163692 Hi Carol, > When I read this thread I immediately thought of your post about the curse, I highly recommend it. > > fr Chancie and CDR the gist of Carols Theory is not unlike yours in > proposing that the curse acts in a specific way. I'm not totally > agreeing with Carols take on it, personally, so I'll give mine for now and let you read both - > > If we look at the Dada teacher successively, I think we can see that > the teachers worst intentions are turned upon them by the curse. > > Quirrel's darkest intentions were to kill, ad Quirrel ended up dead. > Lockharts darkest intentions were to steal others memories, and he > lost his. > Skipping Lupin for the moment. > Crouch, another killer who tortured Mad Eye Moody for a year, dies in a most awful way to be tortured for eternity. > Umbridge, her intentions were to punish and oppress, the centaurs > punish her and keep her captive for quite a long time. > > So we come to Lupin and Snape. It's possible Lupin didn't have any bad intentions to use against him, he lost his job when Snape leaked his werewolf status, this was an emotional blow to Lupin, and fitting if his worst intentions were to give Snape a hard time ocassionally. > > So what were Snape's worst intentions.... I think they were to > deceive. And so it is deceit in the end that has turned on him and > prevented him from returning to the DADA post. > > This again could lead to DDM snape, as the thing preventing him from > returning is tat he is Dumbledores murderer.. so then is this the lie? > > If we first establish that anyone who intends to kill while they hold the position will die, if they intend to torture they will be > tortured, if they intend to harm, that same harm will return upon > them; If we establish that this is how the curse works, then Snape > never intended to kill anyone, if he had done *he* would be the one > who died as per the curse. > > And so my conclusion. Snape intended worst of all, to lie, and so now a lie is his downfall. That is, the lie that he killed Dumbledore. Carol responds: Interesting take, Valky. I don't think it's intentions, though, so much as a hidden flaw or secret in the DADA teacher. For Quirrell, I think he had a hidden desire to learn Dark Magic (which would explain his first term as DADA teacher ending in a leave of absence that takes him straight to Voldemort. His secret during the second term is obvious--he's a follower of Voldemort and the curse strikes early on when he's possessed by Voldemort. Once we know what that involves, it's pretty clear that he won't survive the school year. Lockhart we pretty much agree on--poetic justice and the irony of fate. Fake!Moody's secret is that he's a Death Eater. He doesn't die, but his fate is worse than the death he wishes for Harry, again, poetic justice. Umbridge tries to appear as a nice person, protecting the little children against lies told by Harry and Dumbledore, but she's really a sadist who tortures the students who flout her dictates. Her punishment, however, seems to fit the lesser crime of prejudice against nonhumans. She gets a taste of her own medicine from the Centaurs. Lupin also has a secret, that he's a werewolf, which is revealed at the end of his year. But more than that, he's concealing what he knows about Sirius Black--he's an Animagus and he knows more than one way of getting onto the school grounds or even into the school itself. The very fact that Lupin holds onto the Marauders' Map shows this tendency to secretiveness, which rebounds on him when the map shows him Peter Pettigrew being pulled into the Shrieking Shack and runs out onto the grounds on a full moon night without taking his potion. Snape or no Snape, Lupin revealed himself as a werewolf, endangering three students in the process. I don't see Lupin as an innocent victim at all. If Sirius Black had really been intending to kill Harry, Lupin would have been an accessory to murder by not revealing what he knew. At the very least, he's weak and secretive, and his condition, though not his fault, poses a danger to the students--or would if it weren't for Snape. It's Lupin's own fault that he ran out without taking his potion, knowing that HRH were on the grounds. It's his own fault that he didn't reveal what he knew about Black to Dumbledore. He deserved to lose his job, and he knows it. As for Snape, his secret (and I'm sure the WW as a whole does not know it) is that he was a Death Eater--and Voldemort and the DEs still think he is one. Dumbledore and Snape must have known that the DADA curse would reveal this secret and that he would have no choice but to return to Voldemort at the end of the year. For that reason, IMO, Dumbledore put off giving him the DADA position until he really needed Snape's services in that post and would find it either necessary or advantageous to send him to Voldemort. Once DD's hand was injured and his time became short (not to mention Snape's revelation of the plot to have Draco kill DD or die in the attempt), it was obvious that the time had come to give his DADA/Dark Arts expert the post, using him to full advantage for one last year before the curse struck. I see the UV as the instrument of his downfall, the culmination of his years of tale spinning as a double agent. Being forced to kill his own mentor and suffer ostracism and infamy and the anguish of remorse is the ultimate punishment for his joining the DEs and revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort. Now he has yet another sin to atone for, thanks to the DADA curse. (We're being set up for Redeemed!Snape or Forgiven!Snape, I think and hope.) Are you suggesting that Snape *didn't* kill Dumbledore, that, say, it was a fake AK and DD really died from the poison? That's an idea I've considered and haven't wholly rejected, but I'm surprised that it would come from someone who sees Snape as unfavorably as you seem to. At any rate, DDM!Snape as a theory (or set of theories) doesn't require Snape to be innocent of killing Dumbledore. It just requires killing Dumbledore to have been the right choice and in accordance with what DD wanted him to do. Carol, thanking Valky for helping her clarify her views From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 11 17:56:33 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:56:33 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163693 > Alla: > > SO, I think that it is quite a reasonable assumption to make that if > Harry's hatred for Snape stops his powers from developing or from > him tapping into his **love** powers, again, no matter how they will > manifest, then it would be better for such hatred *never to exist* > rather than for Harry going through *overcoming it*. Pippin: Well, Dumbledore said that pain was a part of being human and that hate was an instinct, so I'm pretty sure Rowling thinks that hate is part of being human too. There are things that *should* be hated -- Umbridge is proof enough of that! Alla: > And based on what I said above it would not be Dumbledore not > allowing Harry to hate anymore, it would be Dumbledore stopping > Harry's hatred from developing from the beginning. > > And I honestly fail to see anything **but** positive in this > development. Pippin: Then Harry will never learn that some things which make him feel angry and hurt are not worth hating, and that will make it all the easier for Voldemort to find things for Harry to hate. Interestingly, there's something similar in The Little White Horse (reissued finally in paperback, Yay!) The heroine is told that she should save her hatred for important things. Alla: > What do I think DD should have done? Sit Snape down and let him know > some harsh truths about Harry's life, at least trying to appeal to > Snape's humanity ( if there is any humanity left in this bastard) > and to make him see that Harry is not James. Pippin: Let me tell you as someone with management experience, it is not so easy. Suppose Dumbledore ordered everyone to ignore their emotional reactions to Harry's celebrity and his resemblance to James, would he be obeyed? Of course not! And if he gave the order anyway, he'd be left with Sprout, Binns and Filch to run the school, because everyone else makes a big deal of it all. And of course Dumbledore would be a filthy hypocrite himself for using Harry's resemblance to Lily to charm Slughorn into agreeing to teach again. Hogwarts is not heaven and no one is promised a pain free existence there because they suffered in their earlier life. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 11 18:00:45 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:00:45 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163694 Valky wrote: > If we look at the Dada teacher successively, I think we can see that > the teachers worst intentions are turned upon them by the curse. > snip > > So we come to Lupin and Snape. It's possible Lupin didn't have any bad > intentions to use against him, he lost his job when Snape leaked his > werewolf status, this was an emotional blow to Lupin, and fitting if > his worst intentions were to give Snape a hard time ocassionally. Potioncat: Hi Valky!!!! Sticking with your theory for this post, let's look at Lupin again. His intention was to keep secrets that he knew he should tell, in order to protect his status. (the Animagus Black, the tunnels, the map) All those secrets crashed down on him, revealing to others one of his secrets and putting others at very big risk. And of course, causing him to leave the position of DADA master. > Valky: > So what were Snape's worst intentions.... I think they were to > deceive. And so it is deceit in the end that has turned on him and > prevented him from returning to the DADA post. snip > > And so my conclusion. Snape intended worst of all, to lie, and so now > a lie is his downfall. That is, the lie that he killed Dumbledore. Potioncat: I have to think about this. You're now in Pippin's camp---that Snape didn't kill DD. I'm not sure, myself, or I think he killed a DD who was about to die. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:16:11 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:16:11 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163695 Alla: > > What do I think DD should have done? Sit Snape down and let him know > > some harsh truths about Harry's life, at least trying to appeal to > > Snape's humanity ( if there is any humanity left in this bastard) > > and to make him see that Harry is not James. > > Pippin: > Let me tell you as someone with management experience, it is > not so easy. Suppose Dumbledore ordered everyone to ignore their > emotional reactions to Harry's celebrity and his resemblance to > James, would he be obeyed? Of course not! > > And if he gave the order anyway, he'd be left with Sprout, > Binns and Filch to run the school, because everyone else > makes a big deal of it all. Alla: BUT who says anything about ignoring their emotional reactions? Well, I guess first of all I think that what Snape does hurts Harry more than **positive** emotional reactions people have of Harry's resemblance to James, but if DD thinks that they are hurting Harry just the same, yep, I think he should have made sure that people did not **show** those reactions to Harry, not stopped having them. Just as what I believe he should have done to Snape. Pippin: > Hogwarts is not heaven and no one is promised a pain free > existence there because they suffered in their earlier life. Alla: LOLOL, yes, I think it is a pretty safe bet that Snape or no Snape till Voldemort is gone Harry is not going to have a pain free existance, but that's one big promise you are talking about IMO. I think Dumbledore owed Harry a promise on the smaller scale though - the protection from the dirty mouth and sadistic nature of the teacher ( IMO of course), who in part caused Harry painful life anyways. JMO, Alla, From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:16:40 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:16:40 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163696 > Potioncat: > I have to think about this. You're now in Pippin's camp---that Snape > didn't kill DD. I'm not sure, myself, or I think he killed a DD who > was about to die. zgirnius: As I understand Valky's point about the DADA curse, we could easily restate her position to fit a wide variety of DDM! theories. The lie which is Snape's downfall is that he *murdered* the Headmaster. This could cover a situation in which he indeed did not kill the Headmaster at all, something else, like the poison, did that, or a situation where Snape did kill Dumbledore, but at the latter's request and with good intentions (like saving Harry and Draco, and thwarting Voldemort). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:18:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:18:34 -0000 Subject: Student Population, SOLVED (sort of) WAS Re: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50701110812t75c12b99n1d7997f3c75abc6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163697 Carol earlier: > > The number of students in Harry's year (and Hogwarts) also seems to increase significantly in GoF and especially OoP from the 40 for Harry's year (or roughly 280 for the school) in earlier books. > > Now, consider the students named in the sorting ceremonies, even JKR's notebook, to be loosely equated with which "few characters" we "follow"* while the seating for thousands etc are the "backgrounds and wide angle shots". > > It's telling that _everything_ that goes to numbers at all, from the > seating arrangements to the crowded hallways in a seven-story castle, points to there being many more students, teachers, elves, etc, than are ever shown by name or face. > Carol responds: But SS/PS quite clearly shows twenty brooms for the combined Gryffindor and Slytherin flying class. We have "about" twenty ear muffs for the combined Gryffindor and Hufflepuff Herbology class in CoS (Professor Sprout takes the last pair). We have eight Boggarts, not counting Lupin's, one for each Gryffindor student except Harry and Hermione (if the cockroach is a boggart instead of Lupin's way of making his ridiculous, we have eleven Boggarts). There definitely only five boys in Gryffindor in Harry's year; we know of only three girls, but JKR in an interview concedes that there are two more whose names she's forgotten. So all of the houses we know of in Harry's year have either exactly ten or close to ten students (five boys and five girls). There's no reason why Ravenclaw wouldn't also fit the pattern. We also know that there are exactly twelve teachers, one per subject, six men and six women. If Hogwarts had more than about 280 students, it would need more teachers as well. And yet JKR shows an impossibly large number of students watching the TWT and some of the Quidditch matches. The discrepancy shows up most clearly when Umbridge's DADA class, which so far as we know consists solely of Gryffindors, swells to thirty or so students. The discrepancy distracted me so much on a first reading that all I could think was "Flint!" I think that at one time, before the first Voldie war, for example, Hogwarts may have had more students and a lot fewer unused classrooms. And yet in Severus Snape's student years, there seem to have been only *four* Gryffindor boys. (If there had been more, I doubt that PP would have been part of their little group). at any rate, I'm not going by the Sorting ceremony (which omits Crabbe and Goyle, among others). I'm going by the solid evidence of brooms and earmuffs and the like in the early books. The ten students per class in Harry's year in JKR's notebooks match the canon evidence perfectly for the first few books, but the numbers slip into inconsistency after that. BTW, isn't it interesting how a thread on Godric's Hollow can morph into a debate on the number of students at Hogwarts? Carol, still convinced that there are forty students in Harry's year and similar numbers of students in other years From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jan 11 18:27:01 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:27:01 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite! (was:Re: The Power of Harry ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163698 > Jen: > > You were talking about all this in terms of the Horcrux hunt--maybe > what will happen is when it comes to the actual locating of a Horcrux > for each house, one person will represent that part of the quest, > like soliciting Zacharias Smith specifically during the seach for the > Hufflepuff cup? I'm not sure if that would work since Harry and Co. > know where the Slytherin locket is, not Draco. The prospect *does* > makes the Horcrux hunt sound more exciting, however it works out. Magpie: I hesitate to call this a prediction, but it's something I wondered after HBP regarding the locket. As you said, our guys know where the Slytherin Horcrux is--or more accurately, they've got the information they need to know where it is if we assume that locket in OotP was it. I think it is, and I think RAB is Regulus and that he's dead. However, what popped into my head after HBP--and obviously I've no proof of this whatsoever--but I was thinking about that whole scene with Kreacher where Dumbledore has Harry test to see if he was able to inherit Kreacher, or whether the Blacks had charmed things so that they could only be inherited by Blacks. That scene had uses within OotP, but I started thinking that there was no real reason to introduce the idea of a charm like that--one where the family only allows something to a relative. It wasn't absolutely necessary to get Kreacher into the Dursleys house and Dumbledore could have just had demonstrate to Harry that he was Kreacher's true owner by having him give him an order. (In fact that might have spoken better of Harry if he resisted being an Elf-owner on principle.) I thought it might be possible that the reason no one could open the locket wasn't only due to its being a Horcrux but instead had something to do with Regulus charming the locket to only recognize a Black--perhaps a Pureblood Black. Regulus had subscribed to the Pureblood ideology and the idea that Black made you royalty, so it wouldn't be impossible for him to use it somehow even after he'd rejected Voldemort. Or perhaps it could have been someone else. (We don't know what all Regulus might have been trying to do with the locket himself. Perhaps in his last hours he thought of Sirius and hoped he could destroy it while Voldemort himself would be unable to open it.) Anyway, as I said I can't prove it so it's really just a fanfic idea possibility, but it did seem one way that the Order could actually need Draco and so have to work with him--Tonks being discounted for being the daughter of a Muggleborn or not on the Tapestry. The Blacks as a family are an important issue, and they I think need to be healed in a similar way that Hogwarts does. It would make a nice symbolism with the locket's protection causing a problem (and since the protection is kind of blood-prejudice related or family-related that relates back to a lot of the other themes). Both Draco and the House of Black have been associated with Slytherin. We get hints that the very objects in the House of Black are actively fighting the Order-- while the Order is literally waging war on the House and trying to destroy it. The main thing in canon that makes me wonder if it could actually happen is the introduction of the related idea with Kreacher (that Black property might be charmed to only recognize relatives) that turns out to not come to anything in that context. It makes it seem like it might be one of those clever ways JKR introduces something without it seeming like it's going to important later. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:43:59 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:43:59 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163699 > > >>Potioncat: > > Someone else has just pointed out that Snape taunted Sirius with > > cowardice. > > > > Now, I have to dig deep for a long running debate between me, > > Carol(I think) and one of our Australian members. All I can > > remember is the name started with a V and I'd recognise them at > > once.....(showing my age) > >>Valky: > Hi Potioncat! > Hehe ;) Yeah, it was me who was so shocked and shaken at the idea > that "sniveller" as in colloquial late 20th century english term > for a weak grovelling git, was anything short of a given for some > readers. Betsy Hp: I seem to recall there was some debate about "sniveller" being a synonym for "snitch". Which it's not as far as I know. Weak, grovelling, and even git I'll give you. But don't forget crying. > >>Valky: > I'd be willing to run with this.... and lets just say, assuming that > we're on the right track, what then, was it that Snape did which > Sirius considered cowardly. Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think crying would do it. Crying is a majorly big no-no amongst young boys. Especially if there isn't an obvious and universally accepted excuse for the tears. Since I picture young! Snape crying from rage, I can easily see Sirius (et al) concluding that he's a coward just from the tears alone. (Which means, I guess, that Snape wasn't worrying about what Sirius would think during the run from the Tower. Since he wasn't crying or anything. ) > >>Valky: > > Q. A Muggle????? > A. Bingo!! > Snape's father was a muggle, and by what appears to be accounts, > Snape's father was also an a***ole. Betsy Hp: This is still unconfirmed. The a***oles could have been members of the Prince family. > >>Valky: > > James and Sirius would definitely call attacking a defenseless, and > pretty stupid, Muggle with a nasty spell, cowardly. Whereas, Snape > might not have felt he had much choice given that is hot buttons had > been pressed by someone with the same traits as the man who tortured > him and is mother many years.. > > Ahhh Theory... I enjoyed that. But the big question is.. > Does it fly??? Betsy Hp: See, *I* think attacking a muggle with a nasty spell is cowardly, but unless JKR is going for evil twins and evil Hagrid, she doesn't seem to feel the same way. Especially since Dumbledore had a bit of fun using magic (though not nearly as nasty) against defenseless muggles. According to what JKR has written, Snape attacking Petunia with magic would have probably made him seem quite cool to Sirius and James. For that reason, I don't think this theory flies myself. (But please note I'm not throwing up a theory of my own, so take it for what it's worth.) Betsy Hp (posting from work, and hoping this makes sense) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 18:41:00 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:41:00 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > Then Harry will never learn that some things which make him > feel angry and hurt are not worth hating, and that will make it > all the easier for Voldemort to find things for Harry to hate. > Interestingly, there's something similar in The Little White > Horse (reissued finally in paperback, Yay!) The heroine is > told that she should save her hatred for important things. > Well, this brings us back to Manipulative Ends-Justify-the-Means! Dumbledore, which, I think, would be beneath contempt. Hogwarts certainly is not heaven, as you say. But that is like saying that since Maryland isn't heaven, laws should not be enforced. As Alla says, Dumbledore has moral obligations in this affair, which he reprehensibly ignores. > Alla: > > What do I think DD should have done? Sit Snape down and let him know > > some harsh truths about Harry's life, at least trying to appeal to > > Snape's humanity ( if there is any humanity left in this bastard) > > and to make him see that Harry is not James. > > Pippin: > Let me tell you as someone with management experience, it is > not so easy. Suppose Dumbledore ordered everyone to ignore their > emotional reactions to Harry's celebrity and his resemblance to > James, would he be obeyed? Of course not! > Which does not release him from the obligation. Simply because a fight can't be won doesn't make it worth fighting. That he has not fought the battle is reprehensible. And if the justification we are given is something along the lines of "Harry learning involved him suffering at Snape's hands," then, as I say, I would find that utterly beneath contempt. Lupinlore, who, like Alla, feels less and less sympathy for Dumbledore the more he is examined From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 20:02:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:02:38 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163701 > > Pippin: > > Let me tell you as someone with management experience, it is > > not so easy. Suppose Dumbledore ordered everyone to ignore their > > emotional reactions to Harry's celebrity and his resemblance to > > James, would he be obeyed? Of course not! > > Lupinlore: > Which does not release him from the obligation. Simply because a > fight can't be won doesn't make it worth fighting. That he has not > fought the battle is reprehensible. And if the justification we are > given is something along the lines of "Harry learning involved him > suffering at Snape's hands," then, as I say, I would find that > utterly beneath contempt. > > > Lupinlore, who, like Alla, feels less and less sympathy for > Dumbledore the more he is examined Alla: It seems that Yahoomort yesterday had a tasty snack made of my post, so I am going to say something similar to what I was saying yesterday. I do **not** want to not feel sympathy for Dumbledore. Notwithstanding what I consider to be his multiple mistakes and wanting to slap him multiple times, I still think of him as well meaning man, hehe. I just cannot think of man who suffered as badly as Dumbledore seemed to be in the Cave as man without compassion. Or at least I hope not. What I refuse to do is to justify Dumbledore's mistakes as the correct cause of action especially when he himself confesses to making them. To bring it back to this topic, I cannot help but wondering, maybe DD indeed had this conversation with Snape and nothing came out of it? It would certainly make me feel much better, although I doubt it judged by the fact that in the books we see DD actually trying to do something about their animosity not earlier than OOP. Duh! So,Headmaster did you watch Harry or did you not? JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 11 20:11:52 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:11:52 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163702 > > Betsy Hp: > See, *I* think attacking a muggle with a nasty spell is cowardly, but > unless JKR is going for evil twins and evil Hagrid, she doesn't seem > to feel the same way. Especially since Dumbledore had a bit of fun > using magic (though not nearly as nasty) against defenseless muggles. Pippin: Interesting, but this inspires a somewhat different thought. I'm sure the Marauders thought using Dark Arts was cowardly, and I wouldn't be surprised if in their earlier years, they took some of nape's more advanced magic for Dark Arts, as well. If Snape hadn't informed us that he was using legilimency and nonverbal spells to turn Harry's curses aside, and if we hadn't encountered these as legitimate uses of magic, we might have thought the same. How's this? Snape accused the M's for being cowards because they attacked him four on one, and the M's accused Snape of cowardice because he was using unauthorized and possibly Dark magic. I think Snape may have joined the DE's thinking that he would have the nerve to kill humans as easily as he once killed flies, but he found, like Draco, that it wasn't as easy as he had supposed. He would then have begun to feel cowardly about letting other DE's kill for him, a feeling that reached its culmination when Voldemort targetted Lily and James. And then he realized that *all* dark magic was cowardly, and so the Marauders had been right about him, in a way. Just my opinion, of course. When Harry accuses Snape of cowardice for not fighting back, Snape can banter about it, because he knows he's fighting back by means he has now earned the right to use. But when he's accused of killing a helpless person, it bites. Pippin From cdayr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 22:35:32 2007 From: cdayr at yahoo.com (cdayr) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:35:32 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163703 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > As the author of a very long and rather notorious post on the DADA > curse, I think I can point you to some threads! > > Re: Possible reason[s] for giving Snape the [DADA] job > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/135642 > > Why would Snape want the DADA position? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137706 > > The DADA jinx and its victims > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961 > > Those should keep you busy for awhile! > > Carol, who had that same sinking feeling when Snape was announced as > DADA teacher, especially after all the ominous imagery in the last few > sentences of "Spinner's End" > CDR: After spending a number of hours reading old posts rather than grading papers (oops), my brain is overflowing with the DADA curse. I tried to pull out some especially interesting bits to bring into this current discussion, but I'm afraid I only got so far before the cumbersome beast, Yahoomort, tired me out. Please forgive me if I misrepresent any idea, and set me straight! Here are some of the basic ideas presented back in the day: Carol in post 137961: I would even go so far as to say that Quirrell is killed either by the will of Voldemort acting through the DADA curse, or by the curse itself, which seems to have taken on a life or mind of its own. CDR: As I see your theory Carol, the curse has it's own will, and uses the weakness/darker side of the DADA professor themselves, through an agent of some kind, to bring about their downfall. Is that an okay summary? In addition Carol in post 138059: What I was getting at though, is that the DADA curse works Voldemort's will, consciously or unconsciously. CDR: I've been thinking this one over all day, and find it fascinating. I see the arguments you make very clearly, in that each DADA professor is a small part in the steps that lead to VM's return to power. Quirrell almost gets the stone and VM gets to live briefly in his body, Crouch gets Harry to the graveyard for the rebirth ceremony, Umbridge makes sure that no one is looking for VM for a year, etc. (you summarized all of this much more clearly, so interested readers should go back to those old posts!). What I also find interesting though, is that the curse is limited in its success in this area. Voldemort did not get the Stone, Harry has not been killed, VM did not get the prophesy, etc. The only truly successful "will of Voldemort" effect of the curse, it seems to me, has been DD's death (and, of course, I believe that DD willed/was prepared for his own death, hence this will not really be good for Voldemort in the long run). So while the curse is powerful Dark Magic, in the end, the defenses put up by Harry and Co. have been effective in foiling the outcome of all of its manifestations during their time at Hogwarts. To me, that means the overall effect of the curse on Snape will likewise not really be to VMs advantage, even if the curse was trying to bring about VMs will. What do you all think? Now my favorite bit: Carol in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961: On a side note, I would like to see Snape and Lupin form a common cause against Voldemort, understanding that through the curse, he has used their own weaknesses against them, with terrible consequences for them both. I don't know whether Snape, whose sins are far greater than Lupin's, can face the truth about himself and show genuine remorse. I don't know whether Lupin has the integrity to forgive him or the courage to join with him, knowing that Snape's skill and power are greater than his and that Snape, if anyone, can destroy the Horcruxes and pave the way to Voldemort's fall. But they are both victims of the DADA curse, both victims of Voldemort in more ways than I have detailed here, and that, to me, would be a very satisfying resolution of the Snape and Lupin threads, and maybe the only way to end the curse he placed on the DADA position. CDR: Oh, this idea literally brings a tear to my eye. As characters, I see so many similarities in the personalities of Snape and Lupin (not to mention they are my two favorites)- ostracized, a dark side, internal and brooding, willing to take big risks for their beliefs, both spies, both given a chance by DD, and as you say, both victims of VM several times over, including the DADA curse. If only they could step back and see these things, they would be a very strong team. We can dream, eh? Onto more recent posts: I see a couple of similar but independent ideas forming. Valky in post 163684: If we look at the Dada teacher successively, I think we can see that the teachers worst intentions are turned upon them by the curse. Carol in post 163692: Interesting take, Valky. I don't think it's intentions, though, so much as a hidden flaw or secret in the DADA teacher. CDR: I think I lean towards the "hidden flaw or secret revealed" end of this debate, although I like both ideas of the curse, as they both have strong canon support that has been detailed up and down thread, and are actually very similar in many ways, especially if you believe that keeping secrets is generally the sign of bad intentions or weakness. (Seeing as how DD's massive secret keeping has not really worked out too well for him so far, one can only hope the floodgates open and secrets start to be revealed right and left starting on page one of DH.) My question about the "worst intentions" model for the curse, that breaks it down for me, is: What were Lupin's worst intentions? To keep his secret from coming out? Maybe. Unlike all of the others, though, Lupin doesn't have that big bad intention he is hiding (unless he's ESE, right!) and so he does not fit the pattern quite enough for me. He does have massive secrets though, as potioncat and others mentioned, so the curse had plenty to work on using that model. Either of these models has the same effect on Snape for me however, to get back to Chancie's original proposition. If Snape is ESE, his worst intention would be to kill DD, and therefore the curse would not have allowed him to and he would be killed himself. If he is ESE, his secret would be that he is loyal to VM and the curse would have turned this against him, likely revealing him to the Order in time to save them all from his evil intentions (a la Crouch Jr.). Either way, I think a DADA curse that ends with Snape killing DD and escaping is evidence that this was not the ending Snape had wanted/intended, but rather contrary to his hopes. CDR, thanking Carol in particular for all the great reading suggestions, and wondering if I actually added anything here or just worked through it all by writing it down From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 11 22:46:06 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:46:06 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Houses: Unite! (was:Re: The Power of Harry ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163704 > >>Jen: > > That's how I read it anyway, that Riddle isolated Slytherin even > more by recruiting his first followers from his own house and > making it more likely the next generations would follow the same > path. So by the time the Marauder/Snape generation arrived the > house situation had grown extremely divisive, esp. between > Gryffindors and Slytherins. Betsy Hp: Absolutely. I totally agree with this. In a sense Harry will be the anti-Riddle, uniting what Voldemort has so deeply divided. > >>Jen: > Plus there's that whole juicy tidbit about people being condemed to > repeat history, first when the DA formed and then with Draco > helping the DE's into Hogwarts. In the first case the Slytherins > were excluded by the choice of both sides (my guess), another > battle in the ongoing war between the houses, and Slytherins chose > to retaliate by joining Umbridge and working against the rest of > the students. I'm expecting something similar happened to Salazar > Slytherin, that the other three Founders begin to exclude him long > before he was actually thrown out and he started to retaliate. > Betsy Hp: Hmm, I'm pretty pro-Slytherin so I tend to look at Salazar a bit more favorably. Plus, the Hat sings that the Founders all turned on each other and "divided sought to rule". Which suggests that Salazar wasn't the only Founder with an issue. So I've always seen him in the role of sin-eater: taking the problem into himself and carrying it away with him when he left. Until that point I don't think it was three on one, more one on one on one on one. (Yeah, I had to count the ones. ) But I think because Salazar left, his House foundered and weakened and became easy prey for someone like Tom Riddle. And young Tom took all that was darkest about Slytherin and used it to his own destructive purposes. I mean, isn't it ironic that an outsider half- blood becomes the encouragment for pure-blood fanatics to unleash their xenophobic violence? To me it shows that it's not about the objective, it's about the chaos. If Helga had been the one to leave Hogwarts, the Death Eaters would be all over nonconformists for example. > >>Jen: > So I'm thinking JKR will take the house unity storyline back to the > history of the Founders and then bring it forward to the current > generation to learn how to stop the cycle. > Betsy Hp: That's what I'm hoping! The history of the Founders is too intriguing to just drop, IMO. > >>Jen: I'm liking Neville here, especially if Luna is the > Ravenclaw since she's a little, um, strange to work with and > Neville understands her better than most if the end of HBP was any > indication. But what about your favorite character, Ginny? Hehe, > you didn't mention her. Gack, I sincerely hope not though it's > really unlikely she's letting Harry go on the quest without her if > Hermione and Ron get to go and *especially* if a whole crowd of > kids are involved. Betsy Hp: On the one hand: ick, Ginny. But on the other hand, it'd be a nice opportunity to expand her character, let us get to know the real Ginny. However, it could possibly mean cutting out Neville. If push came to shove I'd rather Neville front and center. (Not that it's really my choice, of course. > >>Jen: Luna's easier to work with from a conflict perspective, but > not in many other ways! Cho and Marietta are gone from the story > imo, maybe one or two references. Luna's proven she can offer > something the Trio--with their Heart, Mind and Soul--lack, meaning > the power of Intuition. Betsy Hp: Honestly, the only reason I thought of either Cho or Marietta was because of how Hermione left off with them. I feel like there's something else to be done there (at least if JKR expects me to see Hermione as a decent humanbeing). However, Luna could very well raise the issue herself. And by being a total outsider with it (not the girl scarred, nor her best-friend) she might be unemotional enough to actually reach Hermione. And in the end, much like Neville and the Gryffindors, I'd rather see more of Luna than any of the other Ravenclaws. > >>Jen: > You were talking about all this in terms of the Horcrux hunt--maybe > what will happen is when it comes to the actual locating of a > Horcrux for each house, one person will represent that part of the > quest, like soliciting Zacharias Smith specifically during the > seach for the Hufflepuff cup? I'm not sure if that would work > since Harry and Co. know where the Slytherin locket is, not Draco. > >>Magpie: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163698 > > I thought it might be possible that the reason no one could open the > locket wasn't only due to its being a Horcrux but instead had > something to do with Regulus charming the locket to only recognize a > Black--perhaps a Pureblood Black. Regulus had subscribed to the > Pureblood ideology and the idea that Black made you royalty, so it > wouldn't be impossible for him to use it somehow even after he'd > rejected Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: Combining these two ideas together (because I love both of them ), perhaps Zach and Draco and Luna(?) and Neville(?) will be needed to safely *destroy* the horcruxes. Perhaps being somehow associated with the objects would help them recognize each object's weak spot. Just as Harry was able to easily figure out how to destroy the diary horcrux. I've also had a theory that Draco might be a helpful source of information when it comes to finding the horcruxes. He seems to eavesdrop on a lot of his father's conversations, so he may have heard something that will make sense in hindsight. (Though I also like the idea of a mysterious Dumbledore-esque Patronus (phoenix, bumblebee) delivering horcrux locations to Harry. Hmm, just who is this mysterious helper? ) > >>Jen: > The prospect *does* makes the Horcrux hunt sound more exciting, > however it works out. Betsy Hp: Doesn't it though? Much more meaningful, IMO. (Which means I really hope this theory is correct, at least in general.) Betsy Hp (moved some of Jen's text around to make my responses flow a bit better -- because it's all about me ) From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Jan 12 02:36:26 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:36:26 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: References: <1f40e2480701110439r3c563614lf1cb34baa0b5971b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0701111836x2c7a92c2i183d9bfc25180c1a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163705 Maria: So, why did Rowling need to make things even worse for Harry? It's not > like she needed filler material to make the book longer, if anything > it could have used a trim here and there. I think it was a bit cruel > to make Harry realize the mirror was there despite everything else he > went through. Lynda: This was a time in Harry's life when he was going to be miserable no matter what. At the beginning of the term he realizes nobody (basically) wants to believe his story about Cedric and the return of Voldemort. The newspapers are making him a laughingstock and the MOM is doing pretty much the same. So he gets this two way mirror as a gift from Sirius and pretty much forgets about it. Then, Sirius dies. He finally remembers the mirror. After its too late. Is this cruel? No. Its pretty much the way people act. Looking for something you really need to help you with a project and nothing seems to work right? You may just be overlooking it. I lost my wallet recently. My friend and I knew where I'd lost it, we cleaned and cleaned but didn't find it. Two weeks later, she calls me to tell me her roommate found my wallet, right where we had been looking, but hidden in a corner! That's the same type of thing that happened with the two-way mirror. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 12 04:25:28 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:25:28 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163706 > > >>Valky: > > Hehe ;) Yeah, it was me who was so shocked and shaken at the idea > > that "sniveller" as in colloquial late 20th century english term > > for a weak grovelling git, was anything short of a given for some > > readers. > > Betsy Hp: > I seem to recall there was some debate about "sniveller" being a > synonym for "snitch". Which it's not as far as I know. Weak, > grovelling, and even git I'll give you. But don't forget crying. > Valky Now: I remember what you are referring to here, Betsy, I was speculating on the detention slips, (James had many, Snape none as far as we could know), and was relating it to a possible background for the "Snivellus" moniker. It wasn't "Snitch" I was pressing for as the synonym, but rather "crying/complaining which is insincere and intentionally manipulative", ie grovelling. My thinking was that Snape recieved his reputation with the Marauders by virtue of what they percieved as Snivelling which was a cowardly way of ever having to deal with the consequences of his own ill-doings. This translates into a Teen Snape who was into the evil sort of magic, hanging out with the evil crowd, cursing James at every opportunity, *sneaking around* trying to get the Marauders in trouble, basically being a complete a*se but never actually recieving a punishment/detention or admitting to himself or others that he was short of a great guy. > > >>Valky: > > > > Q. A Muggle????? > > A. Bingo!! > > Snape's father was a muggle, and by what appears to be accounts, > > Snape's father was also an a***ole. > > Betsy Hp: > This is still unconfirmed. The a***oles could have been members of > the Prince family. Valky now: Yeah, I definitely acknowledge that it is unconfirmed. Still it occurred to me in the moment and everything seemed to slide into place very quickly. "That awful boy", "Worst kind of Muggle", Hot-headed Snape. Your right that it probably isn't the main reason why Sirius labels Snape a coward, thinking back on it, but I do still like it as a theory of what might be a part of Snape's history with Lily and Petunia's history with the Wizard world. > Betsy Hp: > See, *I* think attacking a muggle with a nasty spell is cowardly, but > unless JKR is going for evil twins and evil Hagrid, she doesn't seem > to feel the same way. Especially since Dumbledore had a bit of fun > using magic (though not nearly as nasty) against defenseless muggles. > Hmmm, just aside, I'm not sure I share you views on Dumbledore's treatment of the Dursleys. But I have had this debate long and hard before.. I think DD was almost infinitely patient with those two, and what he finally did do to them in book six was IMO nothing more than a good firm taking in hand of the situation; no more or less than they deserved, really. I'd hardly call it attacking especially given that Dumbledore and Petunia do have history. I'd say that history most probably includes no less than helping and/or protecting Petunia and her family on more than one ocassion. We do know that Harry saved Dudley's life, and Petunia does too, and yet, she carries on with her rudeness and cllousness indiginance towards these kind people, I personally don't feel the slightest sympathy for her being poked in the forehead with a glass, it's the least I'd do to demonstrate my restraint to her, personally, if I were in Dumbledore's shoes. As for Fred and George, what they did wasn't exactly innocuous, but at the same time, recall they were testing these products on themselves, and wouldn't release one that would do any permanent harm. What they did to Dudley wasn't something that they hadn't already done to themselves to make sure it was nothing more than a temporary and non-lifethreatening discomfort. That said, I think what they did was bad. Funny, but bad. ;) Valky From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 12 05:38:19 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:38:19 -0000 Subject: Maybe Snape really is DDM! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163707 Replies starred (**) Carol: Are you suggesting that Snape *didn't* kill Dumbledore, that, say, it was a fake AK and DD really died from the poison? **Valky: Yep. That I am. I've not believed that Dumbledores death was as simple as Snape AKing him opportunely from the start. It never quite sat right with me. You might recall we've deconstructed Snape's AK together before a couple of times and come to a pretty strong conclusion that it didn't tick all the AK check boxes making it suspicious. I do suspect the poison as the killer, mostly because there is/was an LV Horcrux involved and the poison was delivered by Harry's hand. But that's another theory. Carol: That's an idea I've considered and haven't wholly rejected, but I'm surprised that it would come from someone who sees Snape as unfavorably as you seem to. **Valky: LOL, yeah, I will stand by my conviction that Snape was definitely a sinister-minded and very unlikeable *teen*. Whatever good he had in him, at that stage, he suppressed strongly, but I also agree with Dumbledore that in his maturity he managed to change his mind about a couple of things and find again that better person inside himself which he aspired to, even though he remained nasty and unlikeable in many ways, he is a slightly better person as an adult. Carol: At any rate, DDM!Snape as a theory (or set of theories) doesn't require Snape to be innocent of killing Dumbledore. It just requires killing Dumbledore to have been the right choice and in accordance with what DD wanted him to do. **Valky: Yeah, I totally agree. It is my opinion that Snape didn't kill Dumbledore, of it's own precedence. It just doesn't ring true to me that the Tower scene was what it appeared on the surface, whether Snape is DD's man or not, none of my theory grasps to support that he is in any way, but rather, vice versa: I have my theory and its conclusion is Snape is DD's man, whether I like it or not. Potioncat: Sticking with your theory for this post, let's look at Lupin again. His intention was to keep secrets that he knew he should tell, in order to protect his status. (the Animagus Black, the tunnels, the map) All those secrets crashed down on him, revealing to others one of his secrets and putting others at very big risk. And of course, causing him to leave the position of DADA master. **Valky: Yeah I like this take too, Potioncat. It makes sense to me, if we are to believe that Lupins only intention was to protect himself and his status. But again, I'm not sure that's what his intentions were, and I think for the most his secret keeping was benevolent, he kept the secret of his wolfism so he could be a teacher of DADA, helping the children at Hogwarts and protecting the son and schoolmates of one of his dearest friends. He quite possibly kept the secret of Sirius's animagus form because deep down he never really believed that Sirius was guilty and could not bring himself to condemn Sirius; this would be benevolent intent. OTOH, Lupin was not benevolent toward Snape, he teased and mocked him in front of the students and encouraged the students to percieve him with disdain, his intentions there were about as Dark as I think it gets with Lupin, but dark enough to be his downfall in the end. What I am thinking is that the DADA curse feeds from the darkness inside the Teacher, and the intention it feeds upon needs to be genuine malevolence, rather than just a secret of some kind or nature, but based upon something LV might believe that all people have such a weakness inside them that they would turn to an evil end, that everyone has their dark side to feed the curse with. And so that is why I related it to Lupins intentions towards Snape, rather than the other things he did which he felt guilty for. Potioncat: I have to think about this. You're now in Pippin's camp---that Snape didn't kill DD. **Valky LOL, as I said above, I always have been in that camp. I don't think Dumbledore died that way. zgirnius: As I understand Valky's point about the DADA curse, we could easily restate her position to fit a wide variety of DDM! theories. The lie which is Snape's downfall is that he *murdered* the Headmaster. This could cover a situation in which he indeed did not kill the Headmaster at all, something else, like the poison, did that, or a situation where Snape did kill Dumbledore, but at the latter's request and with good intentions (like saving Harry and Draco, and thwarting Voldemort). **Valky: True, zgirnius, on the grounds that benevolent intentions are useless to the curse, it cannot feed from them, then if Snape did successfully AK Dumbledore, but only with a good intent, that could work. Not sure I like the way it works, though, it gets a bit too complicated for me, from there. CDR: My question about the "worst intentions" model for the curse, that breaks it down for me, is: What were Lupin's worst intentions? To keep his secret from coming out? Maybe. Unlike all of the others, though, Lupin doesn't have that big bad intention he is hiding (unless he's ESE, right!) and so he does not fit the pattern quite enough for me. He does have massive secrets though, as potioncat and others mentioned, so the curse had plenty to work on using that model. **Valky: As I said above I agree Lupin doesn't have a big bad intention that he is hiding, which is why I latched onto the concept of his slight malevolence towards Snape. His intent there wasn't nice, really, and couldn't be construed as good, so that fits the bill for me. :) Valky From alcuin74 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 04:33:13 2007 From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:33:13 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: <2795713f0701111836x2c7a92c2i183d9bfc25180c1a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163708 > Lynda: > > So > he gets this two way mirror as a gift from Sirius and pretty much forgets > about it. Alcuin: That to me is one of the most unbelievable things in the whole series. Given how close a connection Harry and Sirius had forged, there's *no way* Harry could have forgotten about that mirror. Imagine your very best friend giving you a cell phone before you leave for a 6 month trip, saying "Call me anytime on it." Who among us would forget we have the phone? That's one point where I simply can't suspend disbelief. JKR really goofed on that one. If I were Harry I would have been chatting it up with Sirius every day through the mirror. From unicornspride at centurytel.net Fri Jan 12 13:43:45 2007 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:43:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device References: Message-ID: <003201c7364f$ae3c9270$2f01a8c0@Lana> No: HPFGUIDX 163709 ----- Original Message ----- From: "alcuin74" To: Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:33 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device >> Lynda: >> >> So >> he gets this two way mirror as a gift from Sirius and pretty much > forgets >> about it. > > Alcuin: > JKR really goofed on that one. If I were Harry I > would have been chatting it up with Sirius every day through the > mirror. > Lana writes: However, you have to remember that Harry is trying to "protect" Sirius. The dog incident at the train station probably scared Harry. Knowing that Draco and Mr. Malfoy know about it. Personally, I wouldn't have forgotten the mirror and would have probably used it at some point. But... I am also 36 years old. Harry is a teenager who is looking out for Sirius. He may have thought it better to never use it. I can't see Harry putting Sirius in danger of being caught. Even if just talking thru a mirror. Best to keep things like that hidden. At least in the mind of a teenager. I asked my 16 year old what she would have done and she told me that she wouldn't have used it either. Lana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 15:08:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:08:52 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163710 Alcuin wrote: > > That to me is one of the most unbelievable things in the whole > series. Given how close a connection Harry and Sirius had forged, > there's *no way* Harry could have forgotten about that mirror. > Imagine your very best friend giving you a cell phone before you leave > for a 6 month trip, saying "Call me anytime on it." Who among us > would forget we have the phone? That's one point where I simply can't suspend disbelief. JKR really goofed on that one. If I were Harry I would have been chatting it up with Sirius every day through the mirror. > Carol responds: Harry didn't even know it was a mirror. He never opened the package until it was too late. His reason: He didn't want Sirius Black to come out of hiding to defend him against Snape if Snape gave him a hard time (the whole reason that Black gave him the mirror). "'Okay,' said Harry, stowing the package away in the inside pocket of his jacket, but he knew he would never use whatever it was. It wouldn't be he, Harry, who lured Sirius from his place of safety" (OoP Am. ed. 523). Hence the irony, since using the mirror would have *prevented* Black from leaving 12 GP. Look at the wording. It's like "He would never forgive Snape. Never" in the same book. It just jumps out at the reader, or at least, a reader like me, as something Harry knows or believes that will be proven false. It drips with irony. And "Harry knew" is also a signal that something isn't quite right. Harry "knew" that the reason Fake!Moody drank from his own flask was that he feared being poisoned. Only that was the real Moody's reason. Fake!Moody was drinking Polyjuice Potion, which Harry, of course, *didn't* know. In this instance, Harry *does* try to use the mirror to contact the dead Sirius, and it *is* Harry who inadvertently lures Sirius to the MoM, in part because he *didn't* use that mirror when it was needed--not to protect himself against Snape, who (IMO) really is trying to teach him Occlumency as DD wishes, but to detect Voldemort's lie. So I see plenty of irony but no reason to suspend disbelief. It's perfectly in character for Harry to act as he did, feeling no need for adult interference in his lessons with Snape (who, after all, had never actually harmed him), yet, paradoxically, feeling protective toward his godfather. And, of course, never having opened the package in the first place, it's perfectly in character for Harry to forget that he had it in his trunk, just as he forgot to take Black's knife with him for the Second Task and forgot that Ron had given him gold (which turned out to be Leprechaun gold) at the QWC and consequently didn't notice that it had disappeared. The mirror was not given to him for chatting--as I said above, it was supposed to be a way to contact Black if Snape gave him a hard time. (Black had a hand in making the Occlumency lessons less effective than they might have been, arousing Harry's suspicions of Snape. Thanks a lot, Sirius. If Harry had listened to Snape and blocked the dream, Black would be alive. That, too, is ironic.) Carol, fearing that Harry won't realize his various mistakes when he finds the pieces of the mirror in his trunk but expecting him to repair it and put it to use, regardless From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 15:55:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:55:10 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163711 Valky wrote: > I remember what you are referring to here, Betsy, I was speculating on the detention slips, (James had many, Snape none as far as we could know), and was relating it to a possible background for the "Snivellus" moniker. It wasn't "Snitch" I was pressing for as the synonym, but rather "crying/complaining which is insincere and intentionally manipulative", ie grovelling. My thinking was that Snape recieved his reputation with the Marauders by virtue of what they percieved as Snivelling which was a cowardly way of ever having to deal with the consequences of his own ill-doings. This translates into a Teen Snape who was into the evil sort of magic, hanging out with the evil crowd, cursing James at every opportunity, *sneaking around* trying to get the Marauders in trouble, basically being a complete a*se but never actually recieving a punishment/detention or admitting to himself or others that he was short of a great guy. Carol responds: For the record, I see Teen!Severus as a more sympathetic figure, as indicated by both the Pensieve scene in OoP and HBP. Granted, he calls Lily a Mudblood (under duress and feeling furious that a Gryffindor and a girl is trying to rescue him when in a fair fight, he could have defended himself handily) and he (later, perhaps as a result of this incident) invents a Dark spell. (No, I don't think that the spell that caused a small cut on James's face was Sectumsempra. He wasn't "cut always" or he'd have bled to death like a hemophiliac, and there's no indication that the cut left a scar. It may be a precursor to Sectumsempra, but it clearly is not sufficiently Dark or dangerous to be Sectumsempra itself.) But the Severus we see in the Pensieve scene is a studious little nerd who needs to get everything he knows about DADA (plainly a lot) onto his DADA OWL in a tiny handwriting and is so anxious about it that, Hermionelike, he studies the exam paper and goes over his answers in his mind after the exam. He's caught offguard yet very quickly pulls out his wand--evidently, he's developed good reflexes from having been attacked before--but James and Sirius already have theirs out and James hexes him before he has a chance to defend himself. And James's excuse is "because he exists"--not because he's done anything to James, other than hexing him in retaliation at every opportunity--not because he's a Dark wizard in the making (that's Sirius Black's after-the-fact rationalization) or because he supports the pureblood supremacy ideology (he's probably sensitive about his half=blood status and keeps his mouth shut about such things most of the time; he uses the word "Mudblood" *after* the attack). Anyway, even Harry sees that Teen!Severus is a pale, stooped who looks like a plant left in the dark, neglected and overly studious. And at this point, he's not hanging out with any prospective DEs. They're all older than he is and have left Hogwarts. If any, say Macnair or CrabbenGoyle, are left, they're not his close friends and don't stick up for him. HBP shows us a brilliant boy whose potions improvements are real improvements and clearly the result of his own experiments. (I'm among those who believe that the adult Snape writes his potions directions on the board rather than assigning them out of any book because he's using his improved versions in class.) He came to school at eleven knowing more "curses" (surely hexes and jinxes) than most seventh years. It's possible that James and Sirius, not being familiar with these spells, believed them to be Dark, not realizing that the reason they didn't know the spells was that some of them at least were Severus's own inventions. (The older Slytherins, OTOH, immediately realized that they had a prodigy on their hands and adopted him into their gang despite his being only a little boy and a Half-blood at that.) His invented spells, except for Sectumsempra, are mostly imaginative hexes no more Dark or dangerous than the spells the kids already use against each other--the toenail hex, Langlock (the tongue-locking curse which Harry unfairly uses against the Squib Filch), Levicorpus--and useful charms like Muffliato (which any teenager of my acquaintance would love to be able to use, secretive creatures that they naturally are). He also invented a countercurse for Levicorpus (the others could probably be reversed by Finite Incantatem, but Levicorpus, being nonverbal, probably required its own countercurse) and either invented or researched and discovered a complex countercurse for Sectumsempra. So I see the young Snape as extremely bright but underappreciated except by the Slytherins and misunderstood by the Gryffindors, for whom he naturally developed an enmity because they teased and bullied him. The absence of detentions can hardly be held against him. I'd hate to be judged in that way. ("Never put in detention? She must a sly little tattletale!") I don't think Snivellus means what you think it means. I think it's a cruel play on Severus's name (like Peeves's "loony. loopy Lupin!" which for all we know could date to a time when Severus had a head cold and was caught sniffling (or was overheard crying because someone he loved was killed?) If he had reached a point in his sixth year where he was following the Marauders around hoping to get them in trouble, it was surely because he wanted revenge for their treatment of him--and suspected that they were up to something seriously wrong. Rather like Harry following Draco to eavesdrop, IMO. On a sidenote, I think that the adult Snape developed his graceful, sweeping movements (no mention of his being stoop-shouldered like teen!Severus) and cold, sarcastic manner in an attempt to escape from the nerdy image that caused him so much grief as a child and adolescent. But the Snape we see in the Pensieve scene is no more a coward than the later Snape who risked personal injury and death to spy for Dumbledore against Voldemort. He joined the Death Eaters, to be sure, and we can't be sure of his motives. I think it was at least partly a desire for recognition and appreciation, which he had received from the Slytherins but not from the Gryffindors. But by the time Harry was born, he regretted that decision, and, in particular, having revealed the Prophecy to Voldemort. Carol, not arguing that Valky is wrong, just presenting her own view From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 12 16:29:39 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:29:39 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163712 > Alla: > I just cannot think of man who suffered as badly as Dumbledore seemed > to be in the Cave as man without compassion. Or at least I hope not. > > What I refuse to do is to justify Dumbledore's mistakes as the > correct cause of action especially when he himself confesses to > making them. > > To bring it back to this topic, I cannot help but wondering, maybe DD > indeed had this conversation with Snape and nothing came out of it? > > It would certainly make me feel much better, although I doubt it > judged by the fact that in the books we see DD actually trying to do > something about their animosity not earlier than OOP. > > Duh! So,Headmaster did you watch Harry or did you not? Pippin: Watch, yes. But interfere? Do you think the head of the CIA interferes every time there's a personality conflict between his agents? Dumbledore believed, right or wrong, that Snape's conflict with Harry had nothing to do with Voldemort. It wasn't his business as Head of the Order unless it interfered with Order business. Then indeed, he realized that he should have taught Harry occlumency himself. Does the administration of a school interfere every time there's a conflict between a student and a teacher? We see that at Hogwarts only when there are rules being broken, or a student is failing or seriously injured. Nobody tries to smooth things out between Hermione and Trelawney, though Hermione's withdrawal from class ruined any future career that required Divination as a subject, and she might have kept at it if she'd had Firenze instead. Hogwarts does not see it as an obligation to make sure its students reach their goals in every subject they attempt. Harry, struggle though he might, was not failing potions and has never failed any course with Snape except occlumency. It would make sense if Dumbledore didn't interfere until then, given his detached style and his determination not to single Harry out for special treatment. And then we do see a change in Snape's behavior towards Harry ! Snape is still his snide sarcastic self, and he seems to be thinking of Harry as a wizard who lacks ability, but IIRC, he never says so again except when he's not in class and Harry's enemies are listening. Pippin thanking Alla for inspiring this insight into canon From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 12 17:46:11 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:46:11 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol, fearing that Harry won't realize his various mistakes when he > finds the pieces of the mirror in his trunk but expecting him to > repair it and put it to use, regardless > It seems likely to me that be he good or bad at some point in DH Snape will realize that he and Harry need to cooperate on some task, probably the most critical one: disposing of Voldemort. It will take quite a change in his view of the world for Harry to reach the same conclusion. From reading the whole thread I wonder if *the* most significant use that could be made of that mirror is precisely to allow Harry to see how his own failings and decisions have affected those around him, Sirius in particular. I think that would be more satisfying than merely having him glue it back together and talk to ... well anyone really. As a long time science fiction fan I suppose this is out of character for me but the Harry Potter books are a little *too* full of magical technologies that are simple solutions to all possible problems. Having the mirror be yet another wouldn't do anything for me. A few shards of broken glass that prove to be the key to emotional and intellectual growth would be a welcome departure from the norm. Maybe Harry will be fighting Snape at some point and one of them will break another mirror. Snape will undoubtedly be delivering one of his trademark life lesson lectures while the fight rages. Harry's gaze will fixate on some bits of broken glass and Snape's words will, finally, sink in. Harry will become a man. Ok, yeah, I'm just dreaming now aren't I? Ken From alcuin74 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 19:42:37 2007 From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:42:37 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163714 > Carol responds: > Harry didn't even know it was a mirror. He never opened the package > until it was too late. His reason: He didn't want Sirius Black to come > out of hiding to defend him against Snape if Snape gave him a hard > time (the whole reason that Black gave him the mirror). "'Okay,' said > Harry, stowing the package away in the inside pocket of his jacket, > but he knew he would never use whatever it was. It wouldn't be he, > Harry, who lured Sirius from his place of safety" (OoP Am. ed. 523). Alcuin: I stand corrected. You're right. Nevertheless, I can't understand why Harry wouldn't have at least opened the package at first chance to find out what it was, even if he didn't intend to use it. It was from *Sirius* after all. Had he opened it, he would have realized it was something he could have used to communicate with no risk of being caught. I also don't understand why Sirius didn't remind Harry of the mirror when Harry talked to him through the fire in Umbridge's office. Surely Sirius couldn't also have forgotten about it. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 12 20:09:37 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:09:37 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163715 > Alcuin: > > I stand corrected. You're right. Nevertheless, I can't understand > why Harry wouldn't have at least opened the package at first chance to > find out what it was, even if he didn't intend to use it. It was from > *Sirius* after all. Had he opened it, he would have realized it was > something he could have used to communicate with no risk of being > caught. I also don't understand why Sirius didn't remind Harry of the > mirror when Harry talked to him through the fire in Umbridge's office. > Surely Sirius couldn't also have forgotten about it. > Pippin: Sirius gave the package to Harry secretly, out of sight of the other Order members. I don't think he wanted Lupin to know about it. Sirius might have thought Lupin would object, especially if there were other mirrors, one of which might still be in the hands of Peter Pettigrew. I think Sirius's air of secrecy contributed to Harry's impression that using the gift would put Sirius at risk, and he didn't open the gift so as not to be tempted by it. Pippin From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 12 20:43:31 2007 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:43:31 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Valky wrote: > This translates into > a Teen Snape who was into the evil sort of magic, hanging out with > the evil crowd, cursing James at every opportunity, *sneaking > around* trying to get the Marauders in trouble, basically being a > complete a*se but never actually recieving a punishment/detention or > admitting to himself or others that he was short of a great guy. > > Carol responds: > For the record, I see Teen!Severus as a more sympathetic figure, Valky Now : I'm thinking after reading your post that its not just Severus we see differently to each other, but also James and Sirius. And our respective ideas about James and Sirius affect and reflects on the way we see Snape and vice versa. Where you appear to see James and Sirius as cold hearted, vain and pretentious, even, I see them as idealistic, proud and careless. Where you see Snape as sympathetic, quiet and unassuming (taking the pensieve scene for it) I take the Marauders word for it because I understand them as idealistic and see of Teen Snape as intense, baleful and supercilious, not all that different from adult Snape. > The absence of detentions can hardly be held against him. I'd > hate to be judged in that way. ("Never put in detention? She must a > sly little tattletale!") Valky: LOL, :D I actually disagree strongly with that. I think it can be held against him, unless Sirius and Lupin are out and out liars, which I thoroughly doubt. They say Snape gave as good as he got when it came to James and 'never missed an opportunity' to curse him. No detentions, means he got well and truly away with seven years of cursing another student and not necessarily always in a defensive sense. > I don't think Snivellus means what you think > it means. I think it's a cruel play on Severus's name (like Peeves's > "loony. loopy Lupin!" which for all we know could date to a time > when Severus had a head cold and was caught sniffling (or was > overheard crying because someone he loved was killed?) If he had > reached a point in his sixth year where he was following the > Marauders around hoping to get them in trouble, it was surely > because he wanted revenge for their treatment of him--and suspected > that they were up to something seriously wrong. Rather like Harry > following Draco to eavesdrop, IMO. Valky: I know we really only have a shell of James to go on in canon, but I'd have to disagree with anything that looks to me like assuming from that he is a hollow character. A lot of canon we do have on him definitely contradicts it. It is really only Snape that has percieved him as a hollow man, Sirius, Lily, Hagrid, McGonagall, Lupin, Dumbledore tend to remember him differently and even Voldemort seems to think James was a brave and upstanding character. I don't think Snape is a reliable witness to James character, considering their history, his view is definitely coloured with bold emotion, and so I don't think James was the person Snape paints to Harry, regardless of the pensieve scene. I do believe the pensieve scene is an 100% accurate representation of the facts of that day, though, for the record. My indifference to it's evidence stems from the fact that it was a day *at the end of their fifth year*. There are at least five years of unspoken understanding between these guys present in this scene. I cannot take this as though it were Snape sitting under a tree on the first day of school because it wasn't. They already hated each other, they had already hurt each other many, many times, They knew what was going on between them, it didn't need explaining. That is what I think James meant by his offhand reply to Lily about why he was doing it, he understood and was consumed by at least five years of the reasons, to such an extent that he just expected everyone else to feel the same way and understand too. I think this is comparable to Harry's vendetta against Draco in HBP. >From a bystander point of view, without knowing the history, one would assume Harry was the bad guy sneaking around, stalking and throwing deadly curses. But when we know the history, the pain and loss Harry has suffered at the hands of the dark side which Draco has aligned with, when we know how it has slowly consumed him over the past five years, it becomes clear that he has lost his sense of reason and is just going on gut instinct trying to avoid more pain and death in his life. > Carol, not arguing that Valky is wrong, just presenting her own view > Valky.... same :) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 20:42:16 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:42:16 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163717 --- "alcuin74" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > > Harry didn't even know it was a mirror. He never > > opened the package until it was too late. His reason: > > He didn't want Sirius Black to come out of hiding to > > defend him against Snape ... > > Alcuin: > > ... I can't understand why Harry wouldn't have at least > opened the package ..., even if he didn't intend to use > it. It was from *Sirius* after all. Had he opened it, > he would have realized it was something he could have > used .... I also don't understand why Sirius didn't > remind Harry of the mirror when Harry talked to him > through the fire in Umbridge's office. Surely Sirius > couldn't also have forgotten about it. > bboyminn: If only Harry had opened the package he could have saved Sirius. If only I had left the house 5 minutes sooner or later, I could have avoided a car accident. If only I had picked the right numbers, I could have won the lottery. If only I wasn't so short, I would be tall. Pardon the snarky attitude. Everyone's lives is filled with this type of 'if only'. I seriously doubt that this same situation has not happened to every person here. I have tons of things I've put away for safe keeping and was never able to find again. Also, consider that Sirius did not just give Harry a gift. If that's all it was, Harry would have opened it. Instead Sirius gave Harry a badly wrapped package WITH a Context attached to it. Carol has already covered that context. But it was that context that caused Harry to subconsciously reject the package. He resolved to never use it because he didn't want to be the one who put Sirius at risk. By rejecting the context, he subconsiously rejected the package itself. Plus this was a very intense year for Harry. He had plenty of things to distract him from some package tucked away forgetten in his trunk. Now to your final question, why didn't Sirius mention the mirror when he and Harry spoke in the fire. If you go back and read that conversation, you will realize it was cut short. I'm sure Sirius had every intention of asking Harry about the Mirror, but never got the chance. Also, again, in this situation context played a role. Harry 'calls' to ask about Snape's Pensieve memory. They discussed that, and within limits resolved it. After the fact, there didn't seem to be any need to continue the conversation, so Sirius saw no reason to follow up on the mirror aspect. Or perhaps he did follow up on the mirror with Dumbledore, but none of them thought Harry would be foolish enough to attempt future contact by unsecure means. But relative to the one conversation, it was cut short and no one got to say everything they intended to say. Steve/bboyminn From alcuin74 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 20:38:44 2007 From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:38:44 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163718 > > Alcuin: > > > > I stand corrected. You're right. Nevertheless, I can't understand > > why Harry wouldn't have at least opened the package at first chance to > > find out what it was, even if he didn't intend to use it. It was from > > *Sirius* after all. Had he opened it, he would have realized it was > > something he could have used to communicate with no risk of being > > caught. I also don't understand why Sirius didn't remind Harry of the > > mirror when Harry talked to him through the fire in Umbridge's office. > > Surely Sirius couldn't also have forgotten about it. > > > > Pippin: > Sirius gave the package to Harry secretly, out of sight of the > other Order members. I don't think he wanted Lupin to know about it. > Sirius might have thought Lupin would object, especially if there were > other mirrors, one of which might still be in the hands of Peter > Pettigrew. > > I think Sirius's air of secrecy contributed to Harry's impression > that using the gift would put Sirius at risk, and he didn't open the > gift so as not to be tempted by it. > Alcuin: But the note on the reverse-side said it was a two-way mirror, and Sirius had the other one. One has to assume that there aren't any others that would have posed a risk. I can't see that Lupin would have made a fuss about it, other than to give Sirius one of his disapproving looks. Besides, were I Sirius, I would have to think: what's more dangerous, Lupin knowing about the mirrors or Harry taking all kinds of risks to talk to Sirius through the flue network? He should have told Harry to use the mirror next time, regardless of what Lupin would think. Looking at the text, it wasn't Lupin that Sirius was concealing the mirror from when he gave it to Harry; it was Mrs. Weasley, and we know that Sirius and Mrs. Weasley never saw eye to eye when it came to Harry. I don't think Sirius had any reason to fear Lupin's finding out about the mirror. From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jan 12 21:13:30 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:13:30 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163719 > > Pippin: > > Sirius gave the package to Harry secretly, out of sight of the > > other Order members. I don't think he wanted Lupin to know about > it. > > Sirius might have thought Lupin would object, especially if there > were > > other mirrors, one of which might still be in the hands of Peter > > Pettigrew. > > > > I think Sirius's air of secrecy contributed to Harry's impression > > that using the gift would put Sirius at risk, and he didn't open > the > > gift so as not to be tempted by it. > > > > Alcuin: > > But the note on the reverse-side said it was a two-way mirror, and > Sirius had the other one. One has to assume that there aren't any > others that would have posed a risk. I can't see that Lupin would > have made a fuss about it, other than to give Sirius one of his > disapproving looks. Besides, were I Sirius, I would have to think: > what's more dangerous, Lupin knowing about the mirrors or Harry > taking all kinds of risks to talk to Sirius through the flue > network? He should have told Harry to use the mirror next time, > regardless of what Lupin would think. > > Looking at the text, it wasn't Lupin that Sirius was concealing the > mirror from when he gave it to Harry; it was Mrs. Weasley, and we > know that Sirius and Mrs. Weasley never saw eye to eye when it came > to Harry. I don't think Sirius had any reason to fear Lupin's > finding out about the mirror. Magpie: Okay, but these are all looking at things in retrospect as if proving that Pippin's mistaken about Lupin makes everything Harry does unreasonable. But was the scene really unreasonable as written? I didn't think so. I thought JKR right along made Harry's actions perfectly logical. Sirius *did* have reason to give Harry the gift surreptitiously, because the whole theme of his story in OotP was him trying to find little ways to be involved while everyone else kept telling him to stay put in the house--the Weasleys were a symbol of that in that scene, but it was bigger than that. Rather than make it obvious that he was keeping his nose in the whole Occlumency idea (because he, like Harry, just couldn't completely trust Snape) he slipped Harry the gift. He puts it in the context that Carol described, where "using" whatever the present is is about "calling" Sirius if things get too hot with Snape during the lessons--it's an emergency. And we're told that Harry rejects the whole idea because he doesn't want to call Sirius for help. So it's not like Harry's throwing away a present. Sirius has told him, in general terms, that the present is a way to call Sirius to his aid and Harry is making a vow to himself not to do that, so puts the present away. As Steve said, we probably all make little decisions like this all the time. There's no good in after the fact going over how much better it would be if we hadn't. If JKR had never explained Harry's reasoning for putting the present away it might be a hole, but as it is I don't think it's a problem. It's okay if we the reader remember the present and are shouting at Harry to use it, because the author has completely explained why Harry himself isn't thinking about it. Sirius, as has been said, doesn't have time to say everything he might have wanted to say to Harry. Sure he might have said, "Why aren't you using the mirror I gave you?" as soon as he sees Harry, but it's just as believable for him to just react to what Harry is saying first, since Harry's the one who called him. If somebody calls you and urgently needs to speak to you, you might listen to them before you think about how they should have used the cell-- especially since the mirror was not being given to Harry as the way Harry should communicate. So to me it seems like all these ways Harry could have behaved are fine, but that the way he himself behaved (and Sirius too) weren't bizarre either. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jan 13 01:13:18 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:13:18 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163721 > Carol, fearing that Harry won't realize his various mistakes when > he finds the pieces of the mirror in his trunk but expecting him to > repair it and put it to use, regardless Ken: > From reading the whole thread I wonder if *the* most significant > use that could be made of that mirror is precisely to allow Harry > to see how his own failings and decisions have affected those > around him, Sirius in particular. I think that would be more > satisfying than merely having him glue it back together and talk > to... well anyone really. > A few shards of broken glass that prove to be the key to emotional > and intellectual growth would be a welcome departure from the norm. > Maybe Harry will be fighting Snape at some point and one of them > will break another mirror. Snape will undoubtedly be delivering one > of his trademark life lesson lectures while the fight rages. > Harry's gaze will fixate on some bits of broken glass and Snape's > words will, finally, sink in. Harry will become a man. Jen: If the broken mirror comes back to represent Harry's mistakes, I will be sorely disappointed. That mirror is a symbol of his connection to Sirius and through Sirius, his father. I'm wishing for a more hopeful scenario, one in which Harry repairs the mirror and it connects him to someone or something important rather than being a punishing representation of his failures. Harry realized his failings in OOTP, he blamed himself for mistakes that were not solely his fault: 'He just wanted to get them all out alive, make sure that none of his friends paid a terrible price for his stupidity.' And, 'It was his fault Sirius died; it was all his fault.' And, 'The guilt filling the whole of Harry's chest like some monstrous, weighty parasite now writhed and squirmed.' There are several more such thoughts during his talk with Dumbledore. Whenever this discussion comes up, I always wonder what Harry didn't say or do that causes people to think Harry wasn't owning up to his mistakes? Is it because 'he felt a savage pleasure in blaming Snape, it seemed to be easing his own sense of dreadful guilt, and he wanted to hear Dumbledore agree with him'? Because he was so angry at Dumbledore and Kreacher? To me those were such normal human reactions to the situation, to the stress he's just been through, the frustration & the loss, that it's hard to read them as a total negatiion of Harry acknowledging his mistakes. Harry realizes he made mistakes *and* he blames others for what happened, it's just not a black/white issue to me. And some of the people he blamed actually did contribute to Harry going to the MOM and Sirius' death so the blame wasn't even misplaced. Ken: > As a long time science fiction fan I suppose this is out of > character for me but the Harry Potter books are a little *too* full > of magical technologies that are simple solutions to all possible > problems. Having the mirror be yet another wouldn't do anything > for me. Jen: I share your belief there are a few too many simple magical solutions in the series. Somehow JKR writes in such a way that I buy every one of them, though! Take the brother wands, how convenient was that? No wonder that particular plot point has spawned thousands of theories about a Manipulative Dumbledore arranging everything behind the scenes. And yet when reading that scene not once did my mind wander outside the story, JKR drew me in with what happened when the wands connected and the emotional impact of what Harry was experiencing. From lmcdanl at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 13 01:28:00 2007 From: lmcdanl at sbcglobal.net (mariejgrangerpotter) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:28:00 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session In-Reply-To: <00ef01c72e24$a3e6f0f0$5180400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163722 > Magpie: > There's nothing to resolve with the DA since, as Harry himself said, > the need for it disappeared along with Umbridge. May I respectfully disagree with you and Harry on this? Yes, Umbridge was gone, but they were being taught by Snape, who is at the very least a former Death Eater. At the end of OotP, Harry blamed Snape for Sirius's death. Why, then, does he trust him to teach himself and his friends DADA? The plot-driven reason is probably that if the DA had continued, there would have been many more students to fight against the Death Eaters Draco let in. However, it doesn't make sense to me that Harry decided it was no longer needed, whether Snape was truly ESE or DDM. > SPEW was a plot element that was more obviously dropped, what with > Hermione spending two books hammering on House-elves as a problem > and then seeming to forget all about it when Harry himself actually > owns one, though even there it's not exactly an unanswered question. Now THIS one I would completely agree with. I don't agree with the way Hermione approached SPEW in OotP because I think the house elves should be given the choice as to being free. Particularly the ones who live and work at Hogwarts, as they're not likely to be mistreated. However, aside from objecting to Harry's use of Kreacher and Dobby to tail Draco, Hermione seemed to have given up her passion for house elf rights in HBP. That saddened me, but I continue to hope that house elves will play a significant role in DH. Someone on thread recently mentioned that Jo has promised as much on her website, but I've been unable to locate it. Any help pointing me in the right direction would be much appreciated. ~Marie, formerly mariejadewalker From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 00:27:46 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:27:46 -0000 Subject: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163723 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Pippin: > Watch, yes. But interfere? > > Do you think the head of the CIA interferes every time there's > a personality conflict between his agents? Dumbledore > believed, right or wrong, that Snape's conflict with Harry had > nothing to do with Voldemort. It wasn't his business as Head > of the Order unless it interfered with Order business. Then > indeed, he realized that he should have taught Harry > occlumency himself. Well, speaking as someone who's had some experience with both the CIA and the NSA, as well as various Pentagon intelligence agencies, the agents' handlers most certainly do interfere, if they have good case management skills and they want things to proceed smoothly. The question here is "rightly or wrongly." I think what Alla and I are saying is that Dumbledore is showing severe mistakes here, and those mistakes have moral ramifications. > > > Harry, struggle though he might, was not failing potions and has > never failed any course with Snape except occlumency. It would > make sense if Dumbledore didn't interfere until then, given his > detached style and his determination not to single Harry out > for special treatment. > Simply because Dumbledore has a pattern of mistakes and bad behavior does not excuse that behavior. Nor does the fact that the Wizarding World is a reprehensible dystopia excuse anything about Hogwarts or Dumbledore's policies. Dumbledore's consent to Snape's abuse of Harry, like his consent to the Dursley's abuse of Harry, sets up a deep moral conflict at the heart of the character -- a conflict that severely undermines the messages about him that Rowling clearly wants to get across. Lupinlore From alcuin74 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 03:17:25 2007 From: alcuin74 at yahoo.com (alcuin74) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 03:17:25 -0000 Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163724 > Jen: I share your belief there are a few too many simple magical > solutions in the series. Somehow JKR writes in such a way that I > buy every one of them, though! Take the brother wands, how > convenient was that? No wonder that particular plot point has > spawned thousands of theories about a Manipulative Dumbledore > arranging everything behind the scenes. And yet when reading that > scene not once did my mind wander outside the story, JKR drew me in > with what happened when the wands connected and the emotional impact > of what Harry was experiencing. Alcuin: I have to agree with that. In spite of all the problematic plot issues that emerge after one reads (and re-reads) the books, the first time I read them I was totally immersed and questioned none of it. Emotionally, JKR's writing is high voltage. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jan 13 04:10:59 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:10:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session References: Message-ID: <004201c736c8$d5a4e0a0$7766400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163725 >> Magpie: >> There's nothing to resolve with the DA since, as Harry himself said, > > the need for it disappeared along with Umbridge. Marie: > May I respectfully disagree with you and Harry on this? Yes, Umbridge > was gone, but they were being taught by Snape, who is at the very > least a former Death Eater. At the end of OotP, Harry blamed Snape > for Sirius's death. Why, then, does he trust him to teach himself and > his friends DADA? The plot-driven reason is probably that if the DA > had continued, there would have been many more students to fight > against the Death Eaters Draco let in. However, it doesn't make sense > to me that Harry decided it was no longer needed, whether Snape was > truly ESE or DDM. Magpie: Sure you can disagree with us (heh-me and Harry), but that doesn't make it an unresolved issue in the books, which was what I was saying. We weren't left hanging with the DA because the stated reason for it existing in OotP was gone, and Harry himself says this makes it unnecessary. So there's nothing to resolve in the way that, say, we need a resolution on who RAB is. Umbridge wasn't teaching them DADA at all. Snape was, so nobody felt the need for Harry to teach on the side. In fifth year it was Harry or nothing. In sixth year Snape was teaching things Harry himself didn't know (Hermione ironically says Snape sounds like Harry, which makes it seem like he'd be a good teacher) so the DA would probably, if anything, have evolved into a duelling club--one that nobody really seemed to want, though. It would have been a fine idea--lots of fanfics did that when they imagined sixth year. It just wasn't the way JKR was going. I do get your point about your disagreement with Harry, but at least he does give us a reason in canon for it not continuing that all the characters accept. Marie: Someone on thread > recently mentioned that Jo has promised as much on her website, but > I've been unable to locate it. Any help pointing me in the right > direction would be much appreciated. Magpie: I remember something...but now I totally can't remember. I'm sure somebody else in the thread will! -m From destinied6421_hao at yahoo.com.sg Sat Jan 13 09:55:43 2007 From: destinied6421_hao at yahoo.com.sg (Richie) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:55:43 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163726 Hello, I'm a new member in this group, but I have one point that I fear if it become truth, and as a new member, I don't know if this topic has been talked or not... I think Harry might be also a Horcrux to save Voldemort's partial soul. It's because Dumbledore said that there might be 7 Horcrux, while they already found 4. I believe Harry also a Horcrux because Harry has abilities that comes from Voldemort himself since he tried to kill Harry when he was a baby. Like Harry understands parseltongue, Harry have the same core for his magic wand, and Harry also was considered to be better if he's in Slytherin. So, tell me your opinion about it. Thank you. Richie From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Sat Jan 13 04:23:53 2007 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:23:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <218226.33513.qm@web8404.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163727 aki wrote : > I was thinking and got confused how it all got started, that > Potters realised that Tom Riddle is behind their son. Prophecy > was something 'he will mark other to his equal' but why he > chosen Potters' son. > Also how DD and others so convinced that it is going to be HP > whom Tom is going to mark and which led to all this FC, SK etc, > and how Tom decided about Potters's son. Geoff: >I think there is a fairly clear explanation of some of your >questions in the books themselves. If you read the last few >pages of "The Lost Prophecy" - chapter 37 of OOTP - which is >about pages 740-744 UK edition, Dumbledore tries to show Harry >how Voldemort's thoughts had been moving. It's just after he >explained why he had not told Harry everything and then there >is the exchange: > aki wrote again... Thanks Geoff, but how was he so sure that it is going to be Harry, prophecy doesn't say clearly about the person, as far as I know. Did DD also made safety arrangements for other kids? And how Volde came to know that prophecy was about some child who is not yet born? Most expected guess one can made, which relates (unknown) prophecy and downfall of Volde that it can be none other than DD. Can you please clear my doubts? Thanks. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 15:39:49 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:39:49 -0000 Subject: Dark Mirror, Part 1: Hairy as Lupin... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163728 ::Talisman peers into the inky depths of a dark and elaborately wrought hand mirror:: Speak again, O oracle of the Deathly Hallows ... ::gives it a few whacks on the table:: Come on then, what do you mean by: "hairy as Lupin?" Is that supposed to be a personal crack? ... or ...hmmmmmmmmm. (She pauses to consider possibilities that had, frankly, gone right out of her iniquitous little head...ever since she lost that argument with herself about how the unfortunately supine Mr. Thewlis could not possibly be properly cast....) No...wait...can it be?...it's... Hairy-a**ed Lupin? Woooo hooo! Lupin *is* ESE, after all: Erotically-Shedding-Ecdysiast!Lupin ! eh...huh? ::...angry buzzing from mirror...:: Oops. Sorry. False alarm. Seems Lupin *is* destined to fizzle out as the most tepid werewolf ever to bother transforming. Ah, well. Perhaps Tonks can use him to damp mop. The real message for Book 7 is: Harry as Lupin. Indeed, when Harry emulates the most salient aspect of Lupin's dark secret, i.e. his lycanthropic transformation, he will merely be following the pattern previously established in Books 5 and 6. Quirrell was, of course, Harry's influence in Book 5. The most significant imagery of Quirrell's secret was that of Voldemort protruding from the back of his head: he literally had Voldemort in his head. Harry may not have had the Dark Lord's face jutting out of the back of his skull, but the post graveyard activation of the scar link ensured that, for the greater part of Book 5, Harry certainly did have Voldemort in his head. (Indeed there's a fair amount of slippage both ways; even shared turns at possession.) However, Harry didn't necessarily see his mind link as a problem. Although, unlike Quirrell, Harry didn't intentionally serve the Dark Lord, like Quirrell he did relish the power that his special relationship provided. Harry rationalized his intentional pursuit of the Voldemort-linked visions, but this did further Voldemort's plan to get the orb (cf. stone), until Snape and DD stepped in to mess things up. Well, okay, the orb *was* actually DD's bait. But still Harry didn't know that. In any event, significant aspects of Harry's Book 5 plot arc clearly mimic Quirrell's core secret. HBP takes up with Book 2, and follows suit. The gist of Lockhart's dark secret is that he is a total fraud: taking credit for the talents of others. In like vein, from the hour he lays hands on the Prince's old book, Harry intentionally basks in the glory of a more talented person's accomplishments. Again, there is detail variation: Lockhart was a predator, whereas Harry has the opportunity handed to him. Nonetheless, he takes full advantage of it and certainly enjoys his ersatz fame. So much so that, when Snape asks for the book, moments after Malfoy's near-fatal slashing, Harry's main worry is the damage that could accrue to his potionmeister reputation. Additionally, Harry *can* be seen as predatory toward Slughorn, albeit at DD's insistence. Even though he doesn't Obliviate his memory donor, Rowling adds the artistic touch of Harry's *knowing* that Slughorn "would remember nothing of [it] in the morning" (HBP US 490). Again, Lockhart's central secret plays out in Harry's actions through the majority of Book 6. So then: 1, 2...3... Poof! Watch as Book 7 Harry transforms into Lupin, before your very eyes. I absolutely guarantee that Harry will manifest Lupin's darkest secret, throughout the bulk of Deathly Hallows. You can take that much to the bank, and tell them Talisman sent you. The devil, naturally, is in the details. I don't expect Harry to actually become a werewolf. I could be wrong about this, Hedwig knows; Greyback might be skulking in the shrubbery at Privet Drive as we speak. But, heretofore unused aconite lessons and wombatish whisperings of bite epidemics notwithstanding, I would find it incongruent to have Harry literally pop a snout in the final stretch. Instead, my expectation is that Harry will undergo a Dark Transformation. Just as Newt Scamander describes the werewolf in FBWTFT, our Harry, an (arguably) "...otherwise sane and normal wizard...[will transform] into a murderous beast" (42). The prospects are delightful, and let`s face it the gathering storm is already in evidence. Like Lupin, Harry was "infected" in early childhood. Of course, instead of werewolf drool, Harry got that big squirt of evil wizard juice. It's still in there you know, and I'll bet it can activate. Moreover, it's clear that DD wants Harry to go postal in the final run. One of the most astonishing scenes in HBP is the revenge pep rally DD holds for Harry, in his final session of loco parentis advice. Rowling shows us an agitated and emphatic DD, "swooshing" about in his "glittering" robes (HBP 510). I'll bet they were short glittery ones and came with a pair of pom poms. Just watch him do the human alphabet : Gimme me a "K"! Gimme a I! Gimme a L! L! What's that spell? KILL! KILL! KILL! ::lots of jumping and pom pom shaking:: Don't need no AK or silver glove, Just ax the B@#$%&! with pure love!!!! Yeah Team! :: big final jump and split:: Really, it's obscene when you think about it. This 150-yaer-old authority figure admonishing a 16-year-old kid to agree to--at least try to--kill someone. Remind you of anyone? Say, Draco and his Dark Lord? As usual none of DD's rationale hangs together. But when has that bothered Harry? DD insists that Harry *must* try to kill Voldemort, in retribution for James and Lily. Of course, Harry is hardly unique in having lost loved ones to Voldemort. If vigilante justice is to hold the day, or if vengeance is a compelling substitute for a "real" prophecy, Harry should have to queue up behind a long line of bereaved friends and family, starting with Myrtle's kin. There is also the argument of Harry's special power. Leaving aside the irony of love and purity as secret murder weapons, we know that lots of folks are capable of love. By suggesting that Harry in particular is *special* for being able to love "given everything that has happened to [him]," DD merely manages to inculpate himself, again (HBP US 509). So, abuse is an important ingredient, eh? We'll just add that to the 1) don't want him to get a swelled head; and 2) yet unused *blood protection* excuses, shall we? Oh, and that's another lie by ommission from the Book 5 "tell all;" or were you only *guessing* why you allowed it, DD? ::Talisman licks her quill and makes a few more notes in DD's permanent record:: Such a naughty old boy. Another argument is that LV unwittingly gave Harry some special gifts at GH. Well, let's see. We've been told that, since the painful moments in the artium, Voldie's been practicing Occlumency against Harry. Have to do something about that, eh? At least Harry *can* understand Parseltongue--handy enough should defeating Voldemort require eavesdropping on his pillow talk with Nagini--but then, we've seen that DD could speak it, too. So why make it Harry's problem? And, as many of us have been asking ourselves, why have Voldemort breathing down Harry's neck at all? Why not send him back to cool his heels in Albania? Clearly, long before Harry aquires Slughorn's *unedited* memory, DD has deduced how many Hxes LV made, the objects likely used as the containers, and even what order/whose death went into the creation of each annoying little masterpiece. Why not finish bashing them all, and then go hunt down whichever rat Voldemort is inhabiting, for the final blow? Then too, why can't anyone else help Harry? Hardly out of secrecy. Harry can't hide anything in his head, and we have no reason to believe that Hermione and Ron have any talents in that direction, either. I'm willing to believe that Legilimens *is* a relatively rare skill, but You-Know-Who certainly has it, and he's the one we'd be trying to keep our secret from, isn't he? Nah, Harry isn't so much in danger of being dragged into the death arena by Voldemort, as shoved from behind by DD. DD laid the coals for all this in the first place, and in HBP we see him blow on them until "a flame seem[s] to leap inside [Harry's] chest, searing his throat" (HBP US 512). This is the penultimate act in priming Dark Harry. The deal is sealed when he pins Harry in place to watch events on the tower. And , yes, DD and Snape *have* been cultivating Harry's hatred of Snape throughout the series, as people are cleary beginning to notice. If you understood my ancient explanation of DD's use of Sirius to actualize Harry's love power, you are now advantageously positioned to understand his work to activate Harry's hate in HBP. If not, here's a remedial overview: Although Sirius's escape was arranged by Lucius/Imperio-ed Fudge--in order to facilitate Lu's plan to destory Harry (and make it seem like collateral damage, via dementor)--on a higher level, it was DD's plan. Who wants to bet that Snape--at DD's behest--whispered some interesting facts about Wormtail, and his whereabouts, into Lucius's luscious ear? Wouldn't it be amusing to sic Sirius on the rat, with dementors (as clearly demonstrated throughout Book 3) instructed to attack when Black and Potter are in proximity--making sure they get the boy first? Order operatives Snape and Lupin work together to acquaint Harry with the truth about Sirius (and send Wormtail to fetch Voldmort, as Pip!Squeak noted in her Spy Games, so long ago, only more so). Alas, then DD feigns an inability to clear Sirius--thereby limiting contact between godfather and son--until Book 5, where he allows the relationship to bloom, right up until he lassoes Sirius with an invisible Incarcerous spell (while Bella stuns him) and yanks him through the veil. Don't think for a moment that Harry's the only one sharing Voldemort's head in Book 5. Lovely how DD's single moment of fear in the atrium is when LV is about to possess Harry. DD knows exactly what LV is going to do-- before he does it--and by no outward sign. Why is DD worried? This is the big pay-off moment. Will Sirius's death Vold-proof Harry? Or, will LV set up housekeeping? We see that DD knows instantly when it works--and *why* it works. So, in the wink of a twinkly eye, the Headmaster who has avoided Harry all year is " inches from [Harry's nose]" (OoP US 816). Having wished for months that DD would spare a few words for him, Harry soon can't get him to shut up. In Book 6, DD [Rowling] confirms the effect of Sirius's death (which I explained back in July 2003, shortly after Book 5's release, e.g. # 66983), i.e. Harry has been Voldproofed: the DL doesn't want to touch him with a ten-foot tentacula. [`Course after Sirius is dead we see that DD can exonerate Sirius with just a few words to Fudge. Even though there is no body, and we know that no one from the Order testified (the Ministry doesn't even know they exist--like all good operatives, they "weren't there"). Is the testimony of 16-year-olds so much weightier that of 13-year- olds? Well, no one asked for it, anyway. Funny, huh? But then we've seen DD's curiously tardy exoneration powers before, e.g. Hagrid in Book 2, haven't we?] Even though Harry feels a loyalty to his dead parents, he never really knew them. DD uses Sirius to give Harry a truly cognizant love/loss experience. Notice how Voldemort didn't mind the open exchange conduit earlier in the year, albeit Harry *cared* about Sirius then, too. No, it was the powerful throb of emotion for a lost loved-one that sent the Dark Lord running. That is why DD caused Harry to meet Sirius, to know him--in a controlled fashion--and then to watch him die, in the circumstances we see in OoP. Just as he used Sirius to arouse Harry's love (for the sake of his Plan) DD has now used Snape to unleash Harry's hate. Oh, I don't think that DD sacrificed his own life solely to piss Harry off. I'm sure there is more to it than that, and that those reasons also go beyond enhancing Snape's DE prestige or any nonsense having to do with saving Draco. But, it *is* why he arranged to have Snape zap him right in front of Harry. We know that the revenge-fire burning in Harry's heart for Voldemort has only been eclipsed by the nuclear reaction that went off at Snape, that night. Book 6 leaves Harry seething with revenge and focused on killing at least two people. What do you think that has done to Voldemort's Occlumency program? Not only will Voldemort be inclined to resume his special t?te-?- t?tes with our boy, but that latent bit of Voldemort in Harry's scruffy little head is likely to be nourished. Enter Lupinized!Harry--Lupinized in the sense that we will see him in the throes of a Dark Transformation, for a significant part of Book 7. Oh, don't be dreary. Of course Harry will have an opposing, victoriously transcendent, transformation. But let's try not to think about that, just yet. The darkest hour has not been plumbed, and there's plenty of fun to be had. I predict that, not only will a hate-filled heart unleash Voldemort's powers--on Harry and in him--but Harry will actually join forces with the Dark Lord. "How?" you ask. "Why?" As I opined months ago, the castle has already fallen to Voldemort. Ergo, that's where the Dark Lord and his favorite DE are hanging out these days. We know that at least one Hx target, Nagini, is there, as well. Not to mention all the other reasons we want to get in: DD's portrait, Pensieves, other Hx clues, blah, blah If he's going to kill everyone / destory Hxes, Harry will need to infiltrate the Dark Lord's stronghold: Hogwarts. Sure he's got a secret passage and an IC, but even if Snape lets him use the hump-backed witch, ol' Nagini can see through the cloak--and she's a tattle-tail. Plus there's just no sport in three quick AKs from out of thin air. So, how will the new alliance come about? Well, Rowling promises that a lot of DD's secrets will be disclosed in Book 7. Inasmuch as this entire predicament is DD's doing, it's possible Harry won't be so thrilled with what he learns. I recall annemehr asking me, long years ago--in response to my position regarding DD's orchestration of events--what it would do to Harry, to discover that DD had purposed it all. Maybe we'll get the chance to find out.... ; ) On the other hand, even if a disgruntled Harry moves from being DDM to something more of his own person, this may not happen early enough to send him reeling into Voldemort's arms. Instead, he may attempt feigning a change of loyalties in order to get closer to his quarry. I know, I know: he's got a transparent head, and the scar link is going to be back and better than ever. Still, the opportunity is ripe for an artistically pleasing reversal of that Fudge/Scrimgeour poster-boy program we`ve heard about. Long before he was distracted by the need to obliterate Potter, old snake-eyes has dreamt of dominion over the WW. That's his real goal. Harry's just a fly in the ointment. In spite of LV's prowess for executing the resistance, he must surely prefer persuading people, quickly, of the need to be obedient. Let's face it, the more people you kill, the less subjects you've got, and the sooner you *arrive* as uncontested dictator, the better. With shockwaves of DD's demise still reverberating through the WW, what better way to extinguish any tremulous ember of hope than to exhbit The Chosen One, as your mascot? Thus, even while LV can see through the ruse, he may consider the propaganda a sufficient asset to play along with it...for awhile. Come into my parlor quoth the spider to the fly... Then LV will discover that Harry *is* a Hx (* see post script, below), and he'll be caught in his own web. And, with all the murderous hate swirling around his heart, the evil juice pulsating in his head, and the scar link stronger than ever, even a DDM!Harry is likely to find himself in deep water. Thank goodness Snape's in the house. Yes, the accumulating evidence sorts well with the established patterns of Harry emulating his old DADA profs, and of abutting book reversals. Harry's going dark as midnight on the battlefield of the soul. Think of the possibilities. One of many delightful spin-offs from this involves the Malfoy clan. Remember how they tried so hard to get Harry to the Dark Side in Books 1 and 2? Sure you do. We could only guess before, but thanks to Rowling's site and Snape's chat with Bella in HBP, we know that the DE's venerated Harry as a potential replacement for Voldemort. (I'll bet they were hopeful of a little less insanity, too.) Although DD did a good job of making sure Harry would reject Draco (and Slytherin House), and Draco evinced something less than diplomatic skills, Draco *did* try to take Harry under his wing. When junior botched the job, the elder Malfoy applied his considerable resources--nothing less than the DL's Chamber of Secrets opener--in a bold attempt to eliminate the Potter recruitment competitors. Imagine the difference if things had gone according to plan: 1) Hagrid rotting in Azkaban; 2)The Weasely Family discredited, 3) the Mudblood Granger Myrtlized; and 4) DD out in the street. Fortunately the Malfoys would have been there to help Harry pick up the pieces. Lucius had no clue that TR was going to seep out of the book, let alone formulate a plan of his own. Lucius really had no interest in, or expectation of, harming Harry. Quite the contrary. It was only after Harry thwarted his plan, identified him as the culprit, and personally humiliated him via Dobby (complete with an elfin butt-kicking) that Lucius viewed Harry as a liability rather than an opportunity. Segue to Book 3, and the dementor plan. But, times have changed for the Malfoys, haven't they. The entire family is in dire jeopardy. Azkaban won't protect Lucius much longer and Draco clearly failed in his mission. I suspect Draco is still be alive, thanks to Snape's clever advocacy and Voldemort's euphoria over DD's death. But, he's no "fair-haired boy" in any metaphorical sense. The best he can do now is to keep his pale head down and hope LV doesn't think about him. Has Lord V noticed Narcissa's disobedience? Even if not, she clearly has continuing reason to fear for her spouse and child. Anyway you look at it, the Malfoys have a dim future in the New Vold Order. Under the circumstances, they might find it handy to know a champion with special powers to bring the Dark Lord down. I've always posited that Lucius--like most DEs--was soiling his pantaloons at the graveyard. Aside from Lestrange & Co. (and DD), no one had an interest in seeing the DL return. By now, the Malfoys must be positively yearning for a GH redux. Imagine their distress when Harry appears to be Voldemort's new pal. Oh, if only he'd go back to being a tiresome intermeddler! It's a feast of irony. But, it's not all amusement. I expect Harry to benefit from the Malfoy's resources before it's over: information, artifacts, or even a helping hand. I don't mean to suggest that Lucius or Draco will be reformed, Slytherin forefend, they'll just be pursuing self-interest, as usual. And, odds are, they (at least Lucius and likely Draco) will run afoul of Voldemort once too often. I'll be sorry to see Lucius go--he's always exciting on page--but I'm sure he'll make a titillating exit. In any event, here's to Harry as Lupin. May his Dark Transformation give us all a few howls. Cheers, Talisman, saying: stay tuned for more from this mischievous mirror, I think it`s starting up again.... PS *Yes, I do subscribe to Hx!Harry. In my version, posted elsewhere back in November 2005, Voldemort did the murder, but, unbeknownst to him, DD (or his lieutenant) did the spell. Ergo: Voldemort doesn't understand what happened at GH, though DD clearly does. Lily knew it too. That's why she couldn't fight back. Couldn't risk Voldemort's soul staying intact by virtue of a self-defense justification--plus, with sacrifice, you get the burning blood bonus. It was the best defense for Harry in that situation. Well, okay, a pet phoenix might have worked, too. But then you wouldn't be furthering The Plan by having VaporMort all psyched-out about Harry's powers, and well, never mind that now. I'm sure DD reassured her it would all lead to Voldemort's downfall, one day. I imagine that aiming an AK at a blob of your own essence could confuse the incantation into thinking your intent is to off yourself. Mix that with some soul-tether immortality, and Voila, you get blasted into a wicked miasma. Whether Harry defeats the last bit of Voldmort, within himself, or whether keeping Voldemort at bay remains the *battle that must be fought again and again, but can never be won* remains to be seen.) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 17:56:20 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:56:20 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163729 --- , "Richie" wrote: > > Hello, I'm a new member in this group, ..., I don't > know if this topic has been talked or not... > bboyminn: Of course it has been talked about; over and over again, but never fear, it is a topic that is still hotly debated. > Richie: > > I think Harry might be also a Horcrux ....I believe > Harry also a Horcrux because Harry has abilities that > comes from Voldemort himself since he tried to kill > Harry when he was a baby. ... So, tell me your opinion > about it. > Thank you. > > Richie > bboyminn: You will find lots and lots of people who agree with you; I think I can safely say millions of people. However, there is one glaring fact that prevents me from accepting the idea. From what source do we know about Harry's scar connection to Voldemort? From Dumbledore. >From what source do we know that Voldemort transferred powers to Harry? Dumbledore. >From what source do we know all about the Horcruxes? Dumbledore. Since it is Dumbledore who relays all our facts on this matter to us, how could he not have considered the possibility? And if he did consider the possibility, then, since he has not mentioned it, it would seem that he discarded or discounted the idea. If all-knowing Dumbledore doesn't think Harry is a Horcrux, then I don't see how I can. Of course, Dumbledore may have made a mistake, but that is an extremely glaring mistake; an almost unbelievable mistake. Now, of course, I can not say whether Harry is or is not a Horcrux. For that we will just have to wait and see. And while you will certainly find millions of fans who do agree with you, I will not be amoung them, though I will happily eat my electrons if I am proven wrong. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 13 18:19:46 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:19:46 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Richie" wrote: > > Hello, I'm a new member in this group, but I have one point that I > fear if it become truth, and as a new member, I don't know if this > topic has been talked or not... > I think Harry might be also a Horcrux to save Voldemort's partial > soul. It's because Dumbledore said that there might be 7 Horcrux, > while they already found 4. I believe Harry also a Horcrux because > Harry has abilities that comes from Voldemort himself since he tried > to kill Harry when he was a baby. Like Harry understands parseltongue, > Harry have the same core for his magic wand, and Harry also was > considered to be better if he's in Slytherin. So, tell me your opinion > about it. > Thank you. Geoff: I belong to the "Harry is not a Horcrux" wing of HPFGU. This topic has been aired many times since HBP emerged. You might find some help if you enter "Harry is a Horcrux" or "Harry as Horcrux" into the Search box. It will certainly give you possible threads to look at and follow through. HHH. (Happy Horcrux Hunting). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 18:30:53 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:30:53 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: <218226.33513.qm@web8404.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163731 --- Akash aki wrote: > > aki wrote : > > I was thinking and got confused how it all got > > started, that Potters realised that Tom Riddle is > > behind their son. Prophecy was something 'he will > > mark other to his equal' but why he chosen Potters' > > son. > > > > Also how DD and others so convinced that it is going > > to be HP whom Tom is going to mark ... > > Geoff: > >I think there is a fairly clear explanation of some of > > your questions in the books themselves. If you read > > the last few pages of "The Lost Prophecy" - chapter > > 37 of OOTP - which is about pages 740-744 UK edition, > > Dumbledore tries to show Harry how Voldemort's > > thoughts had been moving. ... > > > > > aki wrote again... > Thanks Geoff, but how was he so sure that it is > going to be Harry, prophecy doesn't say clearly about > the person, as far as I know. Did DD also made safety > arrangements for other kids? bboyminn: Remember that the conversation Geoff references occurred long after Voldemort's downfall and equally long after the Prophecy was made. By the time Dumbledore has this conversation with Harry, the Prophecy has already been made, Voldemort has already attacked Harry, 10 years have passed, and Harry has come to Hogwarts and has been involved in many heroic events. Dumbledore is not making his decision based on just the Prophecy, he is basing it on many many events that have occurred after the Prophecy was made. At the time Dumbledore makes his statement (referenced by Geoff), it is VERY clear that Harry is the 'Chosen One'. Notice that it is not Dumbledore who makes the arrangements to protect the Potters. They make their own choices and their own protective arrangements. They cast their own Secret Keeper Charm. I can only assume that reasonably Dumbledore make the information about the Prophecy available to both the Potters and the Longbottoms. He certainly also offerred to help them. The Potters made their choice about how to respond to the Prophecy and the Longbottoms made their choice about how to protect themselves. Dumbledore's offer to assist was very likely made to both families. My point is that before the events occurred they could /not/ know that Harry was the Chosen One, only that he might be. But when Voldemort attacked Harry, by virtue of that attack, Harry was made the Chosen One. Based on what Dumbledore observes of Harry's selflessness and heroic actions, it becomes clear beyond any doubt that Harry is indeed the Chosen One, but that is after the fact. Before Voldemort's attack no one knew with any certainty which kid Voldemort would choose. > Aki continues: > > And how Volde came to know that prophecy was about some > child who is not yet born? Most expected guess one can > made, which relates (unknown) prophecy and downfall of > Volde that it can be none other than DD. > >Can you please clear my doubts? bboyminn: Snape told Voldemort about the Prophecy, though, according to the books, Snape only heard the first part of the Prophecy. From what Snape told Voldemort, he had enough information to conclude that it was about a child that was about to be born in at the end of the next up coming month of July. Now, the Prophecy doesn't specify a year. It could have been a child born this year, next year, or ten years from now, but a reasonable interpretation is that it means the next up coming month of July. Regardless of what the /correct/ interpretation of the Prophecy was, Voldemort gathered the information and made his choices, and those choices /created/ a correct interpretation of the Prophecy. In a sense, Voldemort's own actions made it a self-fulfilling Prophecy. Hope that helps. Steve/bboyminn From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Sat Jan 13 18:58:39 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:58:39 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163732 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: <<<..(SNIP SNIP SNIP)..Snape told Voldemort about the Prophecy, though, accordingto the books, Snape only heard the first part of the Prophecy. From what Snape told Voldemort, he had enough information to conclude that it was about a child thatwas about to be born in at the end of the next up coming month of July. Now, the Prophecy doesn't specify a year. It could have been a child born this year, next year, or ten years from now, but a reasonable interpretation is that it means the next up coming month of July. Regardless of what the /correct/ interpretation of the Prophecy was, Voldemort gathered the information and made his choices, and those choices /created/ a correct interpretation of the Prophecy. In a sense, Voldemort's own actions made it a self-fulfilling Prophecy... >>> _____________________ NOW: Inge, agreeing to everything Steve explained - but one answer still remains - "why did it take so long, more than a year after Harry's birth, before the Potters set up their protection?" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 19:49:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:49:59 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163733 Geoff: > I belong to the "Harry is not a Horcrux" wing of HPFGU. This topic has been aired many times since HBP emerged. You might find some help if you enter "Harry is a Horcrux" or "Harry as Horcrux" into the Search box. It will certainly give you possible threads to look at and follow through. > > HHH. (Happy Horcrux Hunting). Carol adds: I agree that neither Harry nor his scar is a Horcrux, partly for the reason Steve mentioned upthread (Dumbledore, who is telling Harry everything he needs to know about defeating Voldemort and hunting for Horcruxes, would not mislead him if he so much as suspected a scar Horcrux) but also because I believe that Nagini is indeed a Horcrux, as DD suggested. I also believe that Voldemort would not have deliberately made Harry a Horcrux (he was trying to kill the Prophecy Boy and, possibly, to make a last Horcrux with the soul bit from his murder) and that a Horcrux must be created deliberately, at any point after the murder because the soul of an unrepentant murderer doesn't heal itself, and requires a complex spell cast after the fact. (It's evidently difficult, esoteric Dark magic, not something every wizard, or even every Dark wizard, could or would do.) I believe that, just as Dumbledore said, Harry acquired some of Dumbledore's *powers* when Voldemort marked him as his equal at Godric's Hollows, but that those powers come from a drop of (magical) blood that entered the open wound on his forehead, not from a soul bit that somehow possessed him (we know that he's not possessed and we know that Voldemort performed no spell other than the deflected AK on Harry.) On a side note, there's no proof that Tom Riddle created one or more Horcruxes at sixteen, as some posters seem to take for granted. His questions to Slughorn, and his unchanged appearance, indicate that he had not yet done so. Certainly, the ring was not yet a Horcrux or he wouldn't have been wearing it. I don't think that the diary, though it contained one or more memories and was enchanted to be interactive (rather like the portraits, the Sorting Hat, and the Marauder's Map) was a Horcrux at this point. For the record, I think that Tom Riddle met Grindelwald before Grindelwald's defeat by DD in 1945 and learned how to make a Horcrux from him. (Grindelwald, having a Horcrux of his own, would have thought that it was safe to apprentice the boy. Wrong!) Sorry that point has nothing to do with Harry, but I thought I'd throw it in since it relates to Horcruxes in general. To Richie or anyone else not burned out on this often-raised topic, I would suggest narrowing your search using the Advanced Search option. Use something along the lines of "Horcrux!Harry" or "Harry Horcrux scar" as search terms for the body of the message and "Harry Horcrux" as the search term for the message title (no quotation marks since you're not looking for an exact phrase--I'm only using them to set off the seacch terms here). Carol, firmly believing that the Horcrux hunt will *not* culminate in Harry's discovery that he or his scar is a Horcrux or in his self-sacrifice to destroy a soul bit in himself From charober at sympatico.ca Sat Jan 13 19:25:35 2007 From: charober at sympatico.ca (charober at sympatico.ca) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:25:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Isolated Headmaster: Implications for Snape and Harry Message-ID: <20070113192535.ETQG1750.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp1.sympatico.ca> No: HPFGUIDX 163734 lupinlore: > > Simply because Dumbledore has a pattern of mistakes and bad behavior > does not excuse that behavior. Nor does the fact that the Wizarding > World is a reprehensible dystopia excuse anything about Hogwarts or > Dumbledore's policies. Dumbledore's consent to Snape's abuse of > Harry, like his consent to the Dursley's abuse of Harry, sets up a > deep moral conflict at the heart of the character -- a conflict that > severely undermines the messages about him that Rowling clearly wants > to get across. Charlotte: However, it's revealed near the end of OOTP that Snape left Harry with the Dursleys because Petunia was a blood-relative of Lily, let alone Harry, and he explains to Harry that family love is strongest of all and provides complete protection. Therefore, it can't mean full consent for the Dursleys to "abuse" Harry. As for Snape, Dumbledore claims that he would not employ Snape at Hogwarts as a teacher if he did not trust him, and yet it is obvious throughout the series that Snape despises Harry, primarily because Snape went to school with Harry's father, and chooses to be harsh towards Harry, but that is almost entirely biased based on James' behaviour. Likewise, people find out that Snape was once a death-eater, and in Goblet/Fire, Sirius explains to Harry that no one EVER ends their status of being a Death Eater, so Snape still had an "evil" side in his teaching position. I myself would be apprehensive around Snape if I were in that scenario! I have to say in the end, Snape never seemed trustworthy at Hogwarts since he murdered Dumbledore. I hope he gets punished severely in the next book! By the way, I myself am new here, I just joined yesterday. Keep reading everyone! Charlotte From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 20:15:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:15:51 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163735 bboyminn: > > Remember that the conversation Geoff references occurred > long after Voldemort's downfall and equally long after > the Prophecy was made. By the time Dumbledore has this > conversation with Harry, the Prophecy has already been > made, Voldemort has already attacked Harry, 10 years have > passed, and Harry has come to Hogwarts and has been > involved in many heroic events. > > Dumbledore is not making his decision based on just the > Prophecy, he is basing it on many many events that have > occurred after the Prophecy was made. At the time > Dumbledore makes his statement (referenced by Geoff), it > is VERY clear that Harry is the 'Chosen One'. > > Notice that it is not Dumbledore who makes the > arrangements to protect the Potters. They make their > own choices and their own protective arrangements. They > cast their own Secret Keeper Charm. > > I can only assume that reasonably Dumbledore make the > information about the Prophecy available to both the > Potters and the Longbottoms. He certainly also offerred > to help them. The Potters made their choice about how > to respond to the Prophecy and the Longbottoms made their > choice about how to protect themselves. Dumbledore's > offer to assist was very likely made to both families. > > My point is that before the events occurred they could > /not/ know that Harry was the Chosen One, only that he > might be. But when Voldemort attacked Harry, by virtue of > that attack, Harry was made the Chosen One. Based on what > Dumbledore observes of Harry's selflessness and heroic > actions, it becomes clear beyond any doubt that Harry is > indeed the Chosen One, but that is after the fact. Before > Voldemort's attack no one knew with any certainty which > kid Voldemort would choose. > > > > Aki continues: > > > > And how Volde came to know that prophecy was about some > > child who is not yet born? Most expected guess one can > > made, which relates (unknown) prophecy and downfall of > > Volde that it can be none other than DD. > > > >Can you please clear my doubts? > > bboyminn: > > Snape told Voldemort about the Prophecy, though, according > to the books, Snape only heard the first part of the > Prophecy. From what Snape told Voldemort, he had enough > information to conclude that it was about a child that > was about to be born in at the end of the next up coming > month of July. > > Now, the Prophecy doesn't specify a year. It could have > been a child born this year, next year, or ten years from > now, but a reasonable interpretation is that it means the > next up coming month of July. > > Regardless of what the /correct/ interpretation of the > Prophecy was, Voldemort gathered the information and > made his choices, and those choices /created/ a correct > interpretation of the Prophecy. In a sense, Voldemort's > own actions made it a self-fulfilling Prophecy. > Carol adds: I agree with Steve (bboyminn). We, the readers, have the benefit of hindsight in interpreting the Prophecy (and we still don't agree on all its aspects). Voldemort *chose to interpret* the Prophecy to refer to an unborn baby boy. "Born as the seventh month dies" could perhaps have referred to any wizard (or witch) born at the end of July in any year, but "born to those who have thrice defied him" more or less narrowed it down to the child of an Order member. Voldemort was already systematically killing off Order members, but he may have begun to focus on married couples with pregnant wives at that point. When the birth announcements for July were published in the Daily Prophet in early August 1980, there would have been only two babies who met Voldemort's criteria (male and born at the end of July to Order members). Muggleborns, whose names would not appear in the Daily Prophet, would have been discounted as not having parents who had thrice defied him. Once Voldemort had interpreted the Prophecy in that way, he had only two boys to choose from. He chose the half-blood rather than the pure-blood, in part, perhaps, from the resemblance to himself; in part, perhaps, because a July 31 birthday fit the Prophecy better than a July 30 birthday. (I don't doubt, though, that he intended to kill Neville, and perhaps his parents, for good measure.) Once Snape realized how Voldemort *chose* to interpret the Prophecy, he reported the Potters' danger (and perhaps that of the Longbottoms) to Dumbledore. But apparently the conclusion that it referred to an unborn child was not self-evident, and even the sex of the "one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord" is unspecified in the part of the Prophecy that Voldemort heard. He seems to have assumed, correctly, that the "one" must be male (as revealed in the second part of the Prophecy). At any rate, I agree with Aki that the identity of the Chosen One is not self-evident from the Prophecy and with Steve that once Voldemort chose to interpret the Prophecy as referring to a boy who would be born at the end of the following July, the candidates were reduced to Harry and Neville. By choosing Harry over Neville, Voldemort in essence created his own nemesis, "marking Harry as his equal" and giving him some of his powers. The Prophecy might never have come true if Voldemort hadn't attempted to thwarted and consequently brought part of the unheard second half of the Prophecy to pass. (More irony, if you've been reading my posts on that topic.) Carol, who suggests a thorough rereading of all six books in sequence if Aki is still confused From charober at sympatico.ca Sat Jan 13 19:31:00 2007 From: charober at sympatico.ca (charober at sympatico.ca) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:31:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) Message-ID: <20070113193100.TNSE8030.tomts22-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp1.sympatico.ca> No: HPFGUIDX 163736 > Richie: > I think Harry might be also a Horcrux to save Voldemort's partial > soul. It's because Dumbledore said that there might be 7 Horcrux, > while they already found 4. I believe Harry also a Horcrux because > Harry has abilities that comes from Voldemort himself since he tried > to kill Harry when he was a baby. Like Harry understands parseltongue, > Harry have the same core for his magic wand, and Harry also was > considered to be better if he's in Slytherin. Charlotte: Those are all very good points, Richie. I wouldn't be surprised if he did! Actually, I hope Harry does turn out to be a Horcrux! Although I forgot what it means; I need to read OOTP again. I'd like to have it fresh in my mind before I see the new movie again! Not to mention Harry's blood is part of the elixir that resurrects Voldemort eventually. Charlotte From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 20:51:02 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:51:02 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40701131251w49312056g1d0fb95f13d9f101@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163737 > Richie wrote: > > Hello, I'm a new member in this group, but I have one point that I > fear if it become truth, and as a new member, I don't know if this > topic has been talked or not... > I think Harry might be also a Horcrux to save Voldemort's partial > soul. It's because Dumbledore said that there might be 7 Horcrux, > while they already found 4. I believe Harry also a Horcrux because > Harry has abilities that comes from Voldemort himself since he tried > to kill Harry when he was a baby. Like Harry understands parseltongue, > Harry have the same core for his magic wand, and Harry also was > considered to be better if he's in Slytherin. So, tell me your opinion > about it. Kemper now: I agree with Steve, Geoff, and Carol. But if your interested in this theory, I hear Red Hen has some engaging arguments. http://www.redhen-publications.com/HRedux.html Well... I think this is the right link. I tried to read it to make sure, but... it's a bit loquacious. But if you got a couple of hours to spare, have at it. Welcome to the group! Kemper From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 22:33:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:33:14 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163738 Inge wrote one answer still remains - "why did it take so long, more than a year after Harry's birth, before the Potters set up their protection?" > Carol responds: I was going to raise the same question, but I didn't want to stray to far from Aki's original post. At any rate, I do have some thoughts on the subject. It may have taken some time for Spy!Snape, who probably was not always in Voldemort's company, to realize how Voldemort was interpreting the Prophecy and what he intended to do--or maybe it took him a while to get up the courage (or just find the opportunity) to talk to Dumbledore. It's also possible that neither the Potters nor the Longbottoms had yet defied Voldemort three times, so Voldemort (and therefore Snape) was still not sure that their one of children might be the Prophecy Boy. (I suppose that Voldemort could have had additional reasons for the delay but I can't think of any. There was no Fidelius Charm hiding the Secret for most of the fifteen months between Harry's birth and his parents' death.) As for Dumbledore, unless he interpreted the Prophecy as Voldemort *chose* to do and was consequently watching the Daily Prophet announcements for children born at the end of July, he would not have known that the Potters (and Longbottoms) were in danger until Snape told him, and we don't know when that happened. We know that Snape began spying for Dumbledore not only before Godric's Hollow but before he became Potions master two months earlier, but he could have begun doing so at almost any time between early August 1980, shortly after Harry's birth, to a few months before he applied for a teaching post at Hogwarts (July or August 1981). There had to be sufficient time for young Snape to place himself at "great personal risk," but whether that risk lasted twelve months or two we have no way of knowing. So we don't know when Snape told Dumbledore that the Potters were in danger. Later, while Snape was spying on Voldemort, trying to deduce his plans and perhaps to ascertain the identity of the spy (neither of which the secretive Voldemort would have divulged to a twenty-two-year-old Death Eater), Dumbledore could have been gathering information on Harry's relatives (he would have known who the Longbottoms' relatives were). He certainly knew where he wanted Harry to live *before* he sent Hagrid to Godric's Hollow, and he knew that Petunia was Lily's only survivng relative (baby Dudley, of course, didn't count). So I think that DD was seeking information from various sources and making what plans and preparations he could to protect the Potters (and probably the Longbottoms) from the time he first realized they were in danger. He would also have informed both families that they were particularly at risk. He may have spoken to individual Order members, certainly to the Potters and the Longbottoms, about the danger to the group as a whole and the likelihood of a spy in their midst. At any rate, I think that DD, and the Potters themselves, knew that they were in danger from the time that Snape first reported what he knew of Voldemort's interpretation of the Prophecy, but neither Snape nor DD may have realized that the danger was immediate, that Voldemort intended to commit infanticide to thwart the Prophecy rather than waiting to see which boy presented the greater threat (as Harry himself considered the sensible course). And after September 1, Snape, teaching at Hogwarts and supposedly spying on Dumbledore, could no longer provide information on Voldemort. Maybe Dumbledore, still not knowing the identity of the spy but fearing that the Potters were in increasing danger, provided the Potters with a hiding place in Godric's Hollow months before Voldemort's attack. When it became clear that a hiding place was not enough because the spy was someone close to the Potters, he suggested the Fidelius charm and offered himself as Secret Keeper. Since James rejected that offer, wanting his friend Sirius Black as SK, he must have wanted to perform the charm himself or, more likely, have Lily do it (we know that Dumbledore didn't). It could have taken some time for her to research and practice such a complicated spell to be sure that it would work. Meantime, she would have kept it secret from everyone, even their closest friends. (PP could not have known or he'd have taken preemptive measures by telling Voldemort of the Potters' plans.) I used to think that Lily had made Black the Secret Keeper before Black changed his mind and they switched over, which would have given the Potters a few additional weeks or months of safety, but now I think that PP was the only one. Otherwise, Dumbledore would have stopped knowing the Secret more than a week before Godric's Hollow (and McGonagall, IIRC, says that they were killed only a week after the charm was cast). Two last thoughts regarding the Potters themselves and especially James--maybe they took no action when they thought that the danger was chiefly to themselves and it took DD's telling them about the Prophecy and the danger to Harry to persuade them that they needed something along the lines of the Fidelius Charm that he had suggested. Or maybe they didn't believe that one of their friends could be supplying information to Voldemort until PP, oh, so subtly, persuaded them (or persuaded Black) that Lupin was behaving suspiciously and that he could well be the spy. When Dumbledore suggested the Fidelius Charm and insisted that they really were in danger from someone they trusted, they decided to perform the Fidelius Charm themselves using Black as the SK and (apparently) excluding Lupin from the Secret. So, IMO, it would have taken a combination of two things--being convinced that there really was a spy and that Harry was in as much danger as themselves, to convince them to try the Fidelius Charm. And even then, being twenty-two, they wanted to take matters into their own hands rather than trusting them to the old man who had waited overlong to tell them about the Prophecy. (Just speculating!) Carol, who would welcome additional suggestions for the lengthy interval between Harry's birth and the Fidelius Charm From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jan 13 22:47:12 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:47:12 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163739 > Magpie: > However, what popped into my head after HBP--and obviously I've no > proof of this whatsoever--but I was thinking about that whole scene > with Kreacher where Dumbledore has Harry test to see if he was able > to inherit Kreacher, or whether the Blacks had charmed things so > that they could only be inherited by Blacks. That scene had uses > within OotP, but I started thinking that there was no real reason > to introduce the idea of a charm like that--one where the family > only allows something to a relative. It wasn't absolutely necessary > to get Kreacher into the Dursleys house and Dumbledore could have > just had demonstrate to Harry that he was Kreacher's true owner by > having him give him an order. (In fact that might have spoken > better of Harry if he resisted being an Elf-owner on principle.) Jen: Still thinking about your idea Magpie, and I have a question re: this point. I think you are saying 1) It wasn't necessary for Dumbledore to bring Kreacher to the Dursley's, Harry could have given him the order anywhere; and 2) Dumbledore's explanation seemed extraneous to you, Harry could have simply given Kreacher an order and that would prove that the house and Kreacher passed to him. The first part, bringing Kreacher to the Dursleys, I think that was about Dumbledore feeling responsible for the Dursleys. He's about to endanger them by asking if Harry can return one more summer, knowing full well Voldemort is aware the protection will end on Harry's next birthday. DD made sure to say the address of 12 GP in front of them & had Harry prove that the house would be a safe house, Order Headquarters, should Voldemort attack Privet Dr. (Plus it fits JKR's sense of humor, Kreacher and the Durlseys spending quality time together .) Moving on to the second point, Dumbledore's explanation made sense to me. There needed to be an explanation for why Harry had to give Kreacher an order in the first place, why the will alone wasn't enough to prove the house and Kreacher had passed to Harry. If the will *was* enough to prove the passing of ownership, the only thing DD and Harry needed to work out was what to do with Kreacher. Therefore, the explanation about the charm on the house was only important to explain why the will wasn't enough. Oh! Maybe that's what you are saying? Why wasn't the will enough, why did JKR go to the trouble of introducing the whole bit about the house being charmed to pass to a pure-blood? Now from Betsy's post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163704 > Jen: > You were talking about all this in terms of the Horcrux hunt--maybe > what will happen is when it comes to the actual locating of a > Horcrux for each house, one person will represent that part of the > quest, like soliciting Zacharias Smith specifically during the > seach for the Hufflepuff cup? I'm not sure if that would work > since Harry and Co. know where the Slytherin locket is, not Draco. > Magpie: > > I thought it might be possible that the reason no one could open the > locket wasn't only due to its being a Horcrux but instead had > something to do with Regulus charming the locket to only recognize a > Black--perhaps a Pureblood Black. Regulus had subscribed to the > Pureblood ideology and the idea that Black made you royalty, so it > wouldn't be impossible for him to use it somehow even after he'd > rejected Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: > Combining these two ideas together (because I love both of them > ), perhaps Zach and Draco and Luna(?) and Neville(?) will be > needed to safely *destroy* the horcruxes. Perhaps being somehow > associated with the objects would help them recognize each object's > weak spot. Just as Harry was able to easily figure out how to > destroy the diary horcrux. Jen: Harry figuring out how to destroy each and every horcrux sounds like a stretch to me at the moment, unless Harry the Horcrux has a natural understanding of how to destroy them all. So your idea appeals to me much more and fits the theme of Harry acting as a uniter and Voldemort as the divider. The only thing I'm wondering about is...the diary wasn't a Gryffindor horcrux, really. Oh, but it was a *Muggle* horcrux container--wonder if Harry's blood status had anything to do with being able to destroy it? But no, that doesn't work because Dumbledore seemed to have an extremely hard time with the Slytherin ring horcrux and he's supposedly pureblood. Ack, my head is spinning now! Now just Magpie's idea again: > I thought it might be possible that the reason no one could open the > locket wasn't only due to its being a Horcrux but instead had > something to do with Regulus charming the locket to only recognize a > Black--perhaps a Pureblood Black. Jen: This seems like a very real possibility, more than a fanfic idea because of the way the Blacks have been depicted so far. This would also open a scenario of who could reach the Horcrux first, Draco or Bella? Both would be capable of opening the locket, as would Narcissa. There might be a chance to learn more about the family dynamics with such a plot. Magpie: >(We don't know what all Regulus might have been trying to do with > the locket himself. Perhaps in his last hours he thought of Sirius > and hoped he could destroy it while Voldemort himself would be > unable to open it.) Jen: This idea really appeals to me given how many fighting siblings there are in the series! The idea that Regulus & Sirius had a little more between them is a nice one, even if unfortunately they never got to tell each other in person. I definitely got the sense from the way Sirius talked that he had some affection for Regulus, but he couldn't forgive Regulus joining the DE's or his pure-blood bias. Plot-wise, it makes sense that Regulus at some point realized he was going to die before figuring out how to destroy the locket. He made it back to the Black house and may have even had a go at the destruction, yet time ran out for some reason. So a charm *could* have been a last-ditch effort to ensure the locket wouldn't fall into the 'wrong' hands, i.e. a non-Black. Well, Regulus would have to have some reason to believe Bella wouldn't find the locket before Sirius, that's the only glitch. Magpie: > The Blacks as a family are an important issue, and they I think > need to be healed in a similar way that Hogwarts does. It would > make a nice symbolism with the locket's protection causing a > problem (and since the protection is kind of blood-prejudice > related or family-related that relates back to a lot of the other > themes). Both Draco and the House of Black have been associated > with Slytherin. We get hints that the very objects in the House of > Black are actively fighting the Order--while the Order is literally > waging war on the House and trying to destroy it. Jen: I agree, JKR not only introduced the house for several chapters, but she had Sirius describe much of the family history. And she did so with a pretty fair eye, I thought. My first reaction to the house--Mrs. Black, the house elf heads, etc.--was 'ugh, she's showing us the bad Slytherin family to counter the good Gryffindor family', but as the story went along...there was a sense of how dark and sad their history was. Not to mention a major theme in OOTP was Harry dealing with the ambiguous nature of good/evil. Along the way Harry found out Sirius belonged to this family, and Tonks, and likely Regulus took a stand against evil as well. Even the parents balked at how far Voldemort wanted to go, right? And now I can't help but think there will be more to the family story, that JKR is *not* going for the Good Weasleys/Bad Blacks dichotomy. > Betsy Hp (moved some of Jen's text around to make my responses flow > a bit better -- because it's all about me ) Jen, actually moving Betsy's post to another *thread* for my own purposes--what does that say about me? Hehehe. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 13 23:34:30 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:34:30 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163740 --- "Inge" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > <<<..... > > Regardless of what the /correct/ interpretation of the > Prophecy was, Voldemort gathered the information and > made his choices, and those choices /created/ a correct > interpretation of the Prophecy. In a sense, Voldemort's > own actions made it a self-fulfilling Prophecy... >>> > _____________________ > > NOW: > Inge, > agreeing to everything Steve explained - but one answer > still remains - > "why did it take so long, more than a year after Harry's > birth, before the Potters set up their protection?" > bboyminn: Well, in a situation like this, there is only one thing to do - make it up. First we start with the assumption that the apparent situation is indeed correct, then we make up reason why it is correct. Voldemort got the information from Snape. It was a few months until July, so it was nothing to worry about. Once August rolled around, Voldemort checked out the available babies and found two. Still, they were infants, how could the possible threaten him when all this did was eat, cry, and poop. Not much of a threat. He was also faced with making a risk assessment. Which kid was most likely to become a threat - Harry or Neville? I'm sure he had to think about it. Evaluate the parents and decide which was more dangerous assuming that the child would follow the parents. Then later when he decided to kill them both, he started looking and discovered that neither one was going to be easy to find. Eventually, information came in that lead him straight to Harry. Now he has to decide if he should wait until he has the same information on Neville, or if he should act right away. The point is there is a lot of thought and analysis that has to go into the problem. He needs to consider the risk. What risk are two infant boys? Virtually none. But on the other hand, better to deal with them when they are helpless rather than wait for them to grow strong. But on the other other hand, if you wait a while, you might get a clear picture of which one really was the greater threat. Beside, but the time these kids grown up, Voldemort will have already taken over the Wizard World, and there will be very little these kids can do. Voldemort will be too heavily protected himself. So, knowing the problems is easy. But coming up with the right plan for dealing with the problem is something else. Plans take time, and I'm sure Voldemort is aware that he has plenty of time before either kid is even remotely a threat. Still, better no threat now than a potential threat in the future. Eventually, Voldemort made a decision and started working it, but he could bring his plan into action until he had the information he needed. Delays, delays, delays... I think it is when the Potters got information that Voldemort had a clear and direct plan of attack that they got worried and went into hiding. Initially, it was /assumed/ intent on Voldemorts part, when that assumption became very real, it was time to hide. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 13 23:35:47 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:35:47 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: <218226.33513.qm@web8404.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Akash aki wrote: > > aki wrote : > > I was thinking and got confused how it all got started, that > > Potters realised that Tom Riddle is behind their son. Prophecy > > was something 'he will mark other to his equal' but why he > > chosen Potters' son. > > Also how DD and others so convinced that it is going to be HP > > whom Tom is going to mark and which led to all this FC, SK etc, > > and how Tom decided about Potters's son. > > Geoff: > >I think there is a fairly clear explanation of some of your > >questions in the books themselves. If you read the last few > >pages of "The Lost Prophecy" - chapter 37 of OOTP - which is > >about pages 740-744 UK edition, Dumbledore tries to show Harry > >how Voldemort's thoughts had been moving. It's just after he > >explained why he had not told Harry everything and then there > >is the exchange: > > > > > aki wrote again... > Thanks Geoff, but how was he so sure that it is going to be > Harry, prophecy doesn't say clearly about the person, as far as > I know. Did DD also made safety arrangements for other kids? And > how Volde came to know that prophecy was about some child who is > not yet born? Most expected guess one can made, which relates > (unknown) prophecy and downfall of Volde that it can be none > other than DD. > Can you please clear my doubts? > Thanks. Geoff: Some of my thoughs may already have been echoed by those who have had time to reply before me. I would like to point you to canon first: '"Professor Dumbledore?" Harry said very quietly, for Dumbledore, still staring at the Pensieve, seemed completely lost in though. "It... did that mean... what did that mean?" "It meant," said Dumbledore, "that the person who has the only chance of conquering Lord Voldemort for good was born at the end of July, nearly sixteen years ago. This boy would be born to parents who had already defied Voldemort three times." Harry felt as though something was closing in on him. His breathing seemed difficult again. "It means - me?" Dumbledore surveyed him for a moment through his glasses. "The odd thing, Harry, " he said softly, "is that it may not have meant you at all. Sybill's prophecy could have applied to two wizard boys. both born at the end of July that year, both of whom had parents in the Order of the Phoenix, both sets of parents having narrowly escaped Voldemort three times. One, of course, was you. The other was Neville Longbottom." "But then... but then, why was it my name on the prophecy and not Neville's?" "The official record was re-labelled after Voldemort's attack on you as a child," said Dumbledore. "It seemed plain to the keeper of the Hall of Prophecy that Voldemort could only have tried to kill you because he knew you to be the one to whom Sybill was referring." "Then - it might not be me?" said Harry. 'I am afraid," said Dumbledore slowly, looking as though every word cost him a great effort, 'that there is no doubt that it is you." "But you said - Neville was born at the end of July, too - and his mum and dad -" "You are forgetting the next part of the prophecy, the final identifying feature of the boy who could vanquish Voldemort... Voldemort himself would mark him as his equal. And so he did, Harry. He chose you, not Neville. He gave you that scar that has proved both blessing and curse." "But he might have chosen wrong!" said Harry. "He might have marked the wrong person!" "He chose the boy he though most likely to be a danger to him" said Dumbledore...... ..."Why did he do it then?" said Harry, who felt numb and cold. "Why did he try and kill me as a baby? He should have waited to see whether Neville or I looked more dangerous when we were older and tried to kill whoever it was then..." "That might, indeed, have been the more practical course," said Dumbledore, "except that Voldemort's information about the prophecy was incomplete..."' (OOTP "The Lost Prophecy" pp.741-743 UK edition) As has been pointed out in this thread, Voldemort effetively created a self-fulfilling prophecy. The interesting point which emerges was, did Voldemort specifically go after Harry first or was it his intention to attack and kill both the babies? We do not know this because the attack on Harry produced a totally unanticipated result which stopped Voldemort dead in his tracks. What would have happened if he had attacked the Longbottom family first? Would Alice have had the same love for Neville as Lily had for Harry which would have enabled her to stand in the way and be killed to save Neville and would he now have the scar? Or would Neville have been killed and Voldemort's focus shifted to the Potters which might have produced the same end results but with the addtional loss of the Longbottom family? We shall never know. but as Dumbledore points out, by attacking Harry, Voldemort was disembodied and put out of commission for thirteen or fourteen years; the backfire of the spell created the scar on Harry's forehead. Hence Voldemort inadvertently marked Harry and thus confirmed the prophecy on him whether that was his intention or not. Add to this what has been said by other members that, by this time in the story, Voldemort has attempted to kill Harry five times - at Godric's Hollow, working through Quirrell, as Tom Riddle, following his re-bodying and at the Ministry of Magic and it certainly looks as if he accepts that Harry is the embodiment of the prophecy and thus remains the main target in his desire to overcome and control the Wizarding world. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jan 13 23:46:22 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:46:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) References: Message-ID: <009a01c7376d$088d9d50$9186400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163742 > Jen: Oh! Maybe that's what you are saying? Why wasn't the will enough, why did JKR go to the trouble of introducing the whole bit about the house being charmed to pass to a pure-blood? Magpie: Exactly! It just struck me in retrospect as possibly one of those tricky things that JKR does. She never uses a type of magic without introducing it earlier in a neutral context. For instance, there's no reason for Arthur to receive a call via the fireplace before the kids leave for school in GoF. He receives one so that we can see that type of thing before Harry actually speaks to Sirius via the fire. The Portkey is also introduced as the way they get to the QWC, and then later it's the device by which Harry and Cedric are taken. If Dumbledore himself hadn't introduced the idea that maybe there's a charm on all this stuff that prevents it from being inherited by anyone not a Black, we would have no reason to doubt that the will wasn't enough. Dumbledore could still have brought Kreacher to the Dursleys as part of his inheritence. It would be completely in character for Harry to go into denial about Kreacher right then--to say he doesn't want him, that Kreacher is no elf of his. That could prompt Dumbledore to tell Harry to give an order to prove to Harry that Kreacher is his, and there's no getting around it, if she really wants to demonstrate that for us. So I just wound up wondering if the introduction of a charm based on blood wasn't actually there for a purpose all its own instead of just being a reason to get Kreacher there and make Harry give him an order. Because as is it's introduced as a problem but goes nowhere--it turns out there is no such charm on the inheritence, as proved by Kreacher's having to obey Harry. It's maybe not big enough to be Chekov's gun, but maybe it's a Chekovian squirt gun.:-) Maybe, I thought, that scene is also preparing us for a time when there *will* be such a charm, and this was a place for JKR to introduce it neutrally before it becomes a plot point. It just kind of pinged me as a possible one of those. I think I've just gotten used to being on the lookout for those because it's part of what makes JKR's plots so satisfying on re-read. (I've been re-reading PS and it's really fun seeing a lot of things foreshadowed there--Harry just looked up Dittany in his herbs book.:-) Jen: This seems like a very real possibility, more than a fanfic idea because of the way the Blacks have been depicted so far. This would also open a scenario of who could reach the Horcrux first, Draco or Bella? Both would be capable of opening the locket, as would Narcissa. There might be a chance to learn more about the family dynamics with such a plot. Magpie: Right--it just seems like a great device to force all sorts of connections and get us information. Harry's sworn he would never work with Draco, so he's kind of doomed himself to needing him somehow it seems to me.:-) It's a conflict set up for six books. Plus I admit I love the whole history of the rise and fall of the House of Black, and it seems to really cry out for some resolution that brings together all these threads. Magpie: >(We don't know what all Regulus might have been trying to do with> the >locket himself. Perhaps in his last hours he thought of Sirius> and hoped >he could destroy it while Voldemort himself would be > unable to open it.) Jen: This idea really appeals to me given how many fighting siblings there are in the series! The idea that Regulus & Sirius had a little more between them is a nice one, even if unfortunately they never got to tell each other in person. I definitely got the sense from the way Sirius talked that he had some affection for Regulus, but he couldn't forgive Regulus joining the DE's or his pure-blood bias. Magpie: It appeals to me too--I'd never thought of it before writing that post. I defintely felt when Sirius talked about his family in OotP that he wouldn't be so angry if there wasn't some real pain there for him, and I could easily see him covering up real feelings for his little brother with his sarcastic attitude. Iirc, he calls Regulus an idiot, and that could imply his being angry at him falling for the rhetoric, like a victim rather than a villain. -m From draconianevil at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 00:16:40 2007 From: draconianevil at yahoo.com (stephenn hernandez) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:16:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: R.A.B.. THEY ARE INITIALS FOR THREE PERSON In-Reply-To: <20070113192535.ETQG1750.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: <873082.65892.qm@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163743 I could still remember when I read about Dumbledore telling Harry after they got the Horcrux that "A single wizard alone couldn't have done that".. That to get rid of the Horcrux that was in there, There should be someone to help the drinker do whatever it was that was needed to be drank. Now if you're going to tell me about the Message that R.A.B. has left, It says , "I know I will be dead long before you read this but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. blah blah" Well.. maybe he was the one who discovered the secret but in the cave, maybe there're some other wizard/s who helped. StiFeNn draconianevil at yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 04:00:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 04:00:16 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: <009a01c7376d$088d9d50$9186400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163744 > Magpie: > It appeals to me too--I'd never thought of it before writing that post. I > defintely felt when Sirius talked about his family in OotP that he wouldn't > be so angry if there wasn't some real pain there for him, and I could easily > see him covering up real feelings for his little brother with his sarcastic > attitude. Iirc, he calls Regulus an idiot, and that could imply his being > angry at him falling for the rhetoric, like a victim rather than a villain. Alla: Right, actually what I want to say is just "me three". I felt precisely as you did when I read that passage, but I should not say " me too", hehe, so I am thinking that there is something else that shows that Sirius and Regulus had some sort of the relationship which is more than animosity. Remember when Slughorn says that he would love the set of Black brothers in HBP? ( paraphrasing). I don't know for some reason it struck me as Slughorn seeing them as brothers, not just as enemies. From scarah at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 05:16:17 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:16:17 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: References: <009a01c7376d$088d9d50$9186400c@Spot> Message-ID: <3202590701132116g543270cagadeae5446f1c5ef6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163745 > Alla: > Remember when Slughorn says that he would love the set of Black > brothers in HBP? ( paraphrasing). I don't know for some reason it > struck me as Slughorn seeing them as brothers, not just as enemies. Sarah: Hmm, I thought the choice of the word "set" was interesting also, but for a different reason. The obvious choice for what you're suggesting would have been "pair," which is what I expected him to say. I think the word "set" was carefully chosen to show that he thinks of them as collectibles, and not really people. Like, if you had one candlestick (half the set) or a pepper shaker (half the set of salt and pepper shakers) it would have less than half the monetary value of the complete set. I think it's there to provide some insight as to how Slughorn regards his "juicy flies." Sarah From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 06:04:03 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:04:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0701132204w6aa51362sd32b49aaad32eed5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163746 Stevebboyman: Also, consider that Sirius did not just give Harry a gift. If that's all it was, Harry would have opened it. Instead Sirius gave Harry a badly wrapped package WITH a Context attached to it. Carol has already covered that context. But it was that context that caused Harry to subconsciously reject the package. He resolved to never use it because he didn't want to be the one who put Sirius at risk. By rejecting the context, he subconsiously rejected the package itself. Plus this was a very intense year for Harry. He had plenty of things to distract him from some package tucked away forgetten in his trunk. Lynda: Wow! what good responses! I have to agree here. Harry wasn't exactly given this present and wished Merry Christmas! He's gets it in secret, and he's so determined to protect Sirius that he "forgets" about it. Harry was under a lot of tension that year. When I was discussing the book with two friends yesterday (one of whom is trying to read it for the first time with her four year old actively resisting her endeavers--"No Harry Potter, Mommy! Read that one!--as he hands her another book) we reiterated that for various reasons Harry spends the majority of the book mad. All of this makes it somewhat believable that Harry could mentally misplace the mirror. A little far-fetched, but I've seen some pretty strange things (btw--the loss of my wallet and subsequent return had the result of redistributing my budget and "stretching" my money a bit. Not that my money is ever other than stretched... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 14 07:33:36 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:33:36 -0000 Subject: R.A.B.. THEY ARE INITIALS FOR THREE PERSON In-Reply-To: <873082.65892.qm@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163747 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, stephenn hernandez wrote: > > I could still remember when I read about Dumbledore telling Harry after they got the Horcrux that "A single wizard alone couldn't have done that".. That to get rid of the Horcrux that was in there, There should be someone to help the drinker do whatever it was that was needed to be drank. > > Now if you're going to tell me about the Message that R.A.B. has left, It says , "I know I will be dead long before you read this but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. blah blah" > > Well.. maybe he was the one who discovered the secret but in the cave, maybe there're some other wizard/s who helped. > > > StiFeNn > draconianevil at ... Geoff: I would disagree. The message was left for Voldemort to read and to learn who had taken the real Horcrux. Therefore, although the writer might, by then, be dead, he wanted Voldemort to know what had happened and who had managed to trick him. If R.A.B. repesented the initials of three people, this would leave a wide-open field for speculation on Voldemort's part. Also, the writer uses the first person "I" pronoun through the note. I am inclined to join the majority view and put my money on Regulus Black. From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 10:02:54 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 10:02:54 -0000 Subject: Killing the soul piece if Harry is a Horcrux (Predictions, Wishful Thinking ..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163748 Jen Reese: > The fact that Harry has remained a human capable of loving in the > face of great pain is what makes him completely different from > Voldemort and that's what will save Harry in the end, not what will > kill Voldemort. That's why I think Voldemort will have to die in the > locked room, no one is actually capable of killing him, but Harry is > uniquely qualified to figure out the weakness that will destroy > Voldemort in the end. Finwitch: Well, remember what saved Harry in the end of OOP? Not a skill of occlumency but his *painful* love for Sirius. Voldemort just couldn't take it and was forced to leave Harry. I suppose the locked room is full of particularly that. The pain of the loss of loved one. Voldemort just can't handle it - because he has never loved anyone. Harry's blood has given him the ability to feel love, I think, but not Harry's ability to handle the pain involved - because that's something that grows by experience. I wonder though -- the locked room *melted* the knife that should be able to open any lock -- also a gift from Sirius. I wonder... How will Harry get Voldemort in there with him, unable to leave? Finwitch From scarah at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 10:15:59 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:15:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Killing the soul piece if Harry is a Horcrux (Predictions, Wishful Thinking ..) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701140215r3484d92w74ac3c41b6c3ed5e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163749 Finwitch, I like the way you think and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :) Finwitch: Well, remember what saved Harry in the end of OOP? Not a skill of occlumency but his *painful* love for Sirius. Sarah: Or possibly his desire to join Sirius. That is something Voldemort doesn't have. Sarah From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 11:23:32 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:23:32 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163750 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol : Once Voldemort had interpreted the Prophecy in that > way, he had only two boys to choose from. He chose the half-blood > rather than the pure-blood, in part, perhaps, from the resemblance to > himself; in part, perhaps, because a July 31 birthday fit the Prophecy > better than a July 30 birthday. (I don't doubt, though, that he > intended to kill Neville, and perhaps his parents, for good measure.) Finwitch: I think we have a little in canon to say that Voldemort DID intend to kill both. Because of some DEs going to Longbottoms in search for him. I mean, why there? 1. when Bellatrix heard that Voldemort had disappeared from Codric Hollow, maybe she assumed that Voldemort simply apparated to Longbottom house, trusting the AK-curse to have killed off Harry. 2. Voldemort may have even pre-arranged it via Barty Crouch Jr. Not that he needed to tell them it was a baby he was after. I think the DE-visit on Longbottoms is enough to say (along with Voldemort's pleasure in killing) that he DID intend to slay both. Finwitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jan 14 14:43:27 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:43:27 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163751 Finwitch: > I think we have a little in canon to say that Voldemort DID intend to kill both. Because of some DEs going to Longbottoms in search for him. I mean, why there? Ceridwen: Someone sent them. But, as you say, why? There were criteria to mark the "one with the power" - born to those who had thrice defied him, and born as the seventh month dies. The Potters and Longbottoms, as members of the Order, would have been in positions to defy LV at least once, and he doesn't seem to be the type to overlook something like that. The Longbottoms as Aurors, of course, would have defied him professionally as well. Slight side-trip: I was joking with a friend, and asked where half the prophecy ended exactly. Turns out there are 81 words, and the first half ends at "but he will have power". Someone else might stick the "the" after that; I didn't since I assume the space between them marks the half. The first half does not say "will be born", only "born". And by eleven years into VWI, there must have been others who had defied LV three times, Aurors like the Longbottoms at least, who had children born at the end of July. I just wonder, without the last line which says, "will be born", how did LV decide coclusively that it was a baby he was after? (Okay, I know, self-fulfilling, his choice marked the Chosen One) Finwitch: *(snip)* > I think the DE-visit on Longbottoms is enough to say (along with Voldemort's pleasure in killing) that he DID intend to slay both. Ceridwen: (back on track now ;) ) I agree. And I think that the plan may have been to go to the Potters first, since the SK was cooperating so graciously, then bop over to the Longbottoms right afterwards. When LV was vaporized, Bella and the boys didn't believe it could have been done by the Potters, who were dead, or by their baby (maybe no one knew the baby was the target), so they assumed that the Longbottoms had captured him as part of an Auror set-up to draw out his followers by pretending he was gone, and went to find out exactly what had happened to him. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that maybe no one but LV, Snape, and possibly Pettigrew, knew that the targets were the children. LV may not have wished his followers to know there was a prophecy concerning his potential downfall - he can't look invincible if there's that possibility, can he? Ceridwen. From lattie6565 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 12 21:55:43 2007 From: lattie6565 at yahoo.com (Louise) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:55:43 -0000 Subject: About Louise Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163752 Hello my name is Gloria and I am the Daughter in Law of Louise (lattie6565) I am here to inform you that on Jan 5th she passed away. She has been sick for some time but went into the hospital on Jan 3rd and they brought us in on Friday Jan 5th saying she would not make it thought. She loved being in her groups on yahoo and I just wanted to let all her friends know she has went to be with our Lord! Thanks. Elf Note: Please send condolence messages to Louise's family off-list. Thank you. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Jan 14 15:10:00 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 08:10:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: very basic confusion References: Message-ID: <00b901c737ee$1047bef0$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 163753 I am starting this post assuming all have read all that Geoff posted that was canon, and the stuff that followed. I am snipping just this section for comment: > What would have happened if he had attacked the Longbottom family first? > Would Alice have had the same love for Neville as Lily had for Harry > which would have enabled her to stand in the way and be killed to > save Neville and would he now have the scar? Or would Neville have been > killed and Voldemort's focus shifted to the Potters which might have > produced the same end results but with the addtional loss of the > Longbottom family? Frankly, I think if Neville has been killed first, nothing out of the ordinary would have occurred that would have deterred Voldermort. Having yet another murder under his belt, he would have proceeded to Harry, and found the real subject of the prophesy. I don't think it would have mattered in the end just how much the Longbottoms loved their son, for I think they loved him every much as Harry's parents did, but what other factors were present. I often wonder if Lilly's sacrifice was merely of "pure motherly love", or if it was of something more than that- a preplanned spell or protection set in place. This spell could have been activated the moment the Potters knew of the Prophesy, and thought that Voldemort would come to kill their son. Like Hermione's charm on the "snitch" in the DA's group, the outcome it would be triggered based on the condition of something happening, regardless of when that something did happen. Alice would have had that same love, and maybe even heroic sacrifice for her son, but in the end, I think it was the difference of an additional spell that caused the AK to rebound back to Voldemort. Dumbledore talks of Voldemort neglecting, over-looking and dismissing that ancient magic based on LOVE, but I think DD didn't, and pointed Lilly to this magic. She was bright enough to be able to use it. We can only speculate if he did the same for the Longbottoms. Maybe he did, and they also used it, but because Voldemort chose Harry first, we didn't get to see the outcome, unless for some reason Neville again stands in the way of Voldemort in the 7th book, and Voldemort tries to kill him then, finally releasing that spell protecting Neville. That would use yet another of Voldemort's lives, and in the end might pave the way for Harry to finish him off. Shelley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 17:44:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:44:24 -0000 Subject: R.A.B.. THEY ARE INITIALS FOR THREE PERSON In-Reply-To: <873082.65892.qm@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163754 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, stephenn hernandez wrote: > > I could still remember when I read about Dumbledore telling Harry after they got the Horcrux that "A single wizard alone couldn't have done that".. That to get rid of the Horcrux that was in there, There should be someone to help the drinker do whatever it was that was needed to be drank. > > Now if you're going to tell me about the Message that R.A.B. has left, It says , "I know I will be dead long before you read this but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. blah blah" > > Well.. maybe he was the one who discovered the secret but in the cave, maybe there're some other wizard/s who helped. > > > StiFeNn > draconianevil at ... > Carol responds: One wizard couldn't have done it alone, true, but the helper has to be someone who doesn't register on the boat's radar, so to speak. In Dumbledore's case, the helper is an underage wizard whose powers are less than his and underdeveloped. In Regulus Black's case, he himself may have been underage, so he could have had a slightly older helper, for example Severus Snape, as some posters have argued, or, more likely, he himself was just old enough to register, but his helper was a house-elf (Kreacher), whose presence the boat didn't recognize any more than it recognized Harry's and who was magically bound to obey any Black. IMO, Kreacher knew where the Horcrux was and how to operate the boat, etc., because he had helped Bellatrix hide it in the first place. Carol, thoroughly convinced that RAB is Regulus and his helper was Kreacher, whose sanity could have been damaged by drinking the potion for Master Regulus or by being forced to thwart his adored Miss Bellatrix From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 14 17:59:29 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 14 Jan 2007 17:59:29 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/14/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1168797569.13.3236.m34@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163755 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 14, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dougsamu at golden.net Sun Jan 14 18:08:08 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 13:08:08 -0500 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) Message-ID: <24DCD13E-0186-4303-B9C6-E6F1FF654C1D@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163756 bboymin: If all-knowing Dumbledore doesn't think Harry is a Horcrux, then I don't see how I can. Of course, Dumbledore may have made a mistake, but that is an extremely glaring mistake; an almost unbelievable mistake. doug: I am of the harry-is-a-horcrux-variation camp :-) I have read endlessly all the arguments about why Harry-isn't-a-horcrux. All have reasonable answers and counter arguments, but this one. And to choose a side assumes much about Dumbledore's understanding and character in order to affirm the argument. When I started into the topic a long time ago on Mugglenet, I asked, why don't any of the major characters, powerful wizards, knowledgeable magicians all... NONE of them ever speak on magical theory, even in general principle. Why do none of them ever voice even any sub-vocce thoughts about the nature or the source of the magic they use? For Rowling, either it is critical to a plot twist, or she doesn't understand it herself. Surely if the characters knew the least bit of magical theory, they would come to some conclusion about the nature of this essential mystery. So inasmuch as Dumbledore doesn't speak directly on the topic, it isn't out of character in the context of the books, as no one speaks anywhere near completely about the theory, except Lupin in teaching Harry the Patronus spell, and Bellatrix (?) in saying that 'you have to mean it.' That the characters all understand Magic is one of those willing suspensions of disbelief we buy when settle in to the books. It is such a clever misdirection and must be an underlying assumption. Of course, Dumbledore does also confirm Harry's statement that Voldemort put a bit of himself into Harry.. Still no one directly states anything. So it is either a glaring mistake on Dumbledore's part, because he _must_ as a wizard of such respect and position understand magical theory, or it is deliberate with-holding on the part of the authour, whom we assume must understand the magical theory she is using. Either side of this is inconclusive. Google submits to Chinese Gov't. Tibetan cybercafe warning: "Do not use Internet for any political or unintelligent purposes." ____________________ From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Jan 14 19:26:13 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:26:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: <3202590701132116g543270cagadeae5446f1c5ef6@mail.gmail.com> References: <009a01c7376d$088d9d50$9186400c@Spot> <3202590701132116g543270cagadeae5446f1c5ef6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40701141126v7ff0cea7m91a17dfeba9be3b7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163757 > > Alla wrote: > > Remember when Slughorn says that he would love the set of Black > > brothers in HBP? ( paraphrasing). I don't know for some reason it > > struck me as Slughorn seeing them as brothers, not just as enemies. > > Sarah replied: > Hmm, I thought the choice of the word "set" was interesting also, but > for a different reason. The obvious choice for what you're suggesting > would have been "pair," which is what I expected him to say. > > I think the word "set" was carefully chosen to show that he thinks of > them as collectibles, and not really people. ... > I think it's there to provide some insight as to > how Slughorn regards his "juicy flies." Kemper now: I agree with Sarah. And to expand on the 'collectible' implication that comes from Slughorn's word choice of 'set', it makes me think that was valued highly not only because he was a Black and had influence but because he was as powerful and creative a wizard as Sirius. Kemper From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 20:17:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:17:52 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: <700201d40701141126v7ff0cea7m91a17dfeba9be3b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163758 > > > Alla wrote: > > > Remember when Slughorn says that he would love the set of Black > > > brothers in HBP? ( paraphrasing). I don't know for some reason it > > > struck me as Slughorn seeing them as brothers, not just as enemies. > > > > Sarah replied: > > Hmm, I thought the choice of the word "set" was interesting also, but > > for a different reason. The obvious choice for what you're suggesting > > would have been "pair," which is what I expected him to say. > > > > I think the word "set" was carefully chosen to show that he thinks of > > them as collectibles, and not really people. ... > > I think it's there to provide some insight as to > > how Slughorn regards his "juicy flies." > > > Kemper now: > I agree with Sarah. And to expand on the 'collectible' implication > that comes from Slughorn's word choice of 'set', it makes me think > that was valued highly not only because he was a Black and had > influence but because he was as powerful and creative a wizard as > Sirius. Alla: Ugh, trying to cut something and not sure what to cut. Oh well. Sarah's point is a good one, absolutely. I am just thinking that it is not mutually exclusive with what I was trying to say. Sure, it is quite likely that Slughorn thought of Black brothers as *collectible set to own* or something like that. I mean, I do not think that this is necessarily the only thing he thought of them, since on the example of Lily we do see IMO that Slughorn can feel affection to his students as people as well, but I do not dispute Sarah's point. What I was trying to say is that the fact that Slughorn refered to them together, that he **knew** that they were brothers may imply that Sirius and Regulus were not just enemies in Hogwarts, if that makes sense. Of course he may have known that they were brothers simply because they had the same last name, hehe. But since Sirius broke any connection with his family at some point, I would think he would have been happy to not communicate with Regulus at all, if that makes sense again. JMO, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 21:17:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:17:25 -0000 Subject: very basic confusion In-Reply-To: <00b901c737ee$1047bef0$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163759 k12listmomma (Shelley) wrote: > Frankly, I think if Neville has been killed first, nothing out of the ordinary would have occurred that would have deterred Voldermort. Having yet another murder under his belt, he would have proceeded to Harry, and found the real subject of the prophesy. I don't think it would have mattered in the end just how much the Longbottoms loved their son, for I think they loved him every much as Harry's parents did, but what other factors were present. I often wonder if Lilly's sacrifice was merely of "pure motherly love", or if it was of something more than that- a preplanned spell or protection set in place. This spell could have been activated the moment the Potters knew of the Prophesy, and thought that Voldemort would come to kill their son. Like Hermione's charm on the "snitch" in the DA's group, the outcome it would be triggered based on the condition of something happening, regardless of when that something did happen. Alice would have had that same love, and maybe even heroic sacrifice for her son, but in the end, I think it was the difference of an additional spell that caused the AK to rebound back to Voldemort. Carol responds: I used to think much the same thing for several reasons, including Ollivander's reference to Lily's first wand as "a nice wand for charm work." (I still think that her forte was Charms, not Potions, despite Slughorn's fond memories of her "cheek," and I think that she placed the Fidelius Charm on Peter Pettigrew.) I've also always found it strange that a mother's self-sacrificial love for her child had never before prevented a child from being AK'd. Why would the sacrifice work to protect Harry and no one else? A protective charm that worked like a Protego but was strong enough to protect against an AK seemed like the answer. (There's no countercurse for an AK, of course, but a countercurse works after the fact, not as prevention or protection.) I thought that the protection was activated by Lily's death and that the shape of the cut on Harry's forehead (surely caused by the AK bursting outward rather than by the AK striking Harry resembled an Eihwaz rune (protection or defense). (Other people think it looks more like Sowilu, but the theory is the same.) Unfortunately for my theory, JKR said on her site that Lily wasn't planning to die. I suppose that a protective charm could still be activated by an attack on Harry, but that would lessen the significance of Lily's self-sacrifice, and both Voldemort and Dumbledore consider the sacrifice itself to be the source or cause of the ancient magic that protecte Harry, and which DD could extend to Number Four Privet Drive through Lily's "blood" (Petunia). Why, then, didn't James's death protect Harry? Because, IMO, he died as a hero rather than a martyr--that is, he died armed and fighting whereas Lily died begging for her son's life and offering her own in exchange. Either she was unarmed or she simply didn't pull out her wand and offer to fight Voldemort. Had she done so, she would certainly have been killed as James was--no "Stand aside, silly girl!" She'd have been AK'd on the spot. (Was she "silly" not to fight, in his view, or "silly" to think that he'd listen to a mother's pleas?) Here's the quoted interview, with only the part about Voldemort snipped because I want to keep the focus on Lily: JKR: . . . . Don't you want to ask me why James's death didn't protect Lily and Harry? There's your answer, you've just answered your own question, because she could have lived and chose to die. James was going to be killed anyway. Do you see what I mean? I'm not saying James wasn't ready to; he died trying to protect his family but he was going to be murdered anyway. He had no - he wasn't given a choice, so he rushed into it in a kind of animal way, I think there are distinctions in courage. James was immensely brave. But the caliber of Lily's bravery was, I think in this instance, higher because she could have saved herself. Now any mother, any normal mother would have done what Lily did. So in that sense her courage too was of an animal quality but she was given time to choose. James wasn't. It's like an intruder entering your house, isn't it? You would instinctively rush them. But if in cold blood you were told, "Get out of the way," you know, what would you do? I mean, I don't think any mother would stand aside from their child. But does that answer it? She did very consciously lay down her life. She had a clear choice - ES: And James didn't. JKR: Did he clearly die to try and protect Harry specifically given a clear choice? No. It's a subtle distinction and there's slightly more to it than that but that's most of the answer. MA: Did she know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry? JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen. Carol again: And then there's the FAQ on JKR's website, which indicates that if Frank or Alice Longbottom had thrown themselves in front of Voldemort as Lily did, Neville would have become the Prophecy Boy with a scar and a mind link to Voldemort (no hint that the scar is a Horcrux!): "So what would have happened if Voldemort had decided that the pure-blood, not the half-blood, was the bigger threat? What would have happened if he had attacked Neville instead? Harry wonders this during the course of 'Half-Blood Prince' and concludes, rightly, that the answer hinges on whether or not one of Neville's parents would have been able, or prepared, to die for their son in the way that Lily died for Harry. If they hadn't, Neville would have been killed outright. Had Frank or Alice thrown themselves in front of Neville, however, the killing curse would have rebounded just as it did in Harry's case, and Neville would have been the one who survived with the lightning scar. What would this have meant? Would a Neville bearing the lightning scar have been as successful at evading Voldemort as Harry has been? Would Neville have had the qualities that have enabled Harry to remain strong and sane throughout all of his many ordeals? Although Dumbledore does not say as much, he does not believe so: he believes Voldemort did indeed choose the boy most likely to be able to topple him, for Harry's survival has not depended wholly or even mainly upon his scar." The interview distinguishes Lily's death from James's and seems to indicate that Lily had no idea that she was protecting Harry. But JKR also says, "There's slightly more to it than that but [the fact that Lily had a choice and James didn't is] most of the answer." Many posters think that "something more" relates to Voldemort's reasons for "offering" to spare Lily, but I don't think that "Stand aside, silly girl" constitutes an offer so much as an indication that she's in his way. JKR is just picking up the wording of the question and emphasizing that this "offer" (Get out of my way!) gives Lily a chance to live if she were so heartless as to accept it. The FAQ states that Alice Longbottom, who clearly loved her son just as much as Lily loved Harry (shown by the bubblegum wrappers in OoP), might have died in the same way as Lily, in which case Neville would have had the scar and the mind link to Voldemort (but maybe not the character traits required to defeat Voldemort). But since she was an Auror (at least according to OoP), it's just as likely that she might have tried to fight Voldemort as James did (and Frank probably would have done), in which case Neville would have been killed along with his parents since there would be no self-sacrificial love to activate the ancient magic. (Most likely no other mother in WW history has ever offered her life for her child's since her instinct would be to fight instead. Think of a mother bear defending her cubs, and witches normally carry wands. Lily, thinking that she was safe because of the Fidelius Charm, may have been unarmed. Alice the Auror would not have been, IMO.) But even if I'm wrong and Alice, instead of fighting to protect her child, would have stepped in front of him and offered her life for his as Lily did for Harry (screaming and terrified and possibly wandless yet still incredibly brave), she didn't have the opportunity to do so. Voldemort had already been vaporized by the consequences of Lily's self-sacrifice. (He *ought* to have exchanged her life for Harry's, but he cheated, trying to kill them both, and her love rebounded to protect Harry by deflecting the AK onto its caster.) With Harry already "mark[ed] as [Voldemort's] equal and Voldie in no shape to kill anyone, what Alice might or might not have done becomes superfluous. At any rate, I no longer think that Lily placed a protective charm on Harry, much as I like the theory, with its connections to Lily's first wand and Hermione's reference to the Eihwaz rune. In short, I think that Voldemort ordered an unarmed Lily out of his way; Lily pleaded for her son's life and offered to trade her life for his ("Kill me instead"); Voldemort killed her, activating the ancient magic of her sacrifice; Voldemort then attempted to kill Harry, violating the bargain he had made to kill her instead, and the ancient Love magic caused his own curse to rebound on him, Protego-style. Had it not been for his Horcruxes, he would have died, and Harry's scar would merely have been the mark of his mother's protection. As it is, the scar formed a mind link to Voldemort (and perhaps contains a few of his powers, though the interview downplays its importance--the scar might not have been enough to make Neville Voldemort's equal, Prophecy or no Prophecy). Carol, now more confused than ever with regard to Lily's sacrifice From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 14 21:59:42 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:59:42 -0000 Subject: MuggleNet - Godrics Hollow Theory. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163760 Carol wrote: > But the carefully planned (IMO) first chapter of SS/PS is different. > Notice that she has McGonagall spend a whole day at the Dursleys, > watching them until Dumbledore arrives late that night. She also > depicts Vernon Dursley's day, making it clear that "shooting stars" > were seen all over Britain the previous night and that the wizards in > the street are celebrtaing that day (November 1), even allowing > themselves to be seen by Muggles. So the announcement that Voldemort > was dead or defeated, thwarted by a baby (toddler), had already been > made about twenty-four hours before Hagrid arrives with baby Harry. I > don't see how JKR could be *that* bad at math. > > She knows what she's doing in this instance, I'm certain. Too bad we > don't! Potioncat: I haven't been able to join in with this thread, and I hope it's not too late. Since I've nothing new to say, I've come up with something old. Here's a post SSSusan wrote a while back to try to explain the missing 24 hours. I've snipped a potion of the T-Bay style post, to get to the gist of her idea. It was written before HBP. And if anything, I think HBP may strengthen it. Here it is for your pleasure. (Where the heck is SSSusan, anyway?) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/128717 "You mean... the missing 24 hours?" "Yup," grins SSSusan. "Dumbledore, mightily relieved that Harry had survived the attack, decided to do anything & everything he could to FURTHER protect Harry, because he believed Voldemort to not truly be dead. He had Hagrid pick up Harry from the wreckage and take him to Snape, who applied the ointment. The ointment needed several hours to sink into the blood stream and to become activated there. Once that had happened, Hagrid flew with baby Harry to meet DD at the Dursleys." "Hmmmm," Jen responds. "It's interesting, anyway." "AND it explains so much!" says SSSusan. "Why Hagrid defends Snape to the Trio all the time. Why DD trusts Snape. What the missing 24 hours was about. Maybe why Snape is so hateful to Harry. Harry, after all, has NO IDEA what Snape's already done for him, and Snape receives no credit for his efforts. It *might* even explain why Harry was able to hold out against Voldy in the graveyard, mightn't it? The extra protection? Harry's dragon-like ability to hold out against powerful spells? I tell you, DRIBBLE: SHADOWS suits me just fine." The two friends sip their margaritas in silence, contemplating the possibilities. Siriusly Snapey Susan, with gratitude to Grannybat for her DRIBBLE TBAY in 83354 Potioncat, hoping this has been helpful, or at least, entertaining. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 22:57:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 22:57:53 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: <700201d40701141126v7ff0cea7m91a17dfeba9be3b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163761 Kemper wrote: > I agree with Sarah. And to expand on the 'collectible' implication > that comes from Slughorn's word choice of 'set', it makes me think > that was valued highly not only because he was a Black and had > influence but because he was as powerful and creative a wizard as > Sirius. Carol responds: I don't mean to be contrary (forgive me, Kemper!), but Regulus is an unknown quantity and Slughorn may only have meant that he'd have liked to have both borothers in Slytherin because of the Black family tradition. Mcgonagall might have felt the same way if a Weasley had somehow ended up in some House other than Gryffindor though she'd never have referred to students as if they were pieces in a collection. (Nice catch, Sarah!) As for Sirius, what evidence do we have that he's "powerful and creative"? He became an Animagus (as did James and Peter Pettigrew) because they focused their study time on Transformation (hence McGonagall's view of them, or at least James and Sirius, as brilliant students--they excelled in *her* class) and he was one of four students combining their talents to make the Marauder's Map. Slughorn would not have known about either feat. There's no evidence that Sirius (or James) excelled in Potions, much less invented potions improvements like Severus, and no evidence that he invented his own spells. So even if he really was "creative and powerful," how would slughorn have known it? Sirius wasn't even in his House. Maybe *Regulus* was brilliant (though he failed to destroy the Horcrux, if it's the unopenable locket) and Slughorn was generalizing from one brother to the other. Maybe he heard McGonagall bragging about how good Sirius Black and James Potter were in Transfiguration and wished he could "collect" the pair (though there's no evidence that SB was in the Slug Club). But all we know about the young Sirius Black, aside from what I've already mentioned, is that he was frequently in detention with James, he was James's best friend, he hated Severus Snape (and may have thought that Severus was involved in the Dark Arts), he attacked Severus two on one with James after the DADA OWL and he tricked or lured Severus into entering the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack when Remus Lupin was in werewolf mode during their sixth year, and he learned to become an Animagus in order to run with a werewolf, endangering the residents of Hogsmeade. He doesn't seem to feel much empathy with Remus ("wish it were a full moon") and doesn't want to help him study for Transfiguration because he (being an Animagus) thinks he knows all there is to know about the subject. He's also pretty dismissive of Peter Pettigrew, telling James to stop showing off or Wormtail will wet himself. All we know about the older Sirius is that he was a member of the Order of the Phoenix, that he suggested substituting Peter Pettigrew for himself as Secret Keeper (with disastrous consequences), that he was Harry's godfather and tried to persuade Hagrid to let him have Harry at GH, that he subsequently went after Pettigrew, presumably to kill him; that he spent twelve years in Azkaban brooding on revenge and his own innocence; that he escaped and went after Pettigrew to commit the murder he was imprisoned for; that he furiously slashed up a painting and some bedcurtains, frightening a lot of kids, and dragged Ron into the Shrieking Shack because he knew that Pettigrew was in his pocket; that he was reluctantly talked out of murdering Pettigrew (along with Lupin) by Harry; that he escaped on Buckbeak thanks to Harry and Hermione; that he did keep track of Harry and come back, risking recapture, when he heard that Harry was a TWT champion; that he brooded at home, unable to do anything useful for the Order, after appearing in his Animagus form on Platform 9 3/4 in sight of Lucius Malfoy; and that he went with the Order to the MoM to rescue Harry despite being told by Snape to wait for Dumbledore and was subsequently killed in a fight with his cousin Bellatrix. I see a rash, reckless, arrogant boy and man, loyal to his friend James and James's son and fiercely opposed to Voldemort, talented in Transfiguration but not necessarily in other subjects. If he were an expert duellist, he'd have paid attention to what he and his opponent were doing and where they were rather than taunting Bellatrix and showing off. What I don't see is a powerful and creative wizard worthy of "collection" by Slughorn, who, as I said, didn't even know that Sirius was an (illegal) Animagus, much less about his share in producing the Marauder's Map. Carol, not trying to "bash" Sirius Black but wondering why we should take McGonagall's word that a former Gryffindor who excelled in *her* class should be regarded as an exceptionally talented or creative wizard comparable to, say, Severus Snape From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Jan 14 23:27:09 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 15:27:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163762 Carol, not trying to "bash" Sirius Black but wondering why we should take McGonagall's word that a former Gryffindor who excelled in *her* class should be regarded as an exceptionally talented or creative wizard comparable to, say, Severus Snape Sherry: What evidence do we have that Snape is brilliant and trustworthy beyond the word of Dumbledore? At this point, I'd trust Minerva as much as I'd trust DD. And sorry, but Sirius would die to protect his friends, his pack, whereas Snape, a coward in my opinion, murdered the person who believed in him. I think Sirius was brash and reckless, but a far better man, than Snape. I'd rather have had Sirius watching my back, than ever have dared to turn my back on Snape. Sherry, believing that the reputation of Sirius Black will be redeemed in the last book. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 14 23:32:08 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:32:08 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163763 Carol: > All we know about the older Sirius is that he was a member of the > Order of the Phoenix, that he suggested substituting Peter Pettigrew > for himself as Secret Keeper (with disastrous consequences), that he > was Harry's godfather and tried to persuade Hagrid to let him have > Harry at GH, that he subsequently went after Pettigrew, presumably to > kill him; that he spent twelve years in Azkaban brooding on revenge > and his own innocence; that he escaped and went after Pettigrew to > commit the murder he was imprisoned for; Alla: No, that is not all we know about Sirius. I snipped the other parts of the synopsis, but I did not see the one I am talking about. Sorry if I missed it. Whether you consider going after Pettigrew his primary motive for escape or not, another motive for escape is present in the text as well - Sirius being worried that Harry will get hurt. I think it is a pretty significant information about Sirius character. " "But then I saw Peter in that picture... I realized he was at Hogwarts with Harry... perfectly positioned to act, if one hint reached his ears that the Dark Side was gathering strength again...." Pettigrew was shaking his head, mouthing noiselessly, but staring all the while at Black as though hypnotized. "... ready to strike at the moment he could be sure of allies... and to deliver the last Potter to them. if he gave them Harry, who'd dare say he'd betrayed Lord Voldemort? He'd be welcomed back with honors.... "So you see, I had to do something. I was the only one who knew Peter was still alive...."" - PoA, paperback, am.ed. > Carol, not trying to "bash" Sirius Black but wondering why we should > take McGonagall's word that a former Gryffindor who excelled in *her* > class should be regarded as an exceptionally talented or creative > wizard comparable to, say, Severus Snape > Alla: Nobody should take any character's word for anything IMO if they feel that the character is not reliable enough. But I most certainly take Mcgonagall word for it, because I do not remember her being a liar, I do remember her being fair in canon many times and most importantly for me when she says it, she has no inclination whatsoever to say anything **positive** about Sirius, who at the moment for her is first and foremost the traitor of his closest friends and the killer of that poor Peter Pettigrew. Why would Minerva want to say anything positive of Sirius if it was not true at that point, I have no idea. But being the truthful person she is, I can totally see her saying good things about person she dislikes a lot at the moment, just because it is a truth. Oh, and who was comparing Sirius to Snape in this thread? From monalbath at yahoo.fr Sun Jan 14 21:09:17 2007 From: monalbath at yahoo.fr (myriade2222) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:09:17 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <24DCD13E-0186-4303-B9C6-E6F1FF654C1D@golden.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163764 > doug: > > I am of the harry-is-a-horcrux-variation camp :-) I have read > endlessly all the arguments about why Harry-isn't-a-horcrux. myriad: I really think that Harry is a horcrux. I noticed something that appeared me weird when I read it; but if you think that Harry is a Horcrux, it seems clear "He said my blood would make him stronger than if he used someone's else,'Harry told Dumbledore'(...). For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes."Why would he be triumpialist when Harry tells him that Voldemort is back? This is clear that he has the proof and he can be sure that Harry is a Horcux.Then he realized that Harry would be injured or maybe died if he is a Horcrux and he won't be able to protect him or to save him thim this time: "But next second, Harry was sure he has imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the desk, and he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 00:41:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:41:25 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163765 > Sherry: > > What evidence do we have that Snape is brilliant and trustworthy beyond the > word of Dumbledore? At this point, I'd trust Minerva as much as I'd trust > DD. Alla: I suppose even DD word only counts when it comes to affirming Snape reputation Dumbledore called Marauders becoming Animagi - "extraordinary achievement" as far as I remember. Yep, that counts to me as testimony that Marauders were exceptionally gifted, all of them. IMO of course. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 01:17:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:17:49 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163766 > > Carol, not trying to "bash" Sirius Black but wondering why we should take McGonagall's word that a former Gryffindor who excelled in *her* class should be regarded as an exceptionally talented or creative wizard comparable to, say, Severus Snape Sherry responded: > > What evidence do we have that Snape is brilliant and trustworthy beyond the word of Dumbledore? At this point, I'd trust Minerva as much as I'd trust DD. And sorry, but Sirius would die to protect his friends, his pack, whereas Snape, a coward in my opinion, murdered the person who believed in him. I think Sirius was brash and reckless, but a far better man, than Snape. I'd rather have had Sirius watching my back, than ever have dared to turn my back on Snape. > > Sherry, believing that the reputation of Sirius Black will be redeemed in the last book. > Carol again: Hi, Sherry. I was a bit hard on Sirius, wasn't I? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or those of other Sirius fans. I was trying to figure out why everyone thinks he's so clever and talented and let my dislike of him show instead. As for Snape, I think it's pretty clear that he's brilliant, wherever his loyalties lie. (I think they lie with Dumbledore, obviously, but I realize that the evidence is not all in.) All those spells and potions improvements he invented as a teenager are sufficient evidence of that, not to mention his abilities as a Healer and duellist, revealed in HBP, and his unusual skill at Occlumency, mentioned again by Lupin near the end of HBP. (I'd add more examples, but I think his brilliance is self-evident, in contrast to his loyalties.) And do remember that Minerva believed that Sirius was a murderer even though she'd had him in her classes and her house for seven years, so I'm not sure how trustworthy her judgment of her former students is. Nor is Lupin's judgment of his former classmates, which is similar in both cases to McGonagall's view of them, particularly trustworthy. It's interesting to me that Lupin's words about Black in PoA ("Yes, I knew him. Or I thought I did") are very similar to Slughorn's about Snape in HBP ("I taught him! I thought I knew him!")--except that Slughorn is shocked by Snape's action and Lupin has already resigned himself to Black as murderer (and is fooling himself by pretending that an Animagus who knows about all the secret passageways can't figure out a way to get onto the grounds and into the school). I agree that Sirius Black's reputation will be publicly cleared in DH and I expect his body to be returned through the Veil so that Harry and the Order can hold a funeral for him at last. I'm just not sure that he's as creative and clever as he's commonly believed to be. If he weren't an Animagus motivated by the desire to commit the murder he was imprisoned for, he'd never have sneaked past the Dementors, who, fortunately for him, are blind. But that isn't cleverness so much as having an advantage over the other prisoners thanks to one particular ability. Carol, who trusts Dumbledore's judgment of Snape, whom he knows much better than he knew Sirius Black From lmcdanl at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 15 01:04:33 2007 From: lmcdanl at sbcglobal.net (mariejgrangerpotter) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:04:33 -0000 Subject: DA (not) in HBP In-Reply-To: <004201c736c8$d5a4e0a0$7766400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163767 > Magpie: > Sure you can disagree with us (heh-me and Harry), but that doesn't > make it an unresolved issue in the books, which was what I was > saying. We weren't left hanging with the DA because the stated > reason for it existing in OotP was gone, and Harry himself says this > makes it unnecessary. So there's nothing to resolve in the way that, > say, we need a resolution on who RAB is. Marie: Oh, you're certainly right about this. It's not unresolved like RAB or even SPEW. > Magpie: > Umbridge wasn't teaching them DADA at all. Snape was, so nobody felt > the need for Harry to teach on the side. In fifth year it was Harry > or nothing. In sixth year Snape was teaching things Harry himself > didn't know (Hermione ironically says Snape sounds like Harry, which > makes it seem like he'd be a good teacher) so the DA would probably, > if anything, have evolved into a duelling club--one that nobody > really seemed to want, though. It would have been a fine idea--lots > of fanfics did that when they imagined sixth year. It just wasn't > the way JKR was going. Marie: You're right about the irony of Hermione comparing Snape and Harry's teaching styles. (Especially since Snape was still indirectly teaching Harry other things in the guise of the HBP.) And interest in the DA probably would have been down, but at least the core Department of Mysteries group probably would have stayed in it. Remember, Luna said it was almost like having friends (poor girl). And as I said before, the plot-driven reason for dissolving it became apparent at the end of the book. > Magpie: > I do get your point about your disagreement with Harry, but at least > he does give us a reason in canon for it not continuing that all the > characters accept. Marie: Very true. I wish someone had argued with him, but alas... Perhaps Neville, Luna, and/or Ginny will run it during DH while the trio is off on the Horcrux Hunt. >> Marie: >> Someone on thread >> recently mentioned that Jo has promised as much on her website, but >> I've been unable to locate it. Any help pointing me in the right >> direction would be much appreciated. > Magpie: > I remember something...but now I totally can't remember. I'm sure > somebody else in the thread will! Marie: Someone did, thank you both. It had been in Jo's diary, which isn't archived on her site. That's why I couldn't find it. It was from May 10, 2006 and said: I've been having house-elf trouble this week, though I think I've got them sorted out now. I'm all for house-elf rights, but the author is dictator and the sooner they accept that, the better. (Finally found on the HP Lexicon.) From scarah at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 01:49:31 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:49:31 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701141749h4c6d30a9g2b36ac9c7cd84664@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163768 Sarah: Hooray, Snape vs. Sirius deathmatch! I concede Snape is smart, and bring up a point I don't think anyone mentioned in this thread: the logic riddle in book one. Hermione (amusingly in my opinion) says most wizards' logic circuits are broken by magical silliness and couldn't have done it. However, if we're talking Slughorn's point of view (which we started out as, but I don't know if we are anymore) I don't know if Slughorn really thinks that Snape is all that. At his Christmas party he all but comes out and says that Harry's better at potions than Snape. Hee! Carol is unimpressed by Sirius learning the animagus transformation by fifth year. OK, I'll let that one go. But a couple of points in his favor: he has (co-)invented something while at school too, the Marauder's Map. He was also the first to break prison. I think it's fair to throw out Lupin's testimony about Sirius, since he's a known suckup to Sirius and James. I agree with Alla on giving more weight to McGonagall, since because of the timing she's unlikely to embellish in Sirius' favor. Dumbledore does think that the animagus transformation was impressive, and that Sirius was clever, so if he's the star character witness in this trial I don't think we can disregard what he has to say. Sarah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 02:03:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:03:15 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius WAS :Regulus and Sirius In-Reply-To: <3202590701141749h4c6d30a9g2b36ac9c7cd84664@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163769 > > Sarah: > > Hooray, Snape vs. Sirius deathmatch! Alla: LOLOL - too funny. Sarah: > I concede Snape is smart, and bring up a point I don't think anyone > mentioned in this thread: the logic riddle in book one. Hermione > (amusingly in my opinion) says most wizards' logic circuits are broken > by magical silliness and couldn't have done it. > > However, if we're talking Slughorn's point of view (which we started > out as, but I don't know if we are anymore) I don't know if Slughorn > really thinks that Snape is all that. At his Christmas party he all > but comes out and says that Harry's better at potions than Snape. > Hee! Alla: Oh, but I never had any doubts that Snape is powerful, smart, etc. I mean, why would I dispute it? It is there in the text, loud and clear. I am doubting that Snape is using his powers for good, hehe, but **never** that he is powerful. I am just taking an issue with discounting all that there is in canon about Sirius powers. And as veteran of Snape v Sirius battles, lol, I do hope that we can one day analyse Sirius without bringing in Snape, hehe. He stands to me quite nicely on his own, not just in relation to Snape, even though they are certainly connected. JMO as usual. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 15 02:34:02 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:34:02 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163770 Kemper now: > I agree with Sarah. And to expand on the 'collectible' implication > that comes from Slughorn's word choice of 'set', it makes me think > that was valued highly not only because he was a Black and had > influence but because he was as powerful and creative a wizard as > Sirius. > Alla: > Sure, it is quite likely that Slughorn thought of Black brothers as > *collectible set to own* or something like that. > I mean, I do not think that this is necessarily the only thing he > thought of them, since on the example of Lily we do see IMO that > Slughorn can feel affection to his students as people as well, but > I do not dispute Sarah's point. Jen: I had the same impression that Slughorn cares for 'his' students while still considering them collectibles. Slughorn appears to care about Lily mainly because of her abilities and personality, yet when faced with the story of how she died, his jovial manner disappears-- his horror at hearing what happened to Lily and his tears were real. He genuinely cared for her in his own limited way because of who she was and not *just* what she was capable of doing in the world or for him. Alla: > What I was trying to say is that the fact that Slughorn refered to > them together, that he **knew** that they were brothers may imply > that Sirius and Regulus were not just enemies in Hogwarts, if that > makes sense. Of course he may have known that they were brothers > simply because they had the same last name, hehe. Jen: I'm pretty sure you are saying it wasn't the content of what Slughorn was saying so much as how he referred to the brothers as a 'set'--two halves of a whole. Slughorn saw something in the brothers that connected them together in his mind almost like how someone would refer to a 'set' of twins or anything that belongs together. Carol: > Regulus is an unknown quantity and Slughorn may only have meant > that he'd have liked to have both borothers in Slytherin because of > the Black family tradition. What I don't see is a powerful > and creative wizard worthy of "collection" by Slughorn, who, as I > said, didn't even know that Sirius was an (illegal) Animagus, much > less about his share in producing the Marauder's Map. Jen: I suspect Slughorn meant exactly what he said, Sirius was a 'talented boy'. Slughorn ignores those whom he doesn't believe have any potential, that much is clear. He saw something in Sirius regarding his talent or it wouldn't be a 'shame' that Slughorn wasn't able to collect him. > Carol, not trying to "bash" Sirius Black but wondering why we should > take McGonagall's word that a former Gryffindor who excelled in > *her* class should be regarded as an exceptionally talented or > creative wizard comparable to, say, Severus Snape. Jen: McGonagall is not known for praising a person's abilities if she sees nothing to praise. If she said Sirius and James were 'exceptionally bright' then Rowling intends us to believe her comment. And when Dumbledore later called Sirius 'clever' and Slughorn called him 'talented', that's more direct canon that people other than McGongall saw Sirius as a skilled wizard. Sirius being talented doesn't exclude Snape from being talented or vice versa, they aren't an either/or proposition, there's plenty of skill to go around in Potterverse . From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 02:35:51 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:35:51 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163771 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > > On a side note, there's no proof that Tom Riddle created one or more > Horcruxes at sixteen, as some posters seem to take for granted. Mike: Maybe, but there is no proof that he didn't either. But there is much more canon that he did rather than didn't make a Horcrux at sixteen. > Carol cont: > His questions to Slughorn, and his unchanged appearance, indicate > that he had not yet done so. Mike: I, for one, have no problem believing that Tom Riddle knew how to play Slughorn after years in his house and being in the Slug Club. Also, Dumbledore admitted that the possibility of multiple Horcruxes was critical information to Tom. Lastly, how much change in appearance does one Horcrux make? How do we know Tom's appearance *didn't* change? I think you are assuming information that is not in canon, not that you can't do that. But it comes awkwardly after the sentence where you have averred that there is "no proof". > Carol cont: > I don't think that the diary, though it contained one or more > memories and was enchanted to be interactive (rather like the > portraits, the Sorting Hat, and the Marauder's Map) was a > Horcrux at this point. Mike: Ah, to the meat of the matter. You are referring to the *supposed* diary's condition after creation as a repository of memories, but not yet imbued with a soul piece. Since we have no knowledge of how that particular diary would function, you can claim it operates any way you would like and noone can reliably dispute it. Conversely, I could say that the paintings, the Sorting Hat, and the Marauder's Map have never manifested into human form (or nearly human had Harry not stopped the process). Therefore; I feel that your analogy relies upon a condition (pre- Horcrux) which we have no canon to reference. Also, the diary starts out, in the beginning of CoS, with actions that "mere memories" could not accomplish, to wit: "... act and think for itself? .." (DD in HBP ch 23) All the things the diary did with Ginny, *before* Harry got his hands on it, demonstrated it was a Horcrux repository. To say it reverts to something more primitive after Harry gets ahold of it does not hold water, IMO. As to Tom not creating the Horcrux when he was sixteen; this presumes that the soul piece chose what age to become when it rtegenerated into human form. The obvious question would be: Why didn't the other soul piece we saw regenerate also choose a younger, heathier form? Why did LV have to regenerate into the deformed state that came out of the cauldron? I have to go with Tom Riddle's own words, "... preserving my sixteen- year-old self in its pages,..." (Cos ch 17). You may not consider this to be proof, but combined with the fact that Tom did put a piece of his soul in the diary, I'm not sure JKR could have made it more clear without getting clinical. > Carol, firmly believing that the Horcrux hunt will *not* culminate > in Harry's discovery that he or his scar is a Horcrux or in his > self-sacrifice to destroy a soul bit in himself Mike: I am a Harry-is-a-Horcrux camper. Not to go into that so much as to defend our camp on a point of order. Being in our camp does *not* require us to believe that Harry is going to sacrifice himself in the end. There are just as many Horcrux!Harry campers in Geoff's IWHTL club as not . There are many theories floating around as to how Harry can safely get the Horcrux *OUT*, which of course means those people believe both in the Horcrux! Harry and in IWHTL. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 02:46:27 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:46:27 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius WAS :Regulus and Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163772 Alla: > Oh, but I never had any doubts that Snape is powerful, smart, etc. I mean, why would I dispute it? It is there in the text, loud and clear. I am doubting that Snape is using his powers for good, hehe, but **never** that he is powerful. I am just taking an issue with discounting all that there is in canon about Sirius powers. And as veteran of Snape v Sirius battles, lol, I do hope that we can one day analyse Sirius without bringing in Snape, hehe. He stands to me quite nicely on his own, not just in relation to Snape, even though they are certainly connected. Ceridwen: I think they're both smart. I don't know if either one of them are Reinaissance Men, good at everything. Sirius certainly has a talent for Transfiguration, while Snape seems to be better at Potions and Defense. In personality, too, they're a bit different. So of course they would not be alike in academic interests. Carol mentioned that McGonagall might think Sirius was all that smart because he excelled in her class. I can believe that. She saw his classwork and gave his classroom exams. She was his Head of House, but she may have given him the benefit of the doubt about his other classes since he did so well in hers. He was probably no worse than average or slightly above, even in his worst subjects or she would have remembered that. We've only seen Snape playing to his strengths, so we don't know how he did in Transfiguration, Charms, Herbology, or other courses. But, most people have an area that is stronger than other areas of interest. I wouldn't take Slughorn's word as gospel, since he has his favorites and doesn't hide that fact, and I don't think Snape was one of his favorites. He was good in Slughorn's subject, but he was an unattractive boy in many ways. Slughorn likes the cut-above-ordinary student who has some sort of personality spark. Ginny is spunky, Hermione is smart and pleasing, McLaggen (sp?) is related to someone, and has an air of arrogance that is impressive to some people, maybe Slughorn among them. So, I think they're both smart, only maybe not at the same things. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 15 02:50:48 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:50:48 -0000 Subject: Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163773 > Jen: McGonagall is not known for praising a person's abilities if she > sees nothing to praise. If she said Sirius and James > were 'exceptionally bright' then Rowling intends us to believe her > comment. And when Dumbledore later called Sirius 'clever' and > Slughorn called him 'talented', that's more direct canon that people > other than McGongall saw Sirius as a skilled wizard. Potioncat: At the time McGonagall was talking about Sirius, it was in the context of 'James and Sirius as mates', so to speak. She was describing the two of them. She wasn't so much comparing them to anyone else...except to say that Peter wasn't in their league. It might be interesting to see what she thought of the young Severus. I imagine both Slughorn and his 7 DADA teachers would have praises. I'd even guess his Herbology teacher would think highly of him. I was going to make the point that as Deputy Headmistress McGonagall would have a good over view of how the students of that generation compared, but it dawned on me that we don't know she was the Deputy at that time. It's just as likely, maybe more so, that Slughorn was Deputy. > Jen: > Sirius being talented doesn't exclude Snape from being talented or > vice versa, they aren't an either/or proposition, there's plenty of > skill to go around in Potterverse . Potioncat: I'd like to add that based on what canon has offered, we can believe that Sirius, James, Lily, Severus, Barty jr, and Regulus were all bright, tallented students. There's also some Wizard's of the month who seem pretty bright from this age group. Of course, we Muggles are easily impressed. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 15 05:12:59 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 05:12:59 -0000 Subject: duelling/flooding/RAB/Snape killing/Snape killing/Prophecy!Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163774 Pippin wrote in : << Harry's strength is not as a duellist. (SNIP) As Snape demonstrated at the end of HBP, without occlumency, one can only be a mediocre duellist. >> I disagree with the syllogism (altho' not with the conclusion that Harry cannot duel LV). It seems to me that Legilimency is a rare skill (we've met 4 Legilimenses = DD, LV, Lupin, Snape - because this story has a concentration of remarkable people, like Animagi all over the place). I think it is so rare that a person could rise to at least a lower level Duelling Champion without having encountered a Legilimentic opponent. Pippin wrote in : << I have to wonder if Dumbledore had a similar rationale for leaving Harry to be overwhelmed by his feelings after Cedric's death. Harry has received so little comfort in his life that to have it given to him after Cedric's death might have set up an undesirable association. As it was, Harry went through a miserable six weeks at the Dursleys, but he does seem to have become somewhat desensitized to survivor guilt, enough so that he could deal with the loss of Sirius without plummeting into the severe depression he experienced after losing Cedric. >> That was a risky strategy. He risked losing his unique weapon, Harry, because even the strongest person can be destroyed by PTSD in some circumstances. A much bigger risk is apparent to one who cares more about Harry the person than Harry the weapon: that what Harry learned was not desensitivation but repression, pushing all the horror and grief and whatever down below his consciousness, where it can fester, and someday burst out, destroying his peaceful future (if he lived to have a peaceful future). (The repression-festering theory is widely but not universally accepted. I vaguely recall a study of some elderly WWII veterans who had gone through horrors in the war, which found that, among them, former high-school athletes who used the 'put it out of your mind' strategy had the least mental health problems in the rest of their lives. It could be argued that DD replied on this study in deciding how to deal with Harry (who is, after all, a Quidditch player); however, I don't think DD attended to any studies or theories relating to Harry's future mental health if he survives.) Colebiancardi summarized Chapter 28 in and asked: << if RAB is not Regulus Black, who is it? >> I used to theorize that RAB is an uncanonical Ronald Arthur Bilius Weasley, who had three sons, one named Arthur (our Arthur Weasley), one named Bilius (Ron's Uncle Bilius, who saw a Grim and died), and one named Ronald. Evidence: JKR's website said our Arthur Weasley is one of three brothers, and that Ron's middle name is Bilius. Also, I believe that Bill Weasley is named Bilius after his late uncle. Ceridwen wrote in : << No matter which Alphabet!Snape is imagined, killing is not something routine for him. Bellatrix said he got out of doing things with the Death Eaters, so it's possible that this was his first killing. >> Considering that DD counted on Draco not being able to bring himself quickly to kill a human because "Killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe," I don't think he should make a plan that depends on Snape quickly committing his first murder while getting the DEs out of Hogwarts without giving them suspicions. That is, I think Snape must have murdered before, and carries the guilt around with him. Chancie wrote in : << if Snape's true goal was to kill Dumbledore, wouldn't that have gone against the curse? He would have gotten what he wanted-that's not a curse that's a blessing! >> If Snape's true goal had been to kill Dumbledore in some discreet way like a poison that seemed as if he had died in his sleep, then it would not be a blessing for him to kill Dumbledore in front of witnesses, especially Harry, who will tell everyone, so that Snape is now number 2 on the Wizarding Ten Most Wanted list (LV is number 1). Geoff wrote in : << Would Alice have had the same love for Neville as Lily had for Harry which would have enabled her to stand in the way and be killed to save Neville and would he now have the scar? >> I think JKR said somewhere that of course Alice would have given her life to protect her baby, but it's not enough to give your life, you also have to have been given a choice about it, as in LV telling Lily to stand aside. [see Carol's for related quotes] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 15 07:41:45 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:41:45 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163776 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "myriade2222" wrote: > > > doug: > > > > I am of the harry-is-a-horcrux-variation camp :-) I have read > > endlessly all the arguments about why Harry-isn't-a-horcrux. > > > > myriad: > > I really think that Harry is a horcrux. I noticed something that > appeared me weird when I read it; but if you think that Harry is a > Horcrux, it seems clear "He said my blood would make him stronger > than if he used someone's else,'Harry told Dumbledore'(...). > For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something > like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes."Why would he be triumpialist when > Harry tells him that Voldemort is back? > This is clear that he has the proof and he can be sure that Harry > is a Horcux.Then he realized that Harry would be injured or maybe > died if he is a Horcrux and he won't be able to protect him or to > save him thim this time: "But next second, Harry was sure he has > imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the > desk, and he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him." Geoff: Just to briefly reiterate what I have said in the past, I subscribe to the opposite view because, if Harry is a Horcrux, then this seems to put him in a "hiding to nothing" situation. If all the Horcruxes have to be destroyed to finally dispose of Voldemort, then this scenario dictates that Harry has to die - not might have to - but has to. This removes all that Dumbledore has trumpeted about choice and means that Harry has been doomed from the word go. Why put us through this enthralling and fascinating series of books when it is a foregone conclusion that our messy-haired, green-eyed Gryffindor is quite definitely not going to emerge at the end? As a member of the IWHTLC, if Harry dies at the end of Book 7, I shall be Rowling on the ground with fury. :-) From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 07:49:25 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:49:25 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40701142349n6054d7d2icd27760c7976008e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163777 > Kemper wrote: > > I agree with Sarah. And to expand on the 'collectible' implication > > that comes from Slughorn's word choice of 'set', it makes me think > > that was valued highly not only because he was a Black and had > > influence but because he was as powerful and creative a wizard as > > Sirius. > > Carol signed off earlier on her response to Kemper: > > > > Carol, not trying to "bash" Sirius Black but wondering why we > should take McGonagall's word that a former Gryffindor who excelled in > *her* class should be regarded as an exceptionally talented or > creative wizard comparable to, say, Severus Snape > > Sherry responded Carol's signoff: > > > > What evidence do we have that Snape is brilliant and trustworthy > beyond the word of Dumbledore? At this point, I'd trust Minerva as > much as I'd trust DD. ... > I think Sirius was brash and > reckless, but a far better man, than Snape. I'd rather have had > Sirius watching my back, than ever have dared to turn my back on Snape. > > > > Sherry, believing that the reputation of Sirius Black will be > redeemed in the last book. > > > Carol replied to Sherry: > > Hi, Sherry. I was a bit hard on Sirius, wasn't I? I'm sorry if I hurt > your feelings or those of other Sirius fans. I was trying to figure > out why everyone thinks he's so clever and talented and let my dislike > of him show instead. Kemper now: Hi Sherry and Carol! I'm basing my belief in a creative and powerful Sirius not just because of other's characterizaion of him (McGonagall's 'exceptionally bright'; Hermione's '/Brilliant!/' for the logic puzzle... of course she was 12, but whatever). Rather, I'm basing my belief based off of Slughorn's character. Slughorn didn't need Sirius to get sweeets (or other desired thing) from the Blacks. At the time of the Mauraders, he is already, I'm assuming, connected with the Noble House through Bella, Cissy and, of course, Regulus. So why would he want the set? Slughorn doesn't really buy into the pureblood dogma, so he wouldn't want Sirius for bloodline affiliation. On the train, Slughorn invited potential clubbers based on family connection (which I'm ruling out as it is already established as he is talking about it in retrospect) or based on intelligence/power/creativity. Sirius is described as brilliant and exceptionally bright. He becomes an animagus not only underneath DD's ample nose, but years before learning human transfiguration in the classroom setting (in the Pensieve, we see young Sirius at the end of his fifth year where we know that Harry, during his fifth year did no human transfiguration in class.) I think Sirius becoming an animagus by his fifth, is on the power equivalent of Harry casting a Patronus. He co-created the Maurader's Map. Crouch Jr. is quite impressed with that bit of creative magic, 'This... this is some map, Potter!' Even though this thread is not about Snape's brilliance or his trustworthiness, I feel compelled to respond. Snape's brilliance is evident within his sixth year potions textbook. There's is no counter evidence of mediocrity As far as Snape being trustworthy, I concede that it's a topic open to debate. Back to creative and powerful Sirius... Carol, bash him all you want. Harry lost a sort-of-father figure because Sirius fought, true to character, arrogantly. That guy was prick. Kemper, who wonder's what Molly's potential is... she said Slughorn didn't have time for Arthur, does that mean he had time for Molly? From scarah at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 07:52:27 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:52:27 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701142352t69b90b0fq4aa6c31f593ffdd8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163778 Geoff: If all the Horcruxes have to be destroyed to finally dispose of Voldemort, then this scenario dictates that Harry has to die - not might have to - but has to. Sarah: OK, wait. I hadn't been splitting any technical hairs up until this point. I'd just been thinking of it as "Harry Horcrux yeah blah blah." Are you only talking about people who believe that Harry's *whole self* is a Horcrux? Because I don't know anyone who thinks that. It seems pretty clearly geographically limited to the forehead area. And lots of people survive head surgery don't they? I agree with Mike that it isn't necessary to believe that both (trying for technical correctness here) there is a soul slice IN Harry somewhere, AND that he will die. Even though I think both, and that it is going to be awesome. :) Sarah From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 08:16:26 2007 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:16:26 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <3202590701142352t69b90b0fq4aa6c31f593ffdd8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <876609.13866.qm@web38312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163779 --- Scarah wrote: > Are you only talking about people who believe that > Harry's *whole > self* is a Horcrux? Because I don't know anyone who > thinks that. It > seems pretty clearly geographically limited to the > forehead area. Cassy: I happen to believe that Harry's *whole self*, as you put it, is a Horcrux. That is, I used to believe it until 7th book title was reveiled. But if *entire* Harry was a Horcrux, it would mean he would have to die, and I think that if it was his fate, JKR wouldn't have a "Deathly" in a title - too straightforward for her. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 15 15:30:36 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:30:36 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <3202590701142352t69b90b0fq4aa6c31f593ffdd8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > > Geoff: > If all the Horcruxes have to be destroyed to finally dispose of Voldemort, > then this scenario dictates that Harry has to die - not might have to - > but has to. > > Sarah: > OK, wait. I hadn't been splitting any technical hairs up until this > point. I'd just been thinking of it as "Harry Horcrux yeah blah > blah." > > Are you only talking about people who believe that Harry's *whole > self* is a Horcrux? Because I don't know anyone who thinks that. It > seems pretty clearly geographically limited to the forehead area. And > lots of people survive head surgery don't they? > > I agree with Mike that it isn't necessary to believe that both (trying > for technical correctness here) there is a soul slice IN Harry > somewhere, AND that he will die. > > Even though I think both, and that it is going to be awesome. :) Geoff: As we are told in HBP, a Horcrux is an object in which someone conceals part of their soul. Voldemort has lost two - Harry destroying the soul fragment in the diary in COS and Dumbledore destroying the soul piece in the ring, presumably between OOTP and HBP. Both of these Horcruxes remained afterwards in a damaged condition. However, if a person is made into a Horcrux, where does the soul piece reside? Indeed, what form does a soul fragment take? Where does our own soul reside for that matter? Can we see it, touch it? I realise that the diary and ring remain but, as I said, they are badly damaged. Now, just suppose that Harry is a Horcrux and the soul piece within him is removed, then one assumes that there will be damage to the "container", ie Harry. If the Horcrux is near Harry's forehead, that is also near to his brain and mind and possibly his own soul so there could be a high probability of a risk of serious injury if not death. Nope, I shall stick with my "Harry is a Notcrux" theory until any canon evidence emerges to prove otherwise - with my fingers frantically crossed that it won't... Roll on, Book 7. Cor, I reckon it must be less stressful bungee jumping off the Eiffel Tower... From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jan 15 15:27:00 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:27:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus and Sirius WAS :Re: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) References: <700201d40701142349n6054d7d2icd27760c7976008e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003501c738b9$9b617870$7960400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163781 > Kemper now: > Slughorn didn't need Sirius to get sweeets (or other desired thing) > from the Blacks. At the time of the Mauraders, he is already, I'm > assuming, connected with the Noble House through Bella, Cissy and, of > course, Regulus. So why would he want the set? Slughorn doesn't > really buy into the pureblood dogma, so he wouldn't want Sirius for > bloodline affiliation. On the train, Slughorn invited potential > clubbers based on family connection (which I'm ruling out as it is > already established as he is talking about it in retrospect) or based > on intelligence/power/creativity. Magpie: I think he does buy into the Pureblood dogma--just not as much as DEs do. I don't think Slughorn was always meant to be a paragon of equality (his old Slug Club didn't even seem to have girls)--or that he is now. Family and relatives are still important to him. He picks people for reasons other than that too, but being a Black would still be enough to get him interested, just as he was interested in Neville. Neville got counted out when he actually met him, but Sirius certainly wouldn't even if he wasn't all that brilliant. He's charismatic and very handsome. But to be clear I do think that Sirius was notably talented. I just don't think Slughorn's line would be proof that he was exceptionally brilliant. Slughorn picks people because he think they've got something that will make them one day powerful and successful, and you can't always assume one person had one particular quality. Kemper: > Kemper, who wonder's what Molly's potential is... she said Slughorn > didn't have time for Arthur, does that mean he had time for Molly? Magpie: I doubt it. Slughorn doesn't hide the students that he favors, and as Arthur's girlfriend Molly would see that. It's more in her character to see Arthur as the person who should be admired in that context, not herself. She seems to be validated through him in that area of life. -m From mlm1581 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 04:50:08 2007 From: mlm1581 at hotmail.com (Michael) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:50:08 -0000 Subject: The Power of Harry ... (was: Harry's Characterization) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163782 > bboyminn: > > Apparently I've created the very misconception I intended > to disspell. Note in the very first paragraph above, I > mention TWO types of genius; intellectual and MAGICAL. > They are not one in the same. Harry is above average > intellectually. Again, a reminder that genius and > achievement don't go hand in hand. But I think, and while > I believe it firmly, I admit I have no direct evidence, that > Harry has immense untapped magical power. I think he is a > far above average wizard independant of his grades. Again, > compare his achievements with that of other students. > As Carol, or someone pointed out, the graveyards are full > of very competent wizards who went up against Voldemort. > > Now Hermione on the other hand, has both intellectual and > magical genius. Though my point was that on both fronts, > she is on the low end of genius. Far and away above the > other students, but still no where near Tom, James, or > Sirius in a magical or intellecual talent. > > The books imply to us over and over that Harry is a very > magically powerful wizard, and intellectually, I don't > think he is a slouch even if his grades are only above > average. > > In making this particular arguement, all I am saying is > that Harry has vast untapped magical potential, and that > when and if he lives to be 100, he will be considered a > great and powerful wizard. Certainly, not even remotely > in the league with Dumbledore, but so very very very > few are in his league. > > I'm saying that people are underestimating Harry's > magical potential. Certainly Tom, James, and Sirius had > both intellect and magical potential. Harry has moderate > intellect, but that doesn't diminish his magical potential > in my book. > > Take the Twins for example, they are a classic case of > underachieving geniuses. They do poorly in school, yet are > able to apply magic with great skill. Their skill is > certainly far above average; it even impresses Hermione. > My point here is that genius and achievement, especially > academic achievement, don't go hand in hand. Yet, in the > end, when sufficiently motivated, underlying magical > power comes forward. > > Harry's problem is that he is so very rarely sufficiently > motivated, and what motivation he does have is twisted by > his upbringing. You can't deny that living with the > Dursleys has adversely affected Harry. That it has shaped > his personality. Others may not see it, but I see it in > everything that Harry does whether outgoing or introverted. > And I see it in his struggle in his school work, but I > also sense the underlying power that is not getting out. > > So, in summary, I was not intending to speak of > intellectual genius, I was using magical genius as a > metaphor for underlying magical power, something I think > Harry has. Again, this is hinted at in the books, but it > is never clearly demonstrated to a large degree. Harry > does have his achievements; the Patronus for one. Even > Viktor Krum said he was impressed by Harry's skill. So, > it is certainly there struggling to get out. > > I think in the final book, we will see Harry grow > tremendously. I think we will get a much truer sense of > Harry's real underlying magical power. > > So, in short (if that's still possible), I was merely > saying that I think people are magically underestimating > Harry. > > For what it's worth. > > Steve/bboyminn > I like this thread it make a lot of good points for a lot of points of views. I do agree with bboyminn here to a large degree. Think there are a few short falls in his argument. First he states that Harry hasn't had achievements like the Marauder's Map or becoming an Animagus. That due in part the fact that he doesn't want to stand out. But he has the DA being a great example it under minded the current authority of the school and made him a symbol for the students to rally behind even during a time when peoples trust in him was low. He has show no love for Draco long before he new of family relation and I don't think even if Harry had known Draco before his first trip to Hoqwarts that is would have changed Harry's opinion of him. Even when it became apparent that this was making Harry standout among student he didn't back down. All the while having repeated encounter with LV and his flunkies. Now to say he would prefer not to stand out is true but he has through actions of his own just in a different way then other people. Two I think he underestimates Hermione he state that she is not in the same league as Tom, James and Sirius. She is well beyond any of the current students at Hogwarts and I would say its save to say that she has been a head of all the Hogwarts students in the past few years sense her fifth year. I don't how you could see anything but a profoundly gifted person when you look at Hermione I don't see any real difference between her and Lily except that Hermione seemed to have come out of her shell a little sooner even if she retreats to it from time to time. As for the argument for Harry's poor grade, do I think he capable of more? Yes much more level of Hermione more. Do I think that he doesn't excel to avoid being in the spot light? No not at all. I do believe that Harry is not learning to his fullest potential but I think there are a few good reasons for this. One his continuing preoccupation with the life and death fight he is part of. Two being in an environment that he has control of his own actions the Dursleys have never gave him freedom the Magic would has never given him the freedoms he would like. He feels he has responsablities that is sense of duty won't let him avoid he academics are one of the few he can control so of course they are among the first to suffer. Three Ron he can always be counted on to distract Harry when Harry's concentration is at its weakest and little distraction can turn in to the rest the free time for those two. And Four Harry had a flawed view of his required skills up to and including OotP I don't think it was till he really started the DA and looking at things differently that he understood the need to be a better well rounded student. Until then DADA to him must of seemed the most worth while course of study he didn't have the foresight to see the full value of his other classes. On the topic of genius and innovation >How Harry can be called a genius when he has never invented a spell >himself? Only Weasly twins show any talent for innovation among >present Hogwarts students ( They did worked out how to use the map , >appart from inventing countless joke objects ). >samajdar_parantap I think this is a flawed statement so what if he hasn't invented a spell Shakespeare, Einstein, Jung all these people are for the most part considered to be genius' and yet not one of them have anything to do with the other. Now yes they all made innovations in the field in there own ways but that just it in there own ways. To say that to create or augment a spell is the only clear sign of genius very limiting. The poster goes on to discuss Harry fighting ability but passes over the discussion of genius through out the rest of the post. But if innovation is the sign of genius then here is Harry's innovation be it luck or skill or both Harry has survived more encounter with death eaters and LV him self then you common Auror. With the DA he pass the knowledge to the students of how to protect them selves with little more that O.W.L. level spells or more to say the basic knowledge of a fifth year student because I doubt that Hermione is the only one to expand there magical knowledge, all be it for different reason I have no doubt that student learn more complex spells that are not part of the curriculum al'a the twins. So Harry made an innovation to fighting and tactics that was over looked or more so not believe possible by most wizards that a wizard or witch with little more than an O.W.L level education could put up a defence against a larger number force of Dark Wizards. He may or may not be remembered for it but it was an innovation. Finally Harry's magical power and abilities. The larges argument come from the mark but have we sense anything that was anything much more that mental abilities. The connection really hasn't shown much more then the fact that it was effecting Harry's mind his ability to speak to snakes the fact that he could see in to LV mind even the fact that his scar burn and breaks open can be contributed to the mind as the body can be affected by the mind. I believe that Harry's magical power is all his own even if some of his abilities are not. I think as well that given time that yes Harry could be come more powerful then the common witch or wizard but is currently held back by is poor self confidence. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 17:18:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:18:10 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163783 Carol earlier: > > > > On a side note, there's no proof that Tom Riddle created one or more Horcruxes at sixteen, as some posters seem to take for granted. > > Mike: > Maybe, but there is no proof that he didn't either. But there is much more canon that he did rather than didn't make a Horcrux at sixteen. > Carol again: Sigh. I don't agree. If he knew how to make the diary into a Horcrux, he'd have known how to make the ring into one, but the ting wasn't a Horcrux or he wouldn't have been wearing it. He'd already committed four murders (Myrtle and the Riddles), and if he could use one of those murders, he could have used them all. His questions indicate that he didn't know how to make a Horcrux. "Can you make more than one?" is a silly question, IMO, and "isn't seven the most magical number?" is a question that he should have known the answer to. Why ask Slughorn, whom he knows will be shocked, such impractical questions? His intention must have been to find out how to make one, as he could not have done at Hogwarts with Dumbledore removing such books from the library, and the other questions strike me as Tom thinking out loud. To me, the answer to both questions is "Duh!" Carol earlier: > > His questions to Slughorn, and his unchanged appearance, indicate that he had not yet done so. > > Mike: > I, for one, have no problem believing that Tom Riddle knew how to > play Slughorn after years in his house and being in the Slug Club. > Also, Dumbledore admitted that the possibility of multiple Horcruxes > was critical information to Tom. Carol again: Of course he knew how to play Slughorn. Even Harry saw that. But he wants crucial information that he doesn't get--how to make a Horcrux. After that, he asks the two questions about multiple Horcruxes, both of which to me seem self-evident. If he's researched Horcruxes and knows how to make them, why bother to ask Slughorn anything? Just make a second Horcurs (typo accidental but I'm keeping it), since a suitable object is available and the first one will protect you from death, and see what happens? Mike: Lastly, how much change in appearance does one Horcrux make? How do we know Tom's appearance *didn't* change? I think you are assuming information that is not in canon, not that you can't do that. But it comes awkwardly after the sentence where you have averred that there is "no proof". Carol: His appearance has not changed since Harry sees him after in the diary memory, which obviously occurs before he's written the diary and placed that memory in it. That Tom, the Tom he encounters in the CoS, and the Tom who visits Slughorn (and has committed four murders) all look virtually identical. The Tom who visits Hepzibah Smith, though only a few years older, is paler and his face is thinner. Two Horcruxes (the ring and the diary) have started to chip away at his humanness. And, dear Mike, I did say there was no *proof* for your side, but I didn't say there was no *evidence.* There's evidence on both sides, but neither argument can be proven or we wouldn't be having this discussion. And I don't see how my "assumption," which I've just supported with canon, "comes awkwardly after" my remark about "no proof" for the other side. The whole remark was an aside in a post on another topic. It was an unsupported assertion, not an assumption, and I've now provided the missing support. Look at the three descriptions of Tom that I've cited, the first one indisputably before he's made a Horcrux because he hasn't created the diary yet, and see if you can find any differences. The only one I can see is (momentarily) red eyes, and they could reflect murderous malice or greed. Once he's created four Horcruxes, in the DADA interview, he's markedly different (blurred features), and after a fifth and perhaps a sixth, he's different again (snakelike). > Carol earlier: > > I don't think that the diary, though it contained one or more > > memories and was enchanted to be interactive (rather like the > > portraits, the Sorting Hat, and the Marauder's Map) was a > > Horcrux at this point. > > Mike: > Ah, to the meat of the matter. You are referring to the *supposed* > diary's condition after creation as a repository of memories, but not yet imbued with a soul piece. Since we have no knowledge of how that particular diary would function, you can claim it operates any way you would like and noone can reliably dispute it. Conversely, I could say that the paintings, the Sorting Hat, and the Marauder's Map have never manifested into human form (or nearly human had Harry not stopped the process). Carol: The diary as originally created, to cause someone to open the Chamber of Secrets, would not have required a Tom in human form. All he needed to do was release the Basilisk and command it to "Carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." Tom chose only objects that he saw as valuable and powerfully magical to make into Horcruxes, and he would not have viewed a Muggle diary with no memories in it in that light. The diary, as Harry (or is it DD?) points out, was the proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin because it contained a memory or memories related to his opening the Chamber of Secrets. You're right that we have no idea how such a diary would function, but we don't know how a Pensieve functions, either. Both use a memory drawn from someone's head and enable someone else to enter it. And the Sorting Hat, which also interacts with someone's thoughts, contains part of the "brains" of the Founders, not bits of their souls. (Three, at least, probably never committed a murder, and JKR has said that the sorting Hat is not a Horcrux, as it would be if it contained bits of *anyone's* soul.) I'm not denying that diary!Tom became nearly human because the diary was a Horcrux. We know that to be true. I'm saying that, as originally written, the diary seems to have included the "memory of [Tom's sixteen-year-old self"--a self who could not yet have made any Horcruxes because he had not yet put himself in the diary (that memory, it seems to me, would have to go in there, too). It was only when the already valuable, already powerful diary received a soul bit, after Tom learned how to make a Horcrux (perhaps from visiting Grindelwald, who is in the books for a reason and seems to be the wizard alluded to by Dumbledore in HBP as having made a Horcrux) that he would have been able to possess anyone. And note that the original purpose of the diary differs from the use to which it was put after Diary!Tom learns about Harry. At first he only controls Ginny, making her kill chickens, write on the walls, and order the Basilisk to attack Muggleborns. When he learns about Harry, realizing that Harry has somehow defeated his future self, he starts draining the life from Ginny, in essence de-Horcruxifying the diary and creating a new body for himself. I don't think that sort of thing was part of his original intention. It only became possible after the diary, already proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin, became a Horcrux. Again, Tom didn't turn ordinary Muggle objects like mouth organs stolen from orphans into Horcruxes. They had to have a special connection to him and his history or his powers. The diary, like Nagini if she's a Horcrux, links to Parseltongue and to Slytherin. Mike: > As to Tom not creating the Horcrux when he was sixteen; this presumes that the soul piece chose what age to become when it rtegenerated into human form. The obvious question would be: Why didn't the other soul piece we saw regenerate also choose a younger, heathier form? Why did LV have to regenerate into the deformed state that came out of the cauldron? Carol responds: Nothing of the sort. Diary!Tom is the age of the memory or memories that Tom at that age put into the diary. His age when he created the soul bit has nothing to do with it. Nor do I think that the other Horcruxes have the same power as the diary as they contain no memory along with the soul bit. Their purpose is to hold Voldemort's soul on earth, not to reconstitute his body. The diary is unique in that respect, IMO. As for the form Voldemort took when he came out of the cauldron, it's the form he took after losing five or six bits of his soul. It reflects his degenerate state and the loss of his humanity. The Tom in the diary had killed only one person, Myrtle, and could not yet have created *any* Horcruxes. He was in the process of deciding to end the Basilisk attacks and frame Hagrid. *That* Tom was still fully human except for a split soul. His appearance was not influenced by that single murder. In essence, the Horcrux possessed the memory using Ginny's soul, which was also unblemished. > > I have to go with Tom Riddle's own words, "... preserving my sixteen- > year-old self in its pages,..." (Cos ch 17). You may not consider > this to be proof, but combined with the fact that Tom did put a piece of his soul in the diary, I'm not sure JKR could have made it more clear without getting clinical. Carol: It isn't proof. Proof proves a point beyond dispute. It's only evidence, just as "the memory of my sixteen-year-old self" is evidence. And, of course, JKR couldn't be any plainer in CoS. She couldn't give away the fact that the diary had become a Horcrux. But "my sixteen-year-old self" is not the same thing as a soul bit. The other Horcruxes don't preserve, say, his twenty-year-old self because they don't contain memories in their pages. They don't even have pages. They're not intended to store memories, as the diary had to do if it was to enable the reader to release the Basilisk. They are only containers for soul bits, anchoring the main soul, the one that remained in Voldie till it was vaporized and then was given successive bodily forms by Wormtail, to the earth, preventing death. That is the reason for creating a Horcrux. The diary was created for another purpose, to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." Tom says so himself. And another thing--the soul bit would have come from his sixteen-year-old self because he was sixteen when he murdered Myrtle and his parents. So the soul bit, which would presumably cease to grown and develop, being split off from the main soul, would be the same age as memory!Tom regardless of when the Horcrux was created. (I don't think the age of the soul bit matters, but if you think it does, there's your answer.) We can't take Tom Riddle's making a Horcrux at sixteen as fact. All we know is that he created the diary, preserving the memory of his sixteen-year-old self in his pages, as proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin. Memory!Tom could have interacted with the reader much as the Sorting Hat does, writing back and forth instead of speaking, and taken the reader into the diary's pages, much like a self-activated Pensieve, controlling and manipulating the reader without having the power to possess them. We don't know how the diary would have worked before it was a Horcrux, but we do know its original purpose and we do know that Tom only made powerful magical objects into Horcruxes. Carol, simply noting that Tom's making a Horcrux at sixteen is an assumption, one way of reading the evidence, and that other readings are equally valid at this point From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 17:55:29 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:55:29 -0000 Subject: De-Horcruxing Harry (Was:Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163784 > > Geoff: > > If all the Horcruxes have to be destroyed to finally dispose of Voldemort, > > then this scenario dictates that Harry has to die - not might have to - > > but has to. > > > > Sarah: > > Are you only talking about people who believe that Harry's *whole > > self* is a Horcrux? Because I don't know anyone who thinks that. It > > seems pretty clearly geographically limited to the forehead area. And > > lots of people survive head surgery don't they? > > Geoff: > As we are told in HBP, a Horcrux is an object in which someone conceals > part of their soul. Voldemort has lost two[...]. Both of these Horcruxes > remained afterwards in a damaged condition. > > However, if a person is made into a Horcrux, where does the soul piece > reside? Indeed, what form does a soul fragment take? Where does our > own soul reside for that matter? Can we see it, touch it? Annemehr: Well... Just looking at the Horcruxes we know so far (or, we're pretty sure of, at least), I think we can guess at a few things. For one thing, as people have noticed before, de-Horcruxing the diary did not hurt Harry. This tells me that neutralizing a Horcrux does not, *in itself,* injure the agent. So, I conclude, for instance, that if Dumbledore's hand got burned in the process of destroying the ring Horcrux, it was because of curses LV put in place to *protect* the ring, not from de-Horcruxing the ring itself. Other than that, there may be something else we can guess about destroying Horcruxes: Harry emptied the diary of its soul-piece by stabbing it with the Basilisk fang. And as Geoff noted, the ring is now cracked. And, when the cleaning crew found the locket in Grimmauld place, "nobody" could open it. I'm thinking, to destroy a Horcrux, maybe you simply have to *open* it in some way, and the soul-bit will escape. Stab it, slice it, dice it, crack it -- whatever. Maybe the reason no one could open the locket is because LV used something like a Permanent Sticking Charm to seal it. Or something. What might this mean for Harry? I myself do think Harry is a Horcrux. Actually, I subscribe to Talisman's theory that DD used Lily's murder to put LV's soul-piece into Harry before the fateful AK (see, for example, the postscript to Talisman's message #163728). In any case, LV himself did not deliberately make Harry into a Horcrux, therefore, he did not place any special protective curses around him, either. The conclusions I draw are: 1. If anyone de-Horcruxes Harry, they will not suffer any injury in doing so. 2. De-Horcruxing Harry may involve nothing worse than cutting him. Of course, Harry has certainly been cut before -- therefore, I conclude it is indeed the *scar* that is the location of the soul- piece. 'Course, that would mean the scar is not a result of the rebounding AK, but of the way Dumbledore enHorcruxed Harry. And like Hagrid said about Harry's scar, "that's what you get when a powerful, evil curse touches yeh." Hagrid was talking about an AK, but I think he was mistaken. No, it was the Horcrux spell, and whatever DD did to localize the soul-bit in a place on Harry's head instead of his whole self (as I imagine Nagini's would be). And releasing that soul-bit will involve nothing worse than cutting the scar open again. Then, the line we all have read so often will literally come true: "it was as if Harry's head was splitting along his scar." Annemehr, thinking this all this is liable to result in fillet of Nagini, poor dear From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 18:04:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:04:55 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius WAS :Regulus and Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163785 Ceridwen: > I think they're both smart. I don't know if either one of them are > Reinaissance Men, good at everything. Sirius certainly has a talent > for Transfiguration, while Snape seems to be better at Potions and > Defense. In personality, too, they're a bit different. So of course they would not be alike in academic interests. > > Carol mentioned that McGonagall might think Sirius was all that smart because he excelled in her class. I can believe that. She saw his classwork and gave his classroom exams. She was his Head of House, but she may have given him the benefit of the doubt about his other classes since he did so well in hers. He was probably no worse than average or slightly above, even in his worst subjects or she would have remembered that. > > We've only seen Snape playing to his strengths, so we don't know how > he did in Transfiguration, Charms, Herbology, or other courses. But, most people have an area that is stronger than other areas of interest. Carol responds: In essence, I agree. I would add, though, that Severus must have been good at Charms as well as DADA and Potions because Muffliato is a Charm rather than a DADA spell. (It creates a buzzing in the listener's ears, not very useful in a battle but quite useful when you don't want to be overheard.) And he almost certainly did well in Herbology as well since he sometime assigns homework from the Herbology text "One Thousand and One Magical Herbs and Fungi" rather than from the Potions text, "Magical Drafts and Potions" by Arsenius Jigger, and he certainly knows the uses of dittany, as indicated in HBP. Muggle Studies or Divination might have been another matter, but given what appears to be a photographic memory and study habits like Hermione's (leading to that long essay for the DADA OWL), I'm guessing that young Severus got twelve OWLs, with Os in at least two subjects and Es in the rest. The mere fact that he was interested in earning high marks, even to the point of experimenting outside of class in improving the potions in the books, would have given him a reputation as a swot or a nerd and added to his unpopularity. Sirius, in contrast, uses his free time, and perhaps his study time, working on becoming an Animagus and/or contributing to the Marauder's Map (or in detention). He rejects the opportunity to help Remus study for his Transfiguration OWL. The last thing *he* wanted was a reputation as a swot. And his looks, unlike Severus's, were in his favor. People liked him even if he didn't know or care that they existed, and McGonagall had particular reasons for liking him that she can't let go even when she thinks he's a murderer. Also, she underestimates Peter Pettigrew's talents and misreads his personality, so I don't think we can go by her assessment of anyone. And note that Fudge attributes powers to Black that he doesn't have, thinking that it would take trained hit wizards to bring him in. The legend of the thirteen murders exaggerates his powers. And note that Dumbledore merely says that he was clever, not exceptionally talented or powerful. Once James is dead, what does he do that illustrates talent or power or creativity, other than using his ability as an Animagus to escape from Azkaban? Even his advice to Harry is generally wrong-headed (witness the mirror debacle). BTW, the whole reason I brought up Severus in the first place is that he's a student we *know* to be genuinely talented and powerful based on his HBP notes and detailed DADA exam and all those hexes he knew before he even came to school. I'm trying to figure out what we know about Sirius, other characters' opinions aside, that would lead us to believe that he's "creative and powerful," to quote the poster I was responding to. All I can think of is his Animagus form and his one-fourth share in making the Marauder's Map. Carol, agreeing that they were good at different things but still wondering if Sirius was talented in anything besides Transfiguration From lfreeman at mbc.edu Mon Jan 15 18:36:17 2007 From: lfreeman at mbc.edu (Freeman, Louise Margaret) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:36:17 -0500 Subject: Marauder's Map and Sirius's "usefulness" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163786 I've wondered why, when Sirius was hangin aroun 12 Grimmauld feeling so helpless in OOTP, Dumbledore didn't assign him to try to create more Marauder's-style maps of Hogwarts or other key locations (Ministry of Magic, Hogsmeade?). Or, for that matter, why not have him assist some other Order members in becoming Animagi? It seems like both would have been useful weapons in the fight against Voldemort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 18:51:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:51:23 -0000 Subject: Snape killing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163787 Ceridwen wrote in > : > > << No matter which Alphabet!Snape is imagined, killing is not > something routine for him. Bellatrix said he got out of doing things > with the Death Eaters, so it's possible that this was his first > killing. >> > Catlady responded: > Considering that DD counted on Draco not being able to bring himself quickly to kill a human because "Killing is not nearly as easy as the innocent believe," I don't think he should make a plan that depends on Snape quickly committing his first murder while getting the DEs out of Hogwarts without giving them suspicions. That is, I think Snape must have murdered before, and carries the guilt around with him. Carol responds: Snape isn't innocent. He joined the Death Eaters and he revealed the Prophecy to Voldemort. He must have done something other than spying as a Death Eater, for example, making potions that he knew would be put to evil use. Nevertheless, we can't discount Bellatrix's remark about Snape's "slithering out of action." And when JKR was asked whether Snape could see a thestral, she responded: "He can see Thestrals, but in my imagination most of the older people at Hogwarts would be able to see them because, obviously, as you go through life you do lose people and understand what death is. But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that . . . ," at which point she breaks off. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm But she says "will have seen," not "will have killed." Snape kills Dumbledore after a long hesitation (DD has to plead twice) because he has to. We can't conclude that he has killed before even though he's not innocent in the sense Dumbledore has in mind. Draco is not "innocent" in the sense of being guiltless (he's tried twice to commit murder and has brought the DEs into Hogwarts so that he can try again to commit the same crime with backup) but in the sense of "not knowing" what death is ("free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil," Merriam-Webster). He can't see Thestrals, so he's never seen anyone die. Snape, in contrast, knows what death is and he knows what the consequences of his action will be, for Dumbledore and for himself. His expression indicates that, far from being easy, killing Dumbledore is difficult and hateful to him. His anguish after Harry says "Kill me like you killed him" indicates the same thing. He did what was right, not what was easy. I agree with Ceridwen on this one. Catlady: > If Snape's true goal had been to kill Dumbledore in some discreet way like a poison that seemed as if he had died in his sleep, then it would not be a blessing for him to kill Dumbledore in front of witnesses, especially Harry, who will tell everyone, so that Snape is now number 2 on the Wizarding Ten Most Wanted list (LV is number 1). Carol responds: I agree that killing Dumbledore is a curse, not a blessing. It will bring nothing but trouble, grief, and the agony of remorse to Snape even though it was (IMO) the lesser of two evils. Not killing him would have been far worse for everyone but the DEs and Voldemort. But if his "true goal" had been to kill Dumbledore in any way, shape, or form, he would certainly have done it discreetly, using some method (undetectable poisons, one of his essay topics, come to mind) that could not have been traced to him. He certainly would not have killed DD "in front of witnesses, especially Harry," who would report his action and make him, as you say, the second most wanted wizard in the WW. If he really wanted DD dead, he had innumerable chances to kill him. After all, DD trusted him completely, and his life was in Snape's hands after the ring Horcrux destroyed his hand and nearly killed him. All Snape needed to do was claim helplessness and run for help to Madame Pomfrey, who would be equally (or genuinely) unable to help. He could even have given him an undetectable poison disguised as a sleeping potion. That he didn't do anything of the sort indicates that he had no desire to kill Dumbledore and would never have done so if it weren't for the UV, the DADA curse, and the unique circumstances on the tower, which neither he nor DD could have anticipated. Carol, on a snape binge again From hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 15 19:11:34 2007 From: hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:11:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Part 7: Death and Resurrection Message-ID: <467933.38669.qm@web26113.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163788 To me it is obvious that Harry Potter is about death and resurrection. In fact, Parts 1-6 abound in symbols and events of resurrection from death. In Part 1 Harry goes down past Fluffy (Cerberus) into the underworld, where he is attacked by Quirrell, who is possessed by Voldemort. Harry falls unconscious, and wakes up after three days to see Dumbledore smiling at him. He had just got to Harry in time. A symbolic death and resurrection. In Part 2 Harry goes into the underworld again, but this time he is fatally poisoned by a basilisk fang. He is literally pulled from death by phoenix tears. A symbolic death and resurrection. In Part 3 Harry is on the point of having his soul sucked out by a Dementor when a Patronus sent by his future self saves him. Death and resurrection. In Part 4 Harry has the Avada Kedavra curse cast at him for the second time. He is saved by his own immense willpower, which is greater than Voldemort's. Death and resurrection. In Part 5 Harry is possessed by Voldemort. He saves himself by driving out Voldemort with Harry's love for Sirius. Death and resurrection. In Part 6 Harry is dragged into the water by the inferi, but Dumbledore saves him with his circle of fire. Death and resurrection. Each event above is the highlight of the Part. Why should Part 7 be any different? It's one septology; one story. Part 7 will be about death and resurrection. And Love, as are all the others. In addition there are many symbols of resurrection in general. We all know the phoenix is the greatest symbol of them all, and the fact that he belongs to Dumbledore should make us very certain indeed! Sirius is also an extremely powerful symbol of the resurrection. To the ancient Egyptians Sirius was the symbol of the resurrection of life in midsummer. When it appeared as the morning star, it meant the Nile would flood, bringing fertility and life renewal. Fluffy, too, is a symbol of resurrection, because in Part 1 its presence is telling us that we are seeing Cerberus in the myth of Orpheus. Just like Harry, he played a musical instrument to lull the three headed dog, and, just like Harry, he came OUT of the underworld, the world of the dead. Death and resurrection! Then there is the great similarity to The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross, published in 1616, another story of death and resurrection. Please note that in both books a phoenix is present at a funeral! And the Dark Mark is also present in both books. It is the symbol for eternal life; in Harry Potter misused by Voldemort for his quest for immortality at the expense of others. One of the most obvious clues in Harry Potter is the similarity of Harry's basic story to that of Jesus: A prophecy is made that a baby will be born who will change the world. The baby is born and a star appears to announce his birth. When the king of this world hears about the birth he tries to have the baby killed, but fails. The child grows up in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man. He performs miracles at a young age. But as he grows older he knows he will have to meet his arch-enemy: Satan. We all know that story - that's the story of Jesus. But it's also the story of Harry Potter. In Harry's case the star is Sirius, who becomes his God-Father. (In ancient Egypt Sirius announced the birth of Horus). At a young age Harry saves many lives, wins battles against dragons and giant snakes, and dodges death by Voldemort time and again. The story is basically so similar to that of Jesus we can easily see that it will end the same way as Jesus' story. Just as Jesus died to save the world, so Harry will lay down his life for the wizarding world. But just as Jesus rose from the dead after three days, so will Harry. How will Harry do this? I think Harry will go through the arch with the veil in the Department of Mysteries. In the ancient spiritual traditions which Jo is following, this gateway is called the Gate of Saturn. I believe the scar which Voldemort gave Harry when Voldemort tried to kill him is a Horcrux. Harry will realise this, and, after killing the other 5 Horcruxes, will enter the Gate of Saturn to sacrifice himself, making Voldemort mortal. Harry will meet Sirius there. Without the last Horcrux, he will then return through the arch with the veil, and confront the mortal Voldemort. I don't believe Harry will kill Voldemort. Harry will learn in Part 7 of the Septology that love cannot kill. In the power of that force Voldemort will dissipate like a puff of smoke. I believe that the 7 trials in Part 1 are clues to Part 7. Just as Love saves Harry in his confrontation with Voldemort in Part 1, so it will in Part 7. I believe Lily is connected with the Room of Love, which will be opened in Part 7. The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross, also features a Room of Love, called "The Sepulchre of Venus". Christian Rosycross enters the Sepulchre and sees Venus, i.e. Love, in all its naked beauty. This fills him with compassion for suffering humanity and so this makes him come back to be gatekeeper of the castle. I believe that there is a strong probability that Harry will also do a similar thing, and become gatekeeper (or ?Keeper of the Keys?), taking Hagrid's place. One further clue to what Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows will be about is the titles of the seven parts. They conform to the seven elements out of which all of creation is made. 1. Earth: Stone 2. Air: Chamber 3. Water: Azkaban (Island) 4. Fire: Fire 5. Quintessence: Phoenix 6. Soul: Blood 7. Spirit: Hallow (Holy) On my website I have explained the above elements and how they are symbolised. See http://www.harrypotterforseekers.com/book7/prognosis.php#clue1 What this means is that Part 7 will take place in the ineffable plane of the Spirit, which is holy. The Spirit is the lord and creator of Life. In His presence any kind of death is unreal and is therefore followed by an inevitable resurrection. Hans --------------------------------- What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 19:51:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:51:32 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163789 Geoff wrote: > However, if a person is made into a Horcrux, where does the soul piece reside? Indeed, what form does a soul fragment take? Where does our own soul reside for that matter? Can we see it, touch it? Carol responds: First, Geoff, I'm with you that Harry is not a Horcrux and that he won't die. So I'm not arguing with your basic position, just responding to this fragment of your post. I think we can safely say that the soul is not in the brain. A Dementor sucks it out through the mouth, leaving the brain intact. Memories can be safely removed from the brain of a person who has not committed murder, so they're not the same as soul bits. A wizard who has not committed murder can leave part of himself in an object (portrait, Sorting Hat, Marauder's Map) that can subsequently interact with other people. Clearly, memory resides in the brain (as we see again in the brain room), but apparently the soul does not. The soul apparently goes beyond the Veil when a person dies. The brain remains behind, where it can be studied by wizards interested in thought and memory. Those interested in death study what goes on beyond the Veil. I'm not sure, but I think that JKR's concept of a soul (as depicted in the HP books, not her own Christian view) is something like the Latin word "spiritus," meaning "breath, life, spirit" and related to the concept of inspiration, or like the Greek word "pneuma," wind, breath, spirit. The soul, in this view, would be the source of life (as opposed to mere soulless existence, a la Barty Jr.) and the part of the self that lives on after death. Think of God giving Adam the breath of life (not the Michelangelo painting, where the spark of life enters through a finger). The idea of an oracle or Seer(ess) who inspired by a god is similar; she breathes in the spirit of the god and breathes out a prophecy. A poet was supposedly similarly inspired by the Muse Calliope. Or, if you're familiar with it, think of Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind," in which the wind is simultaneously wind, breath, and spirit, breathing life into Autumn "O wild West Wind, thou breath of Autumn's being." I guess I'm saying that the soul in HP seems to be the breath of life made tangible and divisible. Just as memories can be made tangible and withdrawn from the brain by a Legilimens, a fragment of a soul damaged by murder can be withdrawn from the self and encased in an object using an incantation. (I'm not sure whether the incantation is required for the withdrawing or only the encasing, but that's not really relevant here.) Carol, sure that the brain and the soul are distinct concepts in the WW Carol, again looking to canon and etymology for answers From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 15 20:26:59 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:26:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius WAS :Regulus and Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163790 Carol: > I'm guessing that young Severus got twelve OWLs, with Os in at least > two subjects and Es in the rest. The mere fact that he was > interested in earning high marks, even to the point of > experimenting outside of class in improving the potions in the > books, would have given him a reputation as a swot or a nerd and > added to his unpopularity. > Sirius, in contrast, uses his free time, and perhaps his study time, > working on becoming an Animagus and/or contributing to the > Marauder's Map (or in detention). He rejects the opportunity to > help Remus study for his Transfiguration OWL. The last thing *he* > wanted was a reputation as a swot. And his looks, unlike Severus's, > were in his favor. Jen: This shifts the debate from the area of natural ability and talent to grades and effort. Snape undoubtedly put more effort into his school work and he appeared to care more about grades than Sirius. In the Pensieve scene Sirius didn't think he needed to study to get good grades on exams. Some of that likely bravado, but my impression from that scene, as well with the animagi and Maruader's Map, was that Sirius *did* have natural abilities and talents but didn't choose to apply himself in classes or care about grades. I could see that attitude grating mightily on Severus, who had natural talents and augmented them with study and effort. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm certain what bothered Snape the *most* about Sirius was how he threw away the things that Snape valued so much. Sirius had talent and smarts and used them for mischief instead of choosing to be a swot. He was good- looking and didn't much care. He was born into one of the few true pure-blood Slytherin families and took that for granted, going so far as to reject them in the end. I could see Sirius' attitude making Snape absolutely *livid* given Snape's belief in rules and principles and the 'right order' of things. The irony is they are *both* examples of lost potential. Who knows what Snape could have done with his talents had he not chosen to be a DE? Who knows what Sirius might have made of himself if he hadn't spent much of his life in Azkaban, if Dumbledore had chosen to help him like helped Snape? Neither of them grew to be the men they could have been. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 15 20:31:37 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:31:37 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: <009a01c7376d$088d9d50$9186400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163791 > Magpie: > Exactly! > It just struck me in retrospect as possibly one of those tricky > things that JKR does. She never uses a type of magic without > introducing it earlier in a neutral context. If Dumbledore > himself hadn't introduced the idea that maybe there's a charm > on all this stuff that prevents it from being inherited by anyone > not a Black, we would have no reason to doubt that the will wasn't > enough. Jen: Whew, glad I got your meaning because I'm getting into this theory now. The blood charm is neatly sandwiched in between two important pieces of information that do have meaning--Sirius' will/disposition of GP, and the fate of Kreacher. Both issues were unfinished business from OOTP, the questions of whether Sirius had a will or not and if so, would it be contested? And if not, would the house and Kreacher pass to one of the Blacks? The answers had bearing for the Order and Harry's emotional well-being since we see how quickly he fired up at the thought of Bella inheriting the house (and wouldn't have liked Draco owning it much better). Another option here, not nearly as exciting but possible given how JKR writes, is the charm was another example of how the magical world operates differently than the Muggle world--look, even a will can have a magical twist to it! Seems like she doesn't need yet another example, though. Magpie: > So I just wound up wondering if the introduction of a charm based > on blood wasn't actually there for a purpose all its own instead of > just being a reason to get Kreacher there and make Harry give > nowhere--it turns out there is no such charm on the inheritence, as > proved by Kreacher's having to obey Harry. It's maybe not big > enough to be Chekov's gun, but maybe it's a Chekovian squirt gun.:-) > Maybe, I thought, that scene is also preparing us for a time when > there *will* be such a charm, and this was a place for JKR to > introduce it neutrally before it becomes a plot point. Jen: Chekov's squirt gun indeed . This bit of innocuous information slides by, information that would have had meaning in OOTP like you said earlier. Or if the charm had turned out to be true, it would have become part of the plot of HBP. Instead the information is introduced and promptly dismissed. I read it as a transition from OOTP to HBP, sort of a last gasp from the House of Black before dying with Sirius, leaving their legacy in the hands of the Malfoys. But JKR didn't go that route with the last- minute introduction R.A.B. and I didn't go back to rethink my conclusions about the blood charm. > Magpie: > Right--it just seems like a great device to force all sorts of > connections and get us information. Harry's sworn he would never > work with Draco, so he's kind of doomed himself to needing him > somehow it seems to me.:-) It's a conflict set up for six books. > Plus I admit I love the whole history of the rise and fall of the > House of Black, and it seems to really cry out for some resolution > that brings together all these threads. Jen: JKR explores the family dynamics so carefully in the series, casting a clinical eye on even those families with no further storyline such as the Crouches or Lupins. The Blacks and the Dursleys are the two families left unresolved. There will likely be something with Percy or perhaps a Weasley death, but no hint the family will change in Harry's eyes. The Blacks (including Malfoys) and Durlseys offer that potential. From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 20:39:45 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:39:45 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163792 ... that there are passages in the books which really makes no much sense. Having just gone over the Dark Mark chapter in GOF, I realised how easy it really was to check Harry's wand for the last spell it cast (The Dark Mark). It took - what.... 1? minute to check it out? Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go to Azkaban with no trial, when all they needed to do, was to check *his* wand, to see if he indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all the Muggles - and all it would have taken was a few minutes..... not much compared to 12 years of socialising with Dementors. Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure there must be :-) Inge From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 20:59:41 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:59:41 -0000 Subject: What *Do* You know? (was: very basic confusion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163793 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: >k12listmomma (Shelley) wrote: >I often wonder if Lilly's >sacrifice was merely of "pure motherly love", or if it was of >something more than that- a preplanned spell or protection set in >place. >Justcarol responded: >I used to think much the same thing for several reasons >Unfortunately for my theory, JKR said on her site that Lily wasn't >planning to die. Talisman's scrying is interrupted by the sound of something galloping past. She peeks out the arrow slit in time to see justcarol disappearing behind a cloud of dust astride a runaway niffler. "Oh, that Jo and her Leprechaun gold. We'll just have to throw the beast something worth chasing." She flings her shiniest copy of _How to Speak Rowling_by J.K.Dumbledore, through the crack.;it flips open and attempts to lure the niffler back, as Talisman's enchantingly cranky voice rises from the pages: ************************************************************************************** Unless Accio Quote! has failed me completely (which is possible-- heaven knows it's a mess--what an act of hubris to force people to sift through one's interpretive summaries when they are trying to find source material.) Rowling has never said "Lily wasn't planning to die." Thank you, though, for including the actual quote, from which you built your inference. I have to say that, when I initially read this back in July 2005, I immediately dismissed its relevance to any of my theories, and forgot about it. Here's why. Again, the relevant exchange from the LeakyMug interview is: MA: Did she know anything about the possible effect of standing in front of Harry? JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen. (Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part One," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005) Talisman resumes: I can understand how someone would conclude that, if Lily didn't *know* about the possible effects of her death, she could not have been planning to sacrifice herself. Really, I can. The problem I have with this inference arises from both the existence and the content of Rowling's continued explanation. Let's look at it one more time: "No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, knew that could happen." Or, to put it another way, *because* it (whatever, exactly, we are talking about) had never happened before, no one--including Lily-- could *know* what would happen. Rowling is very carefully zeroing in on the word *know,* and then limiting *knowledge* to what has been actually experienced (at least by someone). We don't need to conduct any debates regarding the virtues or limitations of empiricism, it is sufficient for our purpose that Rowling has imposed the negating qualification, herself. Therefore, had the interviewer asked whether Lily, *suspected* or *believed* her death would achieve particular ends, we may well have had an entirely different answer. This is such old ground, but common sense tells us that, unless she *believed* (is that better?) that standing there passively would achieve Harry's life, Lily would not have failed to do more. I don't believe that her lack of resistance was due to being caught without her wand. Fidelius or not, I'm sure the Potters kept their wands handy. If only for diapering. ;) Moreover, we know wands aren't always needed for magic. We've discussed in the past how Quirrell "raised his [bare, burnt] hand to perform a deadly curse" (PS/SS Chpt. 17 US 295); and Harry pulled off an intentional, albeit wandless, Lumos in OoP (US 17). Rowling has confirmed that "You can do unfocused and uncontrolled magic without a wand (for instance when Harry blows up Aunt Marge)...." (Red Nose Day Chat, BBC Online, March 12, 2001) So okay, Lily, get pissed and blow up the Dark Lord. BlimpMort! That would work. Even if the wand had been stashed in the umbrella stand, a best- wizard-of-her-age / Order of the Phoenix warrior might well have been able to Accio it--and would have--at the first sign of trouble. Sheesh, failing that, even a Muggle--retreating into the nursery from an attacker--would pick up a piece of furniture to bung the assailant with: a rocking chair, a changing table, a tin of talcum, something. And, we've seen that, used effectively, a piece of furniture *could* have blocked the unblockable curse. Worth a try. If it comes to that, you`ve always got a left hook. What have you got to lose? The alternative to Lily knowing/believing that her death would *save* Harry, is to view her behavior as an act of resignation. Unlike Harry in the graveyard, she just gave up; wasn't willing to fight if there seemed little chance of success. Rather, seeing no point to opposition, merely stood there, expecting Harry to die a moment after she did. Guess she just wasn't one of those types who "is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle," eh? (PS/SS Ch. 17 US 298). But, that doesn't quite gel with what we know of Lily, does it? So, yes, I think Rowling wiggled out on the word *know.* This same fastidiousness about *knowledge* is the heuristic taught by DD's antics in OoP and HBP. In HBP, when DD summons Harry in for his first lesson, and announces: "Well, I have decided that it is time...for you to be given certain information," even Harry is a bit miffed (Ch.10, US 197). "You said at the end of last term, you were going to tell me everything," said Harry. "It was hard to keep a note of accusation from his voice. "Sir," he added. (197) And readers know all too well that this is exactly what DD said: "I am going to tell you everything." (OoP Ch. 37 US 834) Everything. (Of course what really DD puts on, at that time, is a little presentation clearly meant to convince Harry of the legitimacy of the Prophecy. So much so, that Harry and the reader do not dispute Hermione when she asserts: we've just found out that there are real prophecies" (OoP Ch 38 US 849). Remember those days? Wasn't a lot of talk about self-fulfillment then, was there? Sure it's swell that DD *now* assures us that it's all so much hot air (except for the fact that it's all going to come true). But, he intentionally took Harry for a temporary trot in the other direction, and that is not insignificant.) DD doesn't deny saying "I'm going to tell you everything," but he's got another way out. "And so I did, " [says the old stinker] placidly. "I told you everything I *know*" (197, my emphasis). Really, gentle readers, I would hate to describe the reaming someone would get if they pulled such nonsense on me. Oops, wait a minute. Rowling obviously did. More than once, too. Well, at least I can cast a withering eye in her direction. This little _ex post facto_ qualification--which violates the Cooperative Principle of communication, not to mention the Maxim of Completeness(where doing so, with the expectation that the *listener* will not perceive the violation as a part of the original communication, is a primary marker of deception)--blatantly reveals the epistemological fan dance that we can expect to encounter, elsewhere. (Oh, and try not to notice how much of DD's Book 5 speech is, perforce, deductive.) After DD blibbers on a bit about firm foundations of fact vs. wildest thickets of guesswork, Harry cuts to the chase saying: "But you think you're right," to which DD replies, "Naturally" (196). We'll overlook the fact that all of the Pensieve evidence imparts an arguably higher quality knowledge than even being a real-time eye- witness, inasmuch as the viewer doesn't affect the action. DD probably left that all out because he would have to sum it up with deductions, right? Nonetheless, we see DD express his alternatives to *knowledge* repeatedly throughout Harry's lessons, e.g.: "...I thought I knew what that meant" (501) "...it is my belief...I'm sure I'm right..." (262) "...I received what I considered certain proof...." (500) "Therefore, I am convinced..." (502) "I would be prepared to bet...a couple fingers..." (505) And so forth. We see that DD denies knowledge, even where he has compelling proof, so long as he can avoid absolute empirical evidence. By DD's definition he never knew what LV did to reach near- immortality, or how to vanquish him. That would require, at a minimum, the location and destruction of all Hxes, the coup de gr?ce to Voldie, and a thorough combing of the Albanian underbrush. Yet, you can be sure DD enjoyed a sufficient level of certaintly to act upon his convictions. Indeed to bet many lives on it. If you endorse this sort of thing, you can take everything I've ever said about DD's *knowledge,* and replace that term with lexical--if not philosophical--synonyms: certainty, surety, understanding, expectation, etc. And you can play the same game with Lily. Lily may not have, by strictest empirical standards, *known* what would happen as a consequence of her *passive* death, but she thought; believed; was sure, certain, convinced; and bet her child's life on it. Cheers, Talisman From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 21:14:57 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:14:57 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163794 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > ... that there are passages in the books which really makes no much > sense. > > Having just gone over the Dark Mark chapter in GOF, I realised how easy > it really was to check Harry's wand for the last spell it cast (The > Dark Mark). It took - what.... 1? minute to check it out? > > Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go to Azkaban with no > trial, when all they needed to do, was to check *his* wand, to see if > he indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all the Muggles - and all it > would have taken was a few minutes..... not much compared to 12 years > of socialising with Dementors. > > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure there must > be :-) > > Inge Talisman: It was DD's pleasure that *innocent* Sirius should be kept on ice in Azkaban. See my posts on this list, generally. DD's small amelioration is to protect Sirius from the effects of the dementors...and to use Lucius/Fudge as his cat's paw to spring Sirius when the time is right...er, a short while before offing him. And then, of course, to clear Sirius's name, after the fact. PS While Sirius *was* innocent of the crime charged: killing Pettigrew et al., we may yet learn of other culpabilities in this, as Rowling has called him, most dangerous of the Mauraders. More dangerous than Wormtail... On the other hand, he may have been *most dangerous* to DD's Plan, because he would have actually tried to save Harry from it. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 15 21:40:44 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:40:44 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163795 Inge wrote: > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure there must > be :-) Potioncat: Well, canon tells us that wizards are not logical OR JKR didn't think of it OR Something happened to Black's wand OR There are ways to trick the priori incantatum. JKR has said that there are ways to get around Veritaserum. Black is very bitter when he talks about being sent to Azkaban without a trial (GoF) So perhaps in the rush to send him off, his wand was damaged or otherwise made inoperative. It just seems to me that there was something about Black that so few questioned the betrayal...or there was something about the WW itself. From mlm1581 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 21:24:51 2007 From: mlm1581 at hotmail.com (Michael) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:24:51 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... / checking Sirius' wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163796 Inge wrote: > > Having just gone over the Dark Mark chapter in GOF, I realised > how easy it really was to check Harry's wand for the last spell > it cast (The Dark Mark). It took - what.... 1? minute to check > it out? > > Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go to Azkaban with > no trial, when all they needed to do, was to check *his* wand, > to see if he indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all the > Muggles - and all it would have taken was a few minutes..... > not much compared to 12 years of socialising with Dementors. Michael: It's simple really; now I agree this would have given at least some chance of the reprieve for Sirius, but there are few reasonings behind its downfall. One, the event was seen by a fair number of people all say that an enraged Sirius did it and he himself accepted the guilt for it foregoing a trial. Two, the fact that he was the most likely person to be in place to betray the Potters pretty much already marked him a DE. Three, this could only really work if you know that the caster has had no contact with the wand from the time they cast the spell till you check it - one quick first year spell would clear the other spell out. These combined with the fact that we know that the magical world's justice system is far from fair made it easy to overlook the simple answers and leap to a seemingly likely conclusion. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 21:46:56 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:46:56 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me) . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163797 "Inge" wrote: > Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go > to Azkaban with no trial, when all they needed > to do, was to check *his* wand, to see if he > indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all > the Muggles - and all it would have taken > was a few minutes. Why on earth do you think the Ministry of Magic was interested in finding the truth about this incident, or the truth about anything else for that matter? The people were scared and outraged over this incident, the people demanded that their leaders find the culprit responsible for the atrocity; so the ministry did as was expected of it and provided a "culprit". But it's better not to look too closely at the evidence, hence the lack of a trial. Truth has never been very important to the Ministry of magic, remaining in power is. > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? It's all perfectly logical, if you have mind set of a dictator. Eggplant From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 21:50:53 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:50:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701151350wcfec83cp123546b72347d3a7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163798 Inge Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go to Azkaban with no trial, when all they needed to do, was to check *his* wand, to see if he indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all the Muggles - and all it would have taken was a few minutes..... not much compared to 12 years of socialising with Dementors -------------------------- Jeremiah Well, I would think that you can only find out the previous spell cast by a wand but not a long line of them, so if you were going to try to hide something you can cast another spell and be safe. (of course, if Sirus is accused of AK'ing Pettigrew and then they find something like Alohamora then it would look suspicious, woudn't it?) I think this is the reason because it is called "Priori Incantatum" is singular. We might be confusing it with "Prioir Incantata" wich is plural and is what happened with LV and Harry. That was a special circumstance due to their wands being "brothers" (ok, I know a wand is phallic, but why can't they be sisters? or kissing-cousins? lol). So, with any other wizard I would think you can only go one spell back but with Harry and Voldemort you can go back all the way to the very beginning. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 21:45:32 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:45:32 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163799 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: Having just gone over the Dark Mark chapter in GOF, I realised how easy it really was to check Harry's wand for the last spell it cast (The Dark Mark). It took - what.... 1? minute to check it out? Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go to Azkaban with no trial, when all they needed to do, was to check *his* wand, to see if he indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all the Muggles - and all it would have taken was a few minutes..... not much compared to 12 years of socialising with Dementors. _____ Talisman answered: It was DD's pleasure that *innocent* Sirius should be kept on ice in Azkaban. See my posts on this list, generally. DD's small amelioration is to protect Sirius from the effects of the dementors...and to use Lucius/Fudge as his cat's paw to spring Sirius when the time is right...er, a short while before offing him. And then, of course, to clear Sirius's name, after the fact. (SNIP) _____ Inge again: Whatever Dumbledore's plan(s) might have been for Sirius, - Im sure he wasn't the one to decide what should happen to Sirius after the Pettigrew/Muggle killings. My irritation was based on the fact, that in GOF it takes no time to check Harry's wand for a recently cast spell - and Sirius' wand probably wasn't checked on at all - even though that might have cleared him. That just doesn't make sense. (Neither does it make sense, that Sirius never asked to have his wand checked). But I guess, that's just one of those things...... I'd still like to know about other reader's irritation-points as to where stuff doesn't make much sense. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 21:54:48 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:54:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701151354t72a37a9fodeea853df9cadb64@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163800 Inge wrote: > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure there must > be :-) Potioncat: Well, canon tells us that wizards are not logical OR JKR didn't think of it OR Something happened to Black's wand OR There are ways to trick the priori incantatum. ========================== jeremiah: Sorry to do a one liner, but wasn't it also DD's testimony that Sirius was the Potter's Secret Keeper that helped him get put away? It's wasn't just Pettigrew's murder it was also the assumed betrayal of the Potters to LV and this labeled him as a Death Eater (or something near being a DE) that sealed his fate in court? So, he would have been locked away eventually assuming nobody had figured out Pettigrew was the "rat." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iris_ft at yahoo.fr Mon Jan 15 22:04:48 2007 From: iris_ft at yahoo.fr (iris_ft) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:04:48 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163801 Hello, may I join the debate, even if I've been a long time without posting on the list? Geoff wrote: "Just to briefly reiterate what I have said in the past, I subscribe to the opposite view because, if Harry is a Horcrux, then this seems to put him in a "hiding to nothing" situation. If all the Horcruxes have to be destroyed to finally dispose of Voldemort, then this scenario dictates that Harry has to die - not might have to - but has to. This removes all that Dumbledore has trumpeted about choice and means that Harry has been doomed from the word go. Why put us through this enthralling and fascinating series of books when it is a foregone conclusion that our messy-haired, green-eyed Gryffindor is quite definitely not going to emerge at the end?" What Geoff wrote sounds like what a friend told me yesterday, when I said that I was stocking Kleenex and chocolate before the last book was released Talking more seriously, I don't know if Harry is going to die or to survive. But I don't think he's a Horcrux. If I understand correctly the way it works, when a Horcrux is destroyed, the part of the soul it contains is destroyed too (or am I mistaken? You'll correct me if I'm wrong.) So, if it works that way, Voldemort wouldn't have told Quirrell to kill Harry at the end of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". The Dark Lord is a psychopath, but he's not stupid, and he's not forgetful. And he probably knows the cost he paid in order to create his Horcruxes. So, even if he wanted to get the Stone, he probably wouldn't have been ready to loose one of them, to destroy it As for Harry having to die, to scarify himself in order to vanquish Voldemort Aah, it has been puzzling me, and I've been trying various scenarios, as everybody in the Potterverse, I suppose. Here's one of them; I hope it won't sound too cranky (and that if it does sound, you won't throw me a Bludger). I've been a long time without posting here, but I didn't give up a theory I started developing on this group three or four years ago: the Seven Ordeals at the end of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone are metaphors for each of the seven books in the series (the Three-Headed Dog = Book 1, etc ). If this theory is exact (and it seems to work when we compare what happens in the two last chapters of the first book with what JK Rowling develops in her six first novels) then we can expect to find in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" narrative elements and ideas that already appear in the last chapter of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". So we can say that in the last book, we'll find references to whatever has to do with a mirror, because the Mirror of Erised is the last Ordeal Harry has to face (PS/SS, chapter 17): reflections, inversions, illusions, etc Now, this it what it could mean referring to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". In PS/SS, Harry faces himself in the Mirror of Erised. The Harry in the Mirror gives his flesh and bones double the Stone. We can say that we have "a double Harry" acting at the same moment. It could imply that in the last book, Harry will have to find in himself the solution to vanquish Voldemort. Or that he will have to split his being, to be double: on one side, his body or physical being; on the other side, his "well organized mind" and soul, or spiritual being. Harry could let Voldemort destroy his material being. But only one part of him would die. And it would destroy Voldemort, who would kill himself killing Harry, because of the blood connection between them. Voldemort used Harry's blood, i.e. part of his physical, material being, in order to create his new body. I've always been wondering about what could happen to this new, but artificial body. Would it keep on living if one of its components happened to disappear? For example, if Peter Pettigrew, he who gave the flesh, happened to die? What would happen with Voldemort's flesh? Bones, flesh and blood are connections to the material world, which is Voldemort's universe. The Dark Lord is unable to care for something else. He's obsessed with what is material: he wants to rule the Wizarding World and he collects trophies. As for what is spiritual, he doesn't care: he even spoiled his soul; he sacrificed it in order to preserve his material being. Now, what would happen if Harry managed to leave his own physical being? Voldemort could destroy Harry's material being, and doing that, maybe he would destroy his own blood and kill himself I confess it is rather complicated... and I'm not sure it would be a good solution. Too esoteric, maybe, even after the Prophecy and the Horcruxes. And how would Harry manage to separate his spiritual being from his material being? Using a Dementor? Using spells that are the contrary of the one a wizard uses to create a Horcrux? Could it have to do with the Deathly Hallows (something like a sanctuary you build in order to keep your soul safe and to preserve its integrity)? Who knows? Geoff: "As a member of the IWHTLC, if Harry dies at the end of Book 7, I shall be Rowling on the ground with fury. :-)" Here's an acronym I didn't know; I'll have to find the meaning in the archive. As for "Rowling on the ground with fury" if Harry dies ah, it's only literature, after all. But why not, if the carpet is clean and comfortable? Amicalement, Iris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 22:32:09 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:32:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... / checking Sirius' wand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0701151432o20a4b81cjc1767840877dc897@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163802 Inge wrote: > > Having just gone over the Dark Mark chapter in GOF, I realised > how easy it really was to check Harry's wand for the last spell > it cast (The Dark Mark). It took - what.... 1? minute to check > it out? > > Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go to Azkaban with > no trial, when all they needed to do, was to check *his* wand, > to see if he indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all the > Muggles - and all it would have taken was a few minutes..... > not much compared to 12 years of socialising with Dementors. Debbie: The only ever convincing explanation I've ever been able to think up is this: Fudge (then a junior minister in the Office of Magical Catastrophes) was one of the first people on the scene. There was a street full of eyewitnesses claiming that Sirius did it, so Fudge's squad apprehended him on the spot and confiscated his wand. Either Fudge and his crack (not!) team of investigators forgot to perform the Priori Incantato at the time, or (my preferred reading) Fudge deliberately pocketed the wand, knowing they had all the evidence they needed to put Sirius in Azkaban forever and knowing that Sirius' arrest could not help but further Fudge's career. Later, Fudge may -- or may not -- have performed the spell, but either way, he made sure the wand would not be found after the hearing (where Dumbledore testified that Sirius was Secret Keeper). And look what it got Fudge: a promotion. A Murphy's Law promotion,* but a promotion nevertheless. Debbie *In any organization, a person will naturally rise to his or her level of incompetence. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 22:33:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:33:38 -0000 Subject: What *Do* You know? Dumblodore Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163803 --- "Talisman" wrote: > >... > > > Talisman's scrying is interrupted by the sound of > something galloping past. > > ...edited JKR's comments on Lily... > > Talisman resumes: > ... > > In HBP, when DD summons Harry in for his first lesson, > and announces: "Well, I have decided that it is time... > for you to be given certain information," even Harry > is a bit miffed (Ch.10, US 197). > > "You said at the end of last term, you were going to > tell me everything," said Harry. "It was hard to keep > a note of accusation from his voice. "Sir," he added. > (197) > > And readers know all too well that this is exactly what > DD said: "I am going to tell you everything." (OoP Ch. > 37 US 834) > > Everything. > > (Of course what really DD puts on, at that time, is a > little presentation clearly meant to convince Harry of > the legitimacy of the Prophecy. ... > > Sure it's swell that DD *now* assures us that it's all > so much hot air (except for the fact that it's all > going to come true). But, he intentionally took Harry > for a temporary trot in the other direction, and that > is not insignificant.) > > DD doesn't deny saying "I'm going to tell you > everything," but he's got another way out. > > "And so I did, " [says the old stinker] placidly. "I > told you everything I *know*" (197, my emphasis). > > Really, gentle readers, I would hate to describe the > reaming someone would get if they pulled such nonsense > on me. > bboyminn: While I agree with your conclusions, especially your final conclusions regarding Lily, I have to take minor exception to your implied characterization of Dumbledore. First, I must ask, is there really anyone in the world who thought for one slight second that Dumbledore was indeed 'telling Harry /everything/'? I certainly didn't. I've claimed over and over that Dumbledore didn't tell Harry a fraction of what he knew. I still don't think Dumbledore has gotten the chance to literally tell Harry /everything/. Even if we dial /everything/ back several hundred notches from literally everything, to just everything that Harry should and would want to know. I'm as furious as anyone at Dumbledore's constant withholding of information from people (especially us dear loyal readers), though with him being a commander of sorts, I can understand it. But in the conversation at the end of OotP, Dumbledore told Harry /everything/ relative to the content of the Prophecy and its interpretation by various people, and how the various interpretations contributed to the death of Harry's parent and Harry receiving his scar and becoming 'The Boy Who Lived'. That is the context of the discussion, and annoying as it might be, Dumbledore seems consistent in the context of the discussion and his role as 'commander'. Now in the conversation you quoted, Dumbledore has established a whole new context and a whole new set of /everything/ that needs to be disclosed. But you can't convince me, at least at this moment, that there are not many many other contexts, each with their own unique set of /everything/ to be told. I am certain that there was plenty more /everything/ that Dumbledore could have told if only he had lived. Everything is NEVER everything, it is never more than everything within a given context. > Talisman continues: > ... > > This little _ex post facto_ qualification--which violates > the Cooperative Principle of communication, not to > mention the Maxim of Completeness (where doing so, with > the expectation that the *listener* will not perceive > the violation as a part of the original communication, > is a primary marker of deception)--blatantly reveals > the epistemological fan dance that we can expect to > encounter, elsewhere. ... > bboyminn: OK...? Is that real, or did you just make up that CPoC and MoC? Also, while true in general communcation, I seriously doubt that the CIA, NSA and the Military have the CPoC and the MoC written into their by-laws. I highly suspect they operate on exactly the opposite principles as would a man like Dumbledore. Still you make some very good points and I confess I share your frustration, though I have to say, I saw it coming. Like I said, I didn't believe for one second that in either conversation nor both of them combined together did Dumbledore even remotely tell Harry everything that Harry needs to and really should know. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 22:34:19 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:34:19 -0000 Subject: The Diary!Horcrux Great Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163804 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > Sigh. I don't agree. Mike: Gosh, sorry if this bores you, but then you did bring it up. > Carol: > If he knew how to make the diary into a Horcrux, > he'd have known how to make the ring into one, but the ring wasn't a > Horcrux or he wouldn't have been wearing it. He'd already committed > four murders (Myrtle and the Riddles), and if he could use one of > those murders, he could have used them all. Mike: But you see, we have differing views on how and when a Horcrux can be made. IMO the object must be present and designated as the Horcrux repository at the time of the murder. I don't happen to believe that one could reserve a particular killing until some time in the future to extract a particular soul piece that was torn for a particular murder. Time and space matter in magic, I believe Snape said. It seems practical to me that reserving a Horcrux creation for a particular murder means creating the Horcrux at the time of that murder, not being able to designate a particular soul piece, if you're Voldemort and have lots of them, as the soul piece to be externally encased. This is a long way of saying that I don't consider Tom not making the ring a Horcrux, at that time, was an option and therefore has no bearing on the diary. > Carol again: > Of course he knew how to play Slughorn. Even Harry saw that. But he > wants crucial information that he doesn't get--how to make a > Horcrux. After that, he asks the two questions about multiple > Horcruxes, both of which to me seem self-evident. If he's > researched Horcruxes and knows how to make them, why bother to ask > Slughorn anything? Just make a second Horcurs (typo accidental but > I'm keeping it), since a suitable object is available and the first > one will protect you from death, and see what happens? Mike: Umm... OK? I see you're having difficulty getting through to that knucklehead Tom Riddle, him asking all these foolish questions. Please be patient with him, he's only 16 after all. Wait... he'll catch on soon enough. ;-) > Carol: > His appearance has not changed since Harry sees him after in the > diary memory, which obviously occurs before he's written the diary > and placed that memory in it. That Tom, the Tom he encounters in > the CoS, and the Tom who visits Slughorn (and has committed four > murders) all look virtually identical. Mike: Right. And if the Tom in CoS is the way he looks *because* he's made his first Horcrux and stuck it in the diary, and is the same one- Horcrux Tom we meet talking to Slughorn, they would look the same. > Carol: > Look at the three > descriptions of Tom that I've cited, the first one indisputably > before he's made a Horcrux because he hasn't created the diary yet, > and see if you can find any differences. Mike: The first one *is* the Diary!Tom, right? I'm not sure what you're referring to. How can the first Tom be before he created the diary if it is the diary? As to indisputable, sorry, as I've just said above, it isn't indisputable that Diary!Tom looks that way after the first Horcrux since imo Diary!Tom is the *result* of the first Horcrux. > Carol: > The diary as originally created, to cause someone to open the > Chamber of Secrets, would not have required a Tom in human form. > All he needed to do was release the Basilisk and command it to > "Carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." Mike: Agree with your first sentence, disagree with the second. In order to possess Ginny, cause her to do all those things, including openning the Chamber, *required* a soul piece. This is indisputable, Dumbledore told us that a "mere memory" could not have done that. It required a soul piece to act and think for itself, let alone possess Ginny, which it did in the very beginning of the school term, *before* it changed it's attention from openning the Chamber to Harry. That was it's original purpose, that was it's original design, imo. IOW, an interactive diary with memories and a Pensieve-like feature to play those memories could not have caused the Chamber to be openned. Tom designed the diary to house the soul piece and Dumbledore confirmed that without the soul piece it never would have been able to possess Ginny and thereby open the Chamber. > Carol: > You're right that we have no idea how such a diary would > function, but we don't know how a Pensieve functions, either. > Both use a memory drawn from someone's head and enable someone > else to enter it. Mike: I think we have been given ample oppurtunity to understand how a pensieve functions. We will never be shown how or if an interactive diary without a soul piece functions because Tom didn't make one of those, at least, we don't know that he made one of those. That was my point. Yours is speculation as to what might have happened if Tom had made the diary without a soul piece. But we have no evidence that he did that. > Carol: > I'm not denying that diary!Tom became nearly human because the diary > was a Horcrux. We know that to be true. I'm saying that, as > originally written, the diary seems to have included the "memory of > [Tom's sixteen-year-old self"--a self who could not yet have made > any Horcruxes because he had not yet put himself in the diary (that > memory, it seems to me, would have to go in there, too). It was only > when the already valuable, already powerful diary received a soul > bit, after Tom learned how to make a Horcrux (perhaps from visiting > Grindelwald, who is in the books for a reason and seems to be the > wizard alluded to by Dumbledore in HBP as having made a Horcrux) > that he would have been able to possess anyone. Mike: Once again, "originally written" is speculation. We don't know that Tom extracted memories from his brain and put them into the diary. We do know that he put in a soul piece and that soul pieces include memories. We also know that without a soul piece the diary could not perform it's original function of openning the Chamber, Dumbledore told us so. Tom designed the diary that way. I fail to see why he would need to seperately extract memories, when the soul piece had all the memories in the first place. "Originally written" postulates that Tom didn't originally design the diary as a weapon to open the Chamber. That he only later added the soul piece. > Carol: > I don't think that sort of thing was part of his original > intention. It only became possible after the diary, already proof > that he was the Heir of Slytherin, became a Horcrux. Mike: It has just occurred to me that Dumbledore's explanation to Harry as to why the diary was valued enough, by Tom, to qualify as a Horcrux gives the impression that the diary was first created as a simple bragging tool. Then later, it was made into a Horcrux which turned it into a weapon. I see now how that could color ones perspective. The problem with this line of reasoning is that Diary!Tom told us he created the diary to "finish Salazar Slytherin's noble work". It sounds to me like Tom planned to put the soul piece in from the get- go. He needed it to do his carrying on. > Carol responds: > Nothing of the sort. Diary!Tom is the age of the memory or memories > that Tom at that age put into the diary. His age when he created the > soul bit has nothing to do with it. Nor do I think that the other > Horcruxes have the same power as the diary as they contain no memory > along with the soul bit. Mike: Big disagree. Soul pieces most definitely contain memories. Lupin told us so in PoA. We have proof; the LV that came out of the cauldron (which was a disembodied soul piece) certainly retained all it's memories. > Carol: > And, of course, JKR couldn't be any plainer in CoS. She > couldn't give away the fact that the diary had become a Horcrux. But > "my sixteen-year-old self" is not the same thing as a soul bit. The > other Horcruxes don't preserve, say, his twenty-year-old self > because they don't contain memories in their pages. They don't even > have pages. They're not intended to store memories, as the diary > had to do if it was to enable the reader to release the Basilisk. Mike: I definitely agree that JKR decided not to release the name "Horcrux" in CoS. That is why Tom called himself a "memory", though he later told us that he poured a little of his soul into Ginny. As to the other Horcruxes containing memories; I reiterate that soul pieces have memories. The others weren't made interactive, at least we don't know that they have *yet*, but they most certainly contain memories. > Carol: > And another thing--the soul bit would have come from his > sixteen-year-old self because he was sixteen when he murdered Myrtle > and his parents. So the soul bit, which would presumably cease to > grow and develop, being split off from the main soul, would be the > same age as memory!Tom regardless of when the Horcrux was created. > (I don't think the age of the soul bit matters, but if you think it > does, there's your answer.) Mike: Woo, where to start. Different opinion on Horcrux creation, don't buy the being able to select your soul piece from one of many past murders, don't think he split his soul with Myrtle's death-by- Basilisk. Kind of hard to debate when we are so far apart on the basis for debate. I'll just leave it here. :-) > Carol: > We can't take Tom Riddle's making a Horcrux at sixteen as fact. All > we know is that he created the diary, preserving the memory of his > sixteen-year-old self in his pages, as proof that he was the Heir of > Slytherin. Memory!Tom could have interacted with the reader much as > the Sorting Hat does, writing back and forth instead of speaking, > and taken the reader into the diary's pages, much like a self- > activated Pensieve, controlling and manipulating the reader without > having the power to possess them. We don't know how the diary would > have worked before it was a Horcrux, but we do know its original > purpose and we do know that Tom only made powerful magical objects > into Horcruxes. Mike: Well, I certainly wouldn't try to assert my belief as fact. I was only responding to your aside that Tom didn't create a Horcrux at sixteen. We had this debate once before, didn't resolve it then, don't think we've resolved it this time either. ;-) I'll agree to disagree if you will. I'll even give you the last word: > Carol, simply noting that Tom's making a Horcrux at sixteen is an > assumption, one way of reading the evidence, and that other readings > are equally valid at this point From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 15 22:44:46 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:44:46 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163805 "Inge" wrote: > I'd still like to know about other > reader's irritation-points as to > where stuff doesn't make much sense. There are a few errors of logic I have deleted in the Potter saga, but you have not mentioned any of them; and if truth be told none of them bother me a great deal: In book 1 think it would be better if Marcus Flint,the Slytherin Quidditch Captain, were in his fifth year not his sixth, that way in book 3 poor Marcus won't be in his 8'th year in book 3. In book 5 in the final exam Harry is looking at Venus and Orion, but Venus can only be seen near sunrise or sunset and this was about midnight, and Orion is a winter constellation and it was June. And this business of Harry having only 2 living relatives, that is mathematically imposable. Well OK, not imposable, but astronomically unlikely. But this is just nitpicking, in the really important stuff Rowling seems rock steady. Eggplant From irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 22:47:15 2007 From: irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com (irishshedevil333) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:47:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore not dead? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163806 irishshedevil Here is an idea for everyone to think about: What if, despite everything we have read, Dumbledore is not dead. Being a powerful wizard as he is, perhaps he is in some way hiding. Just because a casket was buried does not mean that he is dead. If Voldemort can keep himself alive when everyone thought he was dead, then why is it not possible that Dumbledore might not find a way to do the same? From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jan 15 23:14:27 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:14:27 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701151514u6f8bf64qad9828ac5113f4a5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163807 And this business of Harry having only 2 living relatives, that is mathematically imposable. Well OK, not imposable, but astronomically unlikely. But this is just nitpicking, in the really important stuff Rowling seems rock steady. Eggplant ====================== Jeremiah: Ok, I gues you're counting Petunia and Vernon. Not Dudly. In some ways it is 3 on another it's only 2 'cause Petunia and Dudly are the only blood-relatives... yadda yadda yadda... I have always been told that I am wierd because on my mother's side I only had my grandmother and on my father's side I only had my grandfather. So, I guess it's possible that Harry's grandparents are gone. However, it is one of those facts about Harry that I had to deal with early on... "Hmm.. only his Aunt? Ummm.. Ok!" I my case, I think it helped me accept the fantasy world Harry lives in. that way when she does things like "marcus flint is still Quiddich Captain? Guess he screwed up his NEWTS, huh?" Or, maybe he just likes it there! lol (See, I was held back in 1st grade for "emotional development" reasons. So, when I had my 18th birthday at the beginning of my final year of High School there were a lot of raised eyebrows...) So, I see possible solutions that do not fit into a "normal" school environment because mine was not "normal." Sometimes I think Hagrid could go back to classes. :) Wouldn't that be fun! I would, however, find it odd if (and, please do not get offended by this) if Jesus popped into Hogwarts to demonstrate the "magic spell" to change water into wine. Flint being held back a year? No problem. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 15 23:19:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:19:02 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163808 Inge: > Having just gone over the Dark Mark chapter in GOF, I realised how easy > it really was to check Harry's wand for the last spell it cast (The > Dark Mark). It took - what.... 1? minute to check it out? > > Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go to Azkaban with no > trial, when all they needed to do, was to check *his* wand, to see if > he indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all the Muggles - and all it > would have taken was a few minutes..... not much compared to 12 years > of socialising with Dementors. Pippin: The Avada Kedavra curse kills only one person at a time, otherwise Lily could not have thrown herself in front of Harry. The curse used on the Muggles (and supposedly Pettigrew) was thought to have killed thirteen people at once, and therefore could not have been Avada Kedavra. The Ministry, if it tested Sirius's wand for shadows at all, would only assume that the unknown curse had not produced them, though I doubt that Crouch, power mad and increasingly unjust, according to JKR's web site, even bothered. Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 15 23:16:23 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:16:23 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me) . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Inge" wrote: > > > Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go > > to Azkaban with no trial, when all they needed > > to do, was to check *his* wand, to see if he > > indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all > > the Muggles - and all it would have taken > > was a few minutes. Eggplant > Why on earth do you think the Ministry of Magic was interested in > finding the truth about this incident, or the truth about anything > else for that matter? The people were scared and outraged over this > incident, the people demanded that their leaders find the culprit > responsible for the atrocity; so the ministry did as was expected of > it and provided a "culprit". But it's better not to look too closely > at the evidence, hence the lack of a trial. Truth has never been very > important to the Ministry of magic, remaining in power is. > > > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? > > It's all perfectly logical, if you have mind set of a dictator. Geoff: You don't even need that.... There have been several high-profile cases in the UK in recent years where innocent people were locked away accused of attacks linked with the IRA during the worst of the Irish troubles in the 1970s and 1980s because the police wanted quick results to placate public anger and were incautious in interpreting evidence and, in some cases, responsible for massaging the evidence to fit the theory. It's not the mind set of a dictator; as you said in the preceding sentence, it's the mind set of frightened people wanting to keep the power they've got. Power corrupts etc..... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 15 23:23:05 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:23:05 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "iris_ft" wrote: > Geoff: > "As a member of the IWHTLC, if Harry dies at the end of Book 7, I > shall be > Rowling on the ground with fury. :-)" Iris: > Here's an acronym I didn't know; I'll have to find the > meaning in the archive. Geoff: I Want Harry To Live Club. Iris: > As for "Rowling on the ground with fury" > if Harry dies ah, it's only literature, after all. But why not, > if the carpet is clean and comfortable? Geoff: Ouch! You've completely ruined the pun...... and missed the smiley! From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Jan 15 23:28:48 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:28:48 -0000 Subject: Marauder's Map and Sirius's "usefulness" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163811 > Louise Wrote: > I've wondered why, when Sirius was hangin aroun 12 Grimmauld feeling so helpless in OOTP, Dumbledore didn't assign him to try to create more Marauder's-style maps of Hogwarts or other key locations (Ministry of Magic, Hogsmeade?). Or, for that matter, why not have him assist some other Order members in becoming Animagi? It seems like both would have been useful weapons in the fight against Voldemort. Goddlefrood says: Sirius certainly could have done more, at least on the face of it. What needs remembering though is that apart from a few brief interludes he was off Harry's radar for the larger part of the year and it is difficult to ascertain what Sirius was doing, if anything other than drinking and feeling generally sorry for himself. His big disguise had been blown and from what can be garnered in the course of PoA it takes a great deal of time and a considerable amount of skill to become an animagus. That there are only seven registered and four unregistered animagi around according to information in the books suggests that it is not a typical bit of magic that any witch or wizard could take to. Additionally the Order had access to two or more Invisibility Cloaks so no further disguise would be useful particularly when you have a Metamorphmagi and a Werewolf to hand also, not forgetting a man with a, somewhat misfunctional but still useful, magic eye. As far as creation of any other Map is concerned, firstly there is no evidence in the books that Dumbledore knows about the Map although it is quite probable he does. Secondly to expand on Louise's thoughts what purpose would there be in the creation of a Map? It appears that those who do not wish to be seen on such a Map (if any other existed for any other location) can make it so that they are not seen. Ergo there would be little value in creating such maps. What the current author is interested in is the other spies within the Order that have been alluded to but as yet not uncovered. Anyone care to discuss? Goddlefrood From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jan 15 23:54:29 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:54:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore not dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163812 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "irishshedevil333" wrote: > Here is an idea for everyone to think about: What if, despite > everything we have read, Dumbledore is not dead. Being a powerful > wizard as he is, perhaps he is in some way hiding. Just because a > casket was buried does not mean that he is dead. If Voldemort can keep > himself alive when everyone thought he was dead, then why is it not > possible that Dumbledore might not find a way to do the same? wellll....it is more than "despite everything we have read".... Rowling herself stated that Dumbledore is dead, dead, dead... she stated, back in august 2006 at Radio City Music Hall in NYC thatio City Music Hall in New York City, that Dumbledore is "definitely" dead. colebiancardi (can't get any deader than definitely) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 00:01:25 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:01:25 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163813 > >>Jen: Harry figuring out how to destroy each and every horcrux > sounds like a stretch to me at the moment, unless Harry the Horcrux > has a natural understanding of how to destroy them all. So your > idea appeals to me much more and fits the theme of Harry acting as > a uniter and Voldemort as the divider. The only thing I'm > wondering about is...the diary wasn't a Gryffindor horcrux, > really. Oh, but it was a *Muggle* horcrux container--wonder if > Harry's blood status had anything to do with being able to destroy > it? But no, that doesn't work because Dumbledore seemed to have an > extremely hard time with the Slytherin ring horcrux and he's > supposedly pureblood. Ack, my head is spinning now! Betsy Hp: I'm not really married to any particular methodology -- just *something* to get members of each House working together! But it may be that rather than a *set* rule of how a horcrux gets destroyed (ie: Luna the Ravenclaw, Harry the Halfblood) each student will have an original connection to the Horcrux. So for example, Magpie's idea about Regulus charming the locket to respond only to a (pureblood?) member of the House of Black will bring Draco into destroy (or make vulnerable) that horcrux. But Zach will come into play with the Hufflepuff cup for an entirely different reason. I do like the idea of Harry having a special connection with Voldemort proper (I suppose that means I like the Horcrux!Harry theory?) and that being a big reason he was able to so easily destroy the diary. But the diary was really linked to Tom Riddle, not to any Founder or even Hogwarts in the end. So there was a personal connection there that I'm not sure the other Horcruxes (at least, the Founder specific ones) will have. Because Regulus (and yes, I'm running with that particular assumption ) stole the "Slytherin" Horcrux, I think he's put his own fingerprints all over it. So there's an extra layer of connection that Harry isn't as privy to. (Despite Sirius being Harry's godfather, Harry is not a Black.) Which is why I love Magpie's theory so much. I've also thought a bit about the "Gryffindor" Horcrux, and we're not actually sure there is one, right? I mean, we know there's a Slytherin (locket) horcrux and Hufflepuff (cup) horcrux. But Dumbledore just guessed that there'd *either* be a Gryffindor *or* a Ravenclaw horcrux and then Nagini. Since I think the Hogwarts Houses uniting will be essential, and since I think it makes sense to tie that union with the horcrux hunt, I guess I'm assuming that there will be a Ravenclaw horcrux. Otherwise, how will Ravenclaw be involved? Which means either there is no Gryffindor horcrux or the Gryffindor horcrux is Harry. If Harry's the Gryffindor horcrux I'm doubting JKR will use Neville as the Gyrffindor representative. It'd be a waste of an opportunity to show the importance of Ginny in Harry's life I think. In yet another assumption (boy, this is *such* a house of cards!) I think Harry will go through a sort of death and resurrection at the end of DH, either to destroy the horcrux within him, or to battle and destroy Voldemort (or both for that matter). If a Gryffindor needs to provide a helping hand to Harry at this moment (and I'd guess the help would be in the form of an anchor or connection to life) it'd make more sense for Ginny (love of Harry's life) to play that role than Neville. > >>Jen: > > Not to mention a major theme in OOTP was Harry dealing with the > ambiguous nature of good/evil. > > And now I can't help but think there will be more to the family > story, that JKR is *not* going for the Good Weasleys/Bad Blacks > dichotomy. Betsy Hp: Yeah, I've always been *really* uncomfortable with the Weasleys as "perfect family". (Actually, I think part of my deep dislike of Molly has sprung from so many fans trying to shoehorn her into the "perfect wife and mother" role.) Since JKR doesn't seem comfortable with making anyone "perfectly good", and since I've seen very few examples of "perfectly evil" (Voldemort is the only character to spring to mind), I also seriously doubt she means for us to see the Black family as evil. So, um, yeah. I agree! Betsy Hp (Congratulates anyone who might make some sort of sense of this rather babbling post. I certainly can't. ) From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 15 23:54:56 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (ANGIE) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 23:54:56 -0000 Subject: De-Horcruxing Harry (Was:Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163814 Annemehr: > I myself do think Harry is a Horcrux. Actually, I subscribe to > Talisman's theory that DD used Lily's murder to put LV's soul-piece > into Harry before the fateful AK (see, for example, the postscript to Talisman's message #163728). In any case, LV himself did not > deliberately make Harry into a Horcrux, therefore, he did not place > any special protective curses around him, either. > > And releasing that soul-bit will involve nothing worse than cutting > the scar open again. Then, the line we all have read so often will > literally come true: "it was as if Harry's head was splitting along > his scar." > Angie: I agree with this train of thought. I believe also that LV by accident left part of his soul in Harry's scar. DD told Harry that LV transferred part of himself unintensionally to Harry. Perhaps DD never mentions this scar horcrux theory to Harry to stop Harry from thinking he has to kill himself or try to rid himself of the scar in order to rid the world of LV instead of killing LV. I honestly hope that Harry does not die but goes on to become the greatest wizard that ever lived, I believe he will become a animangus in the form of a phoenix and that Fawkes has still an even more important part to play in his life or death. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 03:42:14 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 03:42:14 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163816 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > ... that there are passages in the books which really makes no > much sense. > > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure > there must be :-) > > Inge Mike: OK Inge, I'll play. :-) Since you were on PoA; 1) The whole Shrieking Shack scene bugs the bejeezes out of me, especially how Sirius is downright antagonistic towards Harry in the beginning of the scene, practically begging Harry to kill him. Saying things like, "there will be only one murder here tonight" and responding to Harry's accusation of killing his parents with, "I don't deny it." Talking lucidly while speaking cryptically to a kid standing over you with a wand and murder on his mind. Huh? In OotP; 2) Why was the MoM devoid of people (not counting the hidden DEs) when Harry and the gang show up? If it is this easy to get into the Hall of Prophesies, why bother with the whole ruse? Why didn't Voldemort just show up after his DEs cleared whatever path they cleared (by all appearances, not much clearing was needed), to take the prophesy himself and skeedaddle? It took all night for the Ministry and Fudge to show up and that was just barely in time to see Voldemort before he disapparates. Who was suppose to be guarding the hen house? From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 16 04:50:58 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:50:58 -0000 Subject: FILK: Someone Up A Tree Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163817 Someone Up A Tree (OOP, Chap. 24) To the tune of Someone In a Tree, from Sondheim's Pacific Overtures (Sondheim once said that he thought this was the best song he ever wrote ? I wouldn't rate it that high, but I still hope I've done it justice) Here's a well-sung, poorly filmed performance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0qlmuAvSp4 THE SCENE: During Occlumency lessons, SNAPE queries HARRY about a memory fragment 'Did you see everything I saw?' Harry asked, unsure whether he wanted to hear the answer. 'Flashes of it,' said Snape, his lip curling. `To whom did the dog belong?' 'My Aunt Marge,' Harry muttered. SNAPE summons HARRY down into the Pensieve to explore this memory further. YOUNG!HARRY has just been chased up the tree by RIPPER, as THE DURSLEYS and AUNT MARGE look on in merriment SNAPE Pardon me, what went on? HARRY: On the lawn? SNAPE At the Privet house. HARRY: At the Privet house? SNAPE: There was a dog It was whose? HARRY: Auntie Marge SNAPE (looking at Marge): Awful large HARRY: Very overweight And there were trees on their estate May I show you? SNAPE: Call me "sir"! HARRY: There were trees Then, everywhere. SNAPE: Please call me "sir"! HARRY: And there's that cur! Let me show you. SNAPE: Manners, please. HARRY: I was younger then Ripper had me climbing trees I was younger then Blamed for everything! I was hounded all the time I had also walls to climb I was younger then Blamed for everything! I on Ripper's tail tread Then he chased me and I fled I was someone up a tree! I was younger then! DURSLEYS (to Ripper): Give him third degree! YOUNG!HARRY I am up a tree. I am nine. I am up a tree. HARRY (to Snape): Must we linger then? MARGE: Underbred and weak, that I see ? Grief to your fam'ly. Let me have more wine. HARRY: I see Marge and Vernon Mercy they are spurnin'. MARGE This should give him a good scare! BOTH HARRYS: Blamed for everything! SNAPE You were someone up a tree. DUDLEY Filling me with glee! SNAPE Some of them have wine in their cups. YOUNG!HARRY One of them drinks wine. She's the meanest, then. SNAPE (looking at Dudley): Someone waddles `round, passing gas ? YOUNG!HARRY: Someone very dim ? HARRY: He is also nine. DURSLEYS And there's someone up a tree ? MARGE: ?So our day is now complete. DURSLEYS & MARGE Without someone up a tree, Nothing funny here. YOUNG!HARRY: I am hiding up a tree. HARRY: They would mock me every day. MARGE (to Vernon): Mean and runty, I must say That boy's sure to go astray MARGE & VERNON You/We must be severe HARRY: I was there then. YOUNG!HARRY: I am here still. They would foment every day. SNAPE It's young Potter, out to sea. YOUNG!HARRY, HARRY & SNAPE It is Ripper and the tree It's how Dudley laughs and beams It's Marge pouring out more wine At the Privet house, Someone up a tree. RIPPER Guardin' dog, I am here ? With my fleas, they are also here ? MARGE: I kept drinking cups of wine. RIPPER I was sleeping on the floor. MARGE: I drank many cups of wine (No, was it five or only four?) RIPPER: With my fleas, I am here. HARRY: You are where? RIPPER: In the Privet House. HARRY: In the Privet House? RIPPER: At Harry's rear. HARRY: Can you hear? RIPPER: I'm below. YOUNG!HARRY: So I notice. RIPPER: Sleeping on the floor, He then on my tail trod I must get him, For he on my tail trod. SNAPE: But did you growl? RIPPER: Yes, I did growl. Don't you listen? HARRY: Jeez Louise. RIPPER: I can hear him now I can hear his knocking knees I did chase him now I'd chase anything I'm the dog who's underneath, As I simmer and I seethe You can hear me now One is up a tree On my hind legs see me rear I'm what Potter truly fears. As I show off all my teeth You can hear me growl! DURSLEYS & MARGE Show us how you growl! RIPPER: First I give a yip and a yap Then I start to bark Then I sniff a bit Many times I hike with my leg As my jawbones snap As I go at it DURSLEYS & MARGE We hear Ripper grunting Angry growls He's hunting He can hear him, see him glare As he goes at it. He's a bulldog with some teeth YOUNG!HARRY Someone shifts his weight On a limb DUDLEY: Someone tells a joke. PETUNIA: Ripper wants a bite. MARGE: Someone stays up late. VERNON (indicating Young!Harry): Namely, him. YOUNG!HARRY I'm still up the oak. ALL Then we/they go at it: YOUNG!HARRY: Call him off! VERNON: Serves you right! PETUNIA: But she won't MARGE: And you know it! YOUNG!HARRY: This is wrong . PETUNIA: That's alright! DUDLEY: Now the line . MARGE: You will toe it HARRY (simultaneously with Snape and Marge below): And I'm stuck In the tree And I'm stuck Here with Snapey A- -Gain SNAPE (simultaneously with Harry and Marge):: You must clear It! Of the Feelings that be- -Tray MARGE (simultaneously with Harry and Snape above): And he Sits And he shakes And I drink Juice that grapey HARRY/SNAPE It's a Spent reali- -Ty That I/you Apprehensive- -Ly In the Pensieve see ALL It's the foment and the aunt. It's a Privet-driven theme. It is Ripper and the tree That bought Snapey here. It's Marge going to extremes It's two years before The Stone It's Occlumency And memory And someone up a tree. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Jan 16 05:32:44 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:32:44 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163818 >Magpie: >That sums up the way I see it. I've no doubt Snape has good reasons for taking the Vow that we don't understand in full yet. But I think he's making >the decision himself as a strategic move. Nikkalmati Agreed, that Snape is making a deliberate move here, but I don't think the motive is hidden from us by JKR. I think she intends for us to be able to figure it out. She is not holding back here. If Snape is taking the UV to placate or to please Narcissa, it seems grossly insufficient as a motive to me. The UV is a terrifying piece of magic. We know how upset Ron said his father was when the twins attempted to make him take one (what do you suppose they wanted him to do?) It is not easily evaded apparently. Unless you propose Snape is in love with Narcissa (for which we have no evidence), he cannot gain anything by swearing his life away to comfort her. I also cannot see that he need to impress Bella. In fact, he is swearing to do something LV wants Draco to do or to die attempting. He is going against LV's wishes and that is no way to impress Bella. I also don't think Snape would say to himself - well I plan to kill DD anyway so I might as well have this sword of Damocles hanging over me to give me a little extra motivation. Nikkalmati > Magpie: > It seems impossible to me that he's bluffing throughout the scene (it > also seems to make the UV into a pretty much a comedy). > > Carol: > I hope you mean that bluffing would make the UV a comedy, not that the > scene reads as one to you. It certainly doesn't to me even though I > believe that he's telling a lot of half truths (not bluffing about > knowing the task, at least the part about killing DD, but certainly > not letting them know his role in sending the Order to the MoM or > healing DD's injury or the nature of that injury, to name a few). >Magpie: >I agree--I didn't think it was a comedy at all. I meant that if Snape didn't >actually know what he was doing it becomes absurd because now he's done all this and he's running around trying to find out, "Draco, sweetie, could you give me a hint just what I've agreed to die if I don't do? I didn't get that memo..." >Even the UV scene, to me, loses a lot of its weight if Snape doesn't know what he's committing to. Right now it's written in a way that's ominous because everyone's talking about this awful deed that's to be done. If Snape's just bluffing then his lines are all fakes. "He means me to do it in the end," has no significance beyond Snape tap dancing to pretend he knows what he's talking about when he doesn't. I felt that bottom drop too when Snape agreed to the third provision, but if Snape doesn't know what he's doing it puts off that bottom dropping out until he finds out what he's done. Nikkalmati: This is my story and I'm sticking to it. (For now at least). I don't think it is a comedy, if Snape doesn't know what he has promised with the UV. It is even more of a tragedy. When he promises to do the deed if Draco cannot, he steps off a cliff with no bottom visible. I find that plenty distressing for Snape, especially as he didn't see it coming. Yes, that is exactly what Snape ends up doing - chasing Draco around. How many times did he request the little snake to come to his office and Draco defied him? Doesn't Snape look pretty ineffective in his interview with Draco during Slughorn's party? There is some real tragic irony here. Yes, "he means me to do it in the end, I think" is a bluff and a lie. We know that isn't true, because LV intends for Draco to fail and the instructions the DEs on the Tower have is to stand back and let Draco do it. Snape doesn't even pay lip service to those instructions. He runs in, blows DD away and drags Draco out by the scruff of his neck. Those were not LV's orders. If LV talked to Snape before Spinners End, his orders would have been to stand back and let Draco hang himself. If he had planned for Snape to kill DD, he could have ordered Snape to do it at any time. No, LV doesn't think DD can be taken out that easily by Draco or by Snape and as long as DD is at Hogwarts he wants Snape there too. LV is not going to order Snape to reveal himself by making a potentially useless murder attempt. Draco doesn't matter. He, unlike Snape, is expendable. Nikkalmati >Magpie >And--snipping the rest but connected to it--if you look at Snape's character >it's consistent for him to be putting himself in danger this way. He's a >double agent, and I think that's of his own volition as well. There's a reason, imo, that "If you are ready...if you are prepared..." is such a >memorable line in the series. Dumbledore isn't forcing Snape to play any >dangerous games with Voldemort either. At the end of GoF Snape is committing >himself to a dangerous situation as well. I'm sure if Snape refused at the >end of GoF DD would probably offer him protection without insisting he be a >double agent. This is the kind of thing Snape does.:-) Nikkalmati It is not in character IMHO for Snape to take foolish risks. He is putting his life on the line and I think there has to be a corresponding payoff. He doesn't risk himself unnecessarily. He knows he has a valuable part to play to bring down LV and he is not going to waste himself. It is in Snape's character to risk himself to find out vital information about what Draco plans to do and to position himself to stop it. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 16 06:01:07 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 06:01:07 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163819 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > Nikkalmati: > > This is my story and I'm sticking to it. (For now at least). I don't think > it is a comedy, if Snape doesn't know what he has promised with the UV. It > is even more of a tragedy. When he promises to do the deed if Draco cannot, > he steps off a cliff with no bottom visible. I find that plenty distressing > for Snape, especially as he didn't see it coming. Yes, that is exactly what > Snape ends up doing - chasing Draco around. How many times did he request > the little snake to come to his office and Draco defied him? Doesn't Snape > look pretty ineffective in his interview with Draco during Slughorn's party? > There is some real tragic irony here. Quick_Silver: That's an interesting way of looking at Snape during HBP because lately I've been wondering if the reader isn't supposed to compare the efforts of Harry and Snape (in regards to Draco) and, at least in my opinion, realize that Harry was really more "on the ball" with Draco then Snape was in HBP. So the irony there is that, unlike in OotP, its Snape and not Harry who is suffering because of their bad relationship (echoes of Sirius's death perhaps?). > Nikkalmati > It is not in character IMHO for Snape to take foolish risks. He is putting > his life on the line and I think there has to be a corresponding payoff. He > doesn't risk himself unnecessarily. He knows he has a valuable part to play > to bring down LV and he is not going to waste himself. It is in Snape's > character to risk himself to find out vital information about what Draco plans > to do and to position himself to stop it. Quick_Silver: Here's where I kind of disagree I think that Snape does sometimes take foolish risks. Maybe "foolish risks" is a bad term but sometimes I question the man's judgment with the two main examples being the Prank and his little monologue in the Shrieking Shack when he captures Sirius. I'd also question his methods for dealing with Draco (as I mentioned above) which seem to have a limited effect on Draco. Quick_Silver (realizing there is an inherent flaw in my argument Snape may have had great success spying on Draco and hence the Dumbledore/Snape knew as much/more then Harry) From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Tue Jan 16 05:41:48 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 05:41:48 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163820 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > > > > ... that there are passages in the books which really makes no > > much sense. > > > > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure > > there must be :-) > > > > Inge > Anne Squires: Okay, Inge, I'll bite. In PS/SS the stone is protected by a series of tests and enchantments that a group of eleven year olds with only one year of training can bypass. Yeah right. Oh and don't forget that Dumbledore and his expert staff had set up these layers of protection. If this is the best protection the WW has to offer then how safe is anything or anyone? Hogwarts is suppose to the be safest place aside from Gringotts which is breached early in the first book. Really makes me wonder how safe Harry is at Privet Dr. (I actually believe the tests were purposely set up not to protect the stone, but rather to test Harry. But it's still a plot hole.) In CoS Dumbledore and his staff have not figured out that a Basilisk is the Chamber's monster. What? Haven't they read FBAWTFT? Although, to be fair, the newest victims are petrified, not killed outright and the staff hasn't heard the hissing in the walls. Which brings me to another point. Just how big are Hogwarts' pipes anyway? A Basilisk seems to go unimpeded through them. Huh? Also, access to the Chamber which is a thousand years old is by means of a modern plumbing system. It seems to me that when the castle was renovated to include said plumbing system then whoever installed it would have noticed that their new pipes led to an underground Chamber. It makes no sense whatsoever that Salazar Slytherin had anything to do with installing a modern bathroom, yet through this bathroom one gains direct access to his "hidden" Chamber. It makes no sense at all. While I'm thinking about CoS, why did Fawkes bring Harry the hat and the sword? Why didn't Fawkes use his tears to heal Ginny? Then, why didn't Fawkes just let Harry grab Ginny and hang on as he flew out of the Chamber? That's how they ended up getting out anyway. I'll tell you why. DD wanted Harry to fight young Tom and the Basilisk. It's still a plot hole though, imho. About Sirius, why didn't someone interrogate the man under veritaserum? I realize that the MoM is not after the truth, but it seems that learning anything from Sirius under veritaserum would be beneficial knowledge. For that matter, why aren't all prisoners questioned under veritaserum? I suppose there must be ways around this, ways to resist. Yet, it still seems like a useful tool. Along these lines, why didn't DD legilimize Sirius? He would have quickly learned the truth. Then PoA would have never happened. (I actually think DD may have wanted Sirius out of the way for his own purposes. It's still a plot hole.) In GoF, why didn't fake Moody just turn one of Harry's quills (or anything that belonged to Harry) into a portkey early on? If Crouch Jr.'s goal was to kidnap Harry to raise his lord, why not do it a lot earlier in the year? Why the delay? By going through the TriWizard Tournament Harry learned a lot and gained a lot of confidence. Why force Harry to compete? Did LV want a better prepared Harry? Another thing that bugs me is the schedule (or should I say timetable?) for the teaching staff. The way I figure it, some staff members are teaching a minimum of twelve classes. (Flitwick, for example, would teach 2 first year classes, 2 second year, 2 third year, 2 fourth year, 2 fifth year, 1 sixth year, and 1 seventh year) On top of which many of these classes appear to be double at times. Some classes seem to meet a least three times a week, some even more often. This would also mean seven distinct preps. Does this strike anyone else as impossible? There just aren't enough hours in the week to teach this many classes, imho. Madame Hooch has the best schedule, it would seem. I get the impression that she teaches a few flying lessons to the first years. Then she's through with her teaching duties. Of course she supervises Quidditch on the odd weekend. Still, I think she has the best hours of anyone on the staff. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 16 07:45:36 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:45:36 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > > However, if a person is made into a Horcrux, where does the soul > piece reside? Indeed, what form does a soul fragment take? Where does > our own soul reside for that matter? Can we see it, touch it? > Carol responds: > First, Geoff, I'm with you that Harry is not a Horcrux and that he > won't die. So I'm not arguing with your basic position, just > responding to this fragment of your post. > I think we can safely say that the soul is not in the brain. A > Dementor sucks it out through the mouth, leaving the brain intact. > Memories can be safely removed from the brain of a person who has not > committed murder, so they're not the same as soul bits. A wizard who > has not committed murder can leave part of himself in an object > (portrait, Sorting Hat, Marauder's Map) that can subsequently interact > with other people. Clearly, memory resides in the brain (as we see > again in the brain room), but apparently the soul does not. The soul > apparently goes beyond the Veil when a person dies. The brain remains > behind, where it can be studied by wizards interested in thought and > memory. Those interested in death study what goes on beyond the Veil. > > I'm not sure, but I think that JKR's concept of a soul (as depicted in > the HP books, not her own Christian view) is something like the Latin > word "spiritus," meaning "breath, life, spirit" and related to the > concept of inspiration, or like the Greek word "pneuma," wind, breath, > spirit. The soul, in this view, would be the source of life (as > opposed to mere soulless existence, a la Barty Jr.) and the part of > the self that lives on after death. > I guess I'm saying that the soul in HP seems to be the breath of life > made tangible and divisible. > Carol, sure that the brain and the soul are distinct concepts in the WW Geoff: I see the brain and the soul as distinct concepts in the real world as well... I see your comment using "spiritus" as being compatible with my personal view of the Holy Spirit as a Christian - and possibly the view held by JKR. The Holy Spirit is God in the form in which he lives within a Christian. He is often likened to the wind or to breath - in the Bible description when he first came to the disciples after Jesus returned to heaven, the coming was described as being like a mighty rushing wind and there are many references to him as the "breath of God" Moving on, I have never suggested that the soul is in the brain; I posed a number of possibly rhetorical questions about the form the soul takes and how tangible it is. This arose out of a comment by another contributor that Harry's Horcrux (assuming it exists) might be located in his scar and my suggestion was that, if that was so, removal of the soul fragment might injure or kill Harry because of the scar's position. The point arose from the fact that the Horcruxes already dealt with were not destroyed but seriously damaged. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jan 16 08:17:34 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 00:17:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <858971157.20070116001734@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163822 Jeremiah: > Well, I would think that you can only find out the previous spell cast by a > wand but not a long line of them, Dave: Yet, in the graveyard, a whole sequence of LV's spells, going back in time, are regurgitated, and not just the AK's but the Crucios and Wormtail's silver hand. Eggplant: > In book 5 in > the final exam Harry is looking at Venus and Orion, but Venus can only > be seen near sunrise or sunset... Dave: Venus' status as an "inferior" planet (i.e. the limits on where it can appear in the sky due to its orbit lying inside Earth's) is a common oversight by the astronomically ignorant -- There is a scene in the film _Glass Bottom Boat_ where Doris Day and Rod Taylor are looking up at the full moon, and Venus is *right next to it*! Speaking of full moons, the other most "annoying" of Jo's celestial boo-boos is of course the fact that the full moon in the year of the climax of _PoA_ falls on *completely* the wrong day. -- Dave From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 08:27:22 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:27:22 -0000 Subject: What *Do* You know? Dumblodore Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163823 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: While I agree with your conclusions, especially your final conclusions regarding Lily, I have to take minor exception to your implied characterization of Dumbledore. Talisman: Hmmm. I wish you had defined the implication you read and to which you object. I hate to have to supply both sides of an argument. ;) Though I suspect, at some level, we really aren't arguing at all. My purpose in stressing DD's justification was to provide a guiding example of how Rowling uses *knowledge* as a qualifier when she makes misleading statements, within and about the texts. It was in no way to "vent frustration" for I find DD's antics very entertaining. Without him there would be no mystery, or any of the fun that comes with it. When I scold him, it is always with amusement sparkling in my eyes. See? ::sparkle, sparkle:: But, I'm not letting him off the hook, either. Where is the fun in that? Bboy: First, I must ask, is there really anyone in the world who thought for one slight second that Dumbledore was indeed 'telling Harry /everything/'? I certainly didn't. Talisman: Not I. Indeed IIRC this line was one of the pre-release teases and even then made me snort in my oatmeal. There was never any way DD was giving up the goods, as you say, even "several hundred notches from literally everything" in Book 5. I regret that you interpreted my post to say differently. Again, the point was the equivocal use of the term *know.* Far from being an expos?, Book 5 turned out to be the book where DD's dissembling was demonstrated most blatantly, for the benefit of those who had averted their eyes to subtler clues in earlier books. His final explanation to Harry not least among examples. I not only didn't think we had been told all, I'm on the record for scrutinizing the double talk. (Which is delightfully revealing in it's own way, nonetheless.) Harry, though, seems to have been misled, which was the point, after all. bboy: I'm as furious as anyone at Dumbledore's constant withholding of information from people (especially us dear loyal readers), though with him being a commander of sorts, I can understand it. Talisman: Oh, DD, like Rowling, is always tantalizing. We pant for our nuggets and then groan they aren't enough. We all know we want to solve the mystery, but never have it end. It's delightful, and tortuous. And, thus far, Rowling has been an obliging dominatrix. bboy: But in the conversation at the end of OotP, Dumbledore told Harry /everything/ relative to the content of the Prophecy and its interpretation by various people, and how the various interpretations contributed to the death of Harry's parent and Harry receiving his scar and becoming 'The Boy Who Lived'. That is the context of the discussion, and annoying as it might be, Dumbledore seems consistent in the context of the discussion and his role as 'commander'. Talisman: Well, if by all your qualifications you mean that DD told Harry as much as it suited DD's plan for Harry to know, how could I disagree? If you mean that DD adhered to his self-imposed knowledge/deduction construct, or revealed some of the most significant pieces of *known* information relevant to why Voldemort wants to kill Harry, I can't agree. For instance, I am sure that DD is the author of the Prophecy, and that the dynamics in play, and the inevitability of the final show- down, are his very creations. Do I expect him to tell Harry? Of course not. Does that change the nature of his behavior? Not a jot. DD lies. Why he lies is a different question. Whether his lies are good, is yet another. The following is not aimed at you, bboy, but it comes with the discussion on this point. I have argued DD's untruthfulness on another list. Especially some of the blatant episodes in Book 5, because apologists are never going to acknowledge the subtler evidence. In response I've been most unsportingly accused of being the type of person who would tell Nazi's where to find their victims, etc.--this though I wrote in the same post that I *approved* of DD's behavior. I put this down to the cognitive dissonance caused by rigidly dualistic belief systems. If it's bad, it's a lie. If it's good, it's got to be something else. To my sensibilities this merely compounds the situation by adding the element of personal disingenuousness. The HP series clearly communicates the message that lies can be both good and bad. In Rowling's world, it's context and intention that determine virtue. This is a frightening idea to some people, and I agree to a sufficient degree with Ernest Becker's theories of evil to understand why people become violent when their comforting constructs are jostled. Nonetheless, trying to have these types of explorations is a thankless task, usually resulting in wet-hen hate mail. As I posited, back in my old Guilty!DD posts, circa 2003, I fully expect that everything DD does is *for the good.* (Encompassing, I suspect, Rowling's theory of why there is evil in the world, and how it all fits into some greater plan.) I'm not so sure DD's plan is all about bringing Voldemort down. There is too much evidence of DD facilitating Voldemort, in the first place, for me to say that. But whatever part Voldemort plays in DD's larger plan, I'm sure it all works to some ultimate good. That doesn't change the fact that DD lies. Even if we agree with him, or think it's for the best reasons. bboy: Now in the conversation you quoted, Dumbledore has established a whole new context and a whole new set of /everything/ that needs to be disclosed. But you can't convince me, at least at this moment, that there are not many many other contexts, each with their own unique set of /everything/ to be told. I am certain that there was plenty more /everything/ that Dumbledore could have told if only he had lived. Talisman: We just seem to be on a different wave-length, relevant to this issue. I certainly never suggested that DD has told us all--or ever will. Indeed my long-standing record on DD is quite the reverse. I think, perhaps, what you are arguing is that DD can avoid dishonesty by being the sole arbiter of the undisclosed qualifications for what he says, even where he deliberately chooses what he reveals and what he conceals, with the intent to mislead, albeit to suit his *good* purposes. This, of course, is the Treatise on Equivocation, in a nutshell. > Talisman continues: > This little _ex post facto_ qualification--which violates > the Cooperative Principle of communication, not to > mention the Maxim of Completeness (where doing so, with > the expectation that the *listener* will not perceive > the violation as a part of the original communication, > is a primary marker of deception)--blatantly reveals > the epistemological fan dance that we can expect to > encounter, elsewhere. ... > bboyminn: OK...? Is that real, or did you just make up that CPoC and MoC? Talisman" : ) These are absolutely legitimate linguistic terms attributable, I believe, to the seminal work of the late H. Paul Grice. Actually, IMO, DD violates more than the CP and Maxim of Completeness, he trashes the Maxims of Quality and Manner, too, but who's counting. bboy: Also, while true in general communcation, I seriously doubt that the CIA, NSA and the Military have the CPoC and the MoC written into their by-laws. Talisman: Well, the Principle and the Maxims are like the law of gravity. They are there whether you want them or not. What you are saying is that you would expect people involved in covert operations to violate them on a regular basis. All I can say is: sure. bboy: I highly suspect they operate on exactly the opposite principles as would a man like Dumbledore. Talisman: And I highly suspect they all lie like rugs. But then, those are the little acronyms I offered, back in the day when such things were in vogue: R.O.L.L.A.I.D.S: Rowling obviously lies like an inveterate Dumbledore & D.O.L.L.A.R: Dumbledore obviously lies like a rug. bboy: Still you make some very good points and I confess I share your frustration, though I have to say, I saw it coming. Talisman: I'm glad we can agree on Lily. I promise, I'm not frustrated. I love DD, no matter how *naughty* he is. Look at my eyes. ::sparkle sparkle:: Whatever Rowling doesn't disclose outright by the ending, I feel confident I can ferret out for myself. bboy: Like I said, I didn't believe for one second that in either conversation nor both of them combined together did Dumbledore even remotely tell Harry everything that Harry needs to and really should know. Talisman: Neither do I bboy, and as I said in Dark Mirror, it will be interesting to see how Harry reacts if, as I expect, he starts to see behind the curtain in Book 7. Cheers, Talisman From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 16 08:49:40 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:49:40 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701151514u6f8bf64qad9828ac5113f4a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163824 Jeremiah LaFleur" wrote: > Ok,I gues you're counting Petunia and Vernon. Not Dudly. No, I'm counting Petunia and Dudley, Vernon doesn't enter into it. Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents and 8 great great grand parents; after a thousand years and 40 generations the number becomes huge. HUGE! That's why you're almost certainly related to the Emperor Charlemagne; but as I said before I'm just nitpicking and JKR is still a genius of the first magnitude. In the really important stuff JKR got it right. eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 09:18:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:18:41 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me - Relatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163825 ---eggplant107" wrote: > > Jeremiah LaFleur" wrote: > > > Ok,I gues you're counting Petunia and Vernon. Not > > Dudley. > eggplant: > > No, I'm counting Petunia and Dudley, Vernon doesn't > enter into it. bboyminn: I don't understand the whole 'only living relative' controversy. I think what we logically should read is 'only /significant/ living relative'. I'm sure I have a 12th cousin somewhere but the path back to our common ancestor is probably pretty convoluted. On one hand I can trace relatives back through my father's side to one of the signers of the Declaration of Independance. Yet, no member of my direct line of acendants has live in the USA outside the 20th Century. > Eggplant continues: > Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents and > 8 great great grand parents; after a thousand years > and 40 generations the number becomes huge. HUGE! > That's why you're almost certainly related to the > Emperor Charlemagne; but as I said before I'm just > nitpicking... bboyminn: We have Petunia who is Lily's sister on hand, and alternately we can try to track down Harry's 12th cousin somewhere, but would that obscure cousin even no or care who Harry was? I don't think so. There is a point where the /blood/ becomes so thin as to be irrelevant, especially when a direct aunt is available. So after all that blathering, what I am saying is that technically Harry probably has other blood relatives, but that 'blood' is too thin to be significant. The relationship is too distant to matter. So, yes, Harry has many blood relatives, but the degree of 'blood' relationship it too insignificant to matter. For what it's worth, though I'm sure not much. Steve/bboyminn From scarah at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 09:39:59 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 01:39:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What *Do* You know? Dumblodore Context In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701160139u194c83e8m946b4a499b47637e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163826 Talisman, in general I am interested in your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I have a few questions, though. Talisman: For instance, I am sure that DD is the author of the Prophecy, and that the dynamics in play, and the inevitability of the final show- down, are his very creations. Sarah: What do you suggest are the mechanics of the seemingly legitimate Pensieve recreation of Trelawney giving the prophecy? For this theory to be true, either Dumbledore has her under the Imperius Curse or similar, or he has, for lack of a better word, Photoshopped the memory. The 'shopping seems more in character, and I wouldn't trust Harry to recognize a 'shop, but I'm curious how you would explain it. (There *is* canon of Harry recognizing the telltale signs of an obvious (what I'm calling) 'shop in the Pensieve, but that's in the much different context of going inside the memory, rather than the memory's personification rising out of the basin. I think the difference in mechanics is sufficient cause to speculate on a difference in counterfeitability.) Talisman: I'm not so sure DD's plan is all about bringing Voldemort down. There is too much evidence of DD facilitating Voldemort, in the first place, for me to say that. Sarah: I think there is evidence of facilitating Voldemort, but isn't the purpose of it to get Voldemort "right where we want him?" I'd like to hear more on this. If Dumbledore knew about GH and allowed it, what's the purpose if Dumbledore dreamed up the prophecy on his own? (Honest question, not facetious.) If Dumbledore did not invent the prophecy, I assumed *Dumbledore chose* Harry over Neville and may have subtly encouraged Voldemort in that direction. If Dumbledore facilitated Pettigrew's escape, and the subsequent events at the graveyard, that has more obvious benefits toward the goal of bringing down Voldemort. It's hard to get an invisible target roaming the floor of the Albanian forest. And I definitely agree with regards to Lily. 'Kill me instead" does not make any sense on the surface of this situation. If it were say, a carjacking ("leave Harry on the side of the road and then you can do what you want with me") or maybe a bank robbery hostage situation ("give Harry to the SWAT team outside and then you can do what ever you want with me") I could buy it, but who (lacking some other knowledge or as you put it "belief") would think that would hold any water in this kind of home invasion? Most people would just think that if they died first, they'd be leaving the baby at the whim of the bad guys. Which would normally be a correct thought. Sarah From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 14:39:35 2007 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:39:35 -0000 Subject: What *Do* You know? Dumblodore Context In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Hey Steve, Okay, so in the middle of the night, last night, when I was imprudently replying to your response instead of sleeping, I couldn't understand why you thought I was upset about DD's not having told *absolutely everything.* But, somehow, as I was staring like a zombie at a stop sign in the gray light of dawn, it became clear to me that it was due to my quip about *reaming* someone if they *pulled that on me.* I may have managed to cover this in my overly informative reply, but let me try again, now that I think I see the nub of the issue. My problem, in this particular instance, is not with DD's limited revelations, but with the *lameness* of DD parsing his earlier statement the way he did. I do think it was a bit incompetent--and intentionally over the top-- for DD to tell Harry that he was going to tell him everything. But that alone wouldn't have been ream worthy. When Harry challenged DD, DD might have done well to respond as you did: "Well, Harry, it'd be rather hard to cover literally everything, don't you think? But I did try to convey the essential reason Voldemort is after you. Now I'd like to tell you about ," etc. (He would still be dissembling, but I'm used to that.) Instead he chose that silly business: "Oh I *did* tell you everything...everything I *knew.* Which, besides being untrue, is just...groan-worthy. Really, the only people who have played the *I think* vs. *I know* game with me are fairly young children who are exploring the meaning of their world. DD should be rather farther along Piaget's hierarchy, in my opinion. If a five-year-old explains that they didn't tell you the hamster was loose, because they only *thought* it was loose, they didn't *know,* you might be able to stand it. If a forty-five-year-old pulls that, you're going to want to swing the empty cage at their head. I'm sure you wouldn't, but you'd want to, and a withering glance would certainly be in order. Along with a hearty WTF?! Hope that clarifies, Talisman PS I think Rowling thinks it's lame, too. We are supposed to say a hearty .well, you know. From antonia31h at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 08:14:56 2007 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:14:56 -0000 Subject: Snape, a vampire? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163828 I heard some theories which state that Severus might indeed be a vampire. He has the looks, the attitude etc. Is there any real evidence on this? Did JKR mention anything about this? Antonia From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 15:20:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:20:32 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701151350wcfec83cp123546b72347d3a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163829 Jeremiah wrote: > > Well, I would think that you can only find out the previous spell cast by a wand but not a long line of them, so if you were going to try to hide something you can cast another spell and be safe. (of course, if Sirus is accused of AK'ing Pettigrew and then they find something like Alohamora then it would look suspicious, woudn't it?) > > I think this is the reason because it is called "Priori Incantatum" is singular. We might be confusing it with "Prioir Incantata" wich is plural and is what happened with LV and Harry. So, with any other wizard I would think you can only go one spell back but with Harry and Voldemort you can go back all the way to the very beginning. Carol responds: Erm, no. The spell that Amos diggory casts on Harry's wand to determine the last spell cast is Prior Incantato, singular (GoF Am. ed. 136). The effect of the brother wands in conflict with each other is Priori Incantatem (GoF, title of chapter 34). It seems perfectly possible to cast a Priori Incantatem spell to discover an indefinite number of spells cast by the wand. I wonder, in fact, if the DEs periodically "clean" their wands using this spell (Of course, the presence of Prior Incantato/Priori Incantatem would in itself be suspicious, but it would remove evidence of any darker spells.) So, IMO, the Aurors would not have examined the wand because they would have destroyed the evidence. However, Barty Crouch Sr. could have used Priori Incantatem to determine whether that wand had cast the spell that blew up the street (they would know what the spell was either from its effects or from the MoM spell detector that told them such a spell had been cast in the first place). The absence of either that spell or some form of Priori Incantatem would be strong evidence, if not proof, that that wand had not been used to blow up the street, but it would not be proof of who had used the wand (see GoF, where Winky is accused of casting the Dark Mark because the "guilty wand" is in her possession). Granted, Barty Sr. could and should have used the spell to determine Black's guilt. Why didn't he? Because, IMO, it was an open-and-shut case. The witnesses had heard Peter Pettigrew say, "James and Lily, Sirius. How could you?" They had seen Sirius Black raise his wand and perhaps cast some spell; otherwise, they would not have claimed that *he* had blown up the street. They had *not* seen Pettigrew raise his wand; it was behind his back. They had seen the street blow up, killing twelve Muggles. They had seen Pettigrew vanish, with nothing left but a bloody cloak and a finger. (Fudge claims that there were other "fragments" though that seems unlikely; maybe they were bits of a Muggle?) The Aurors arrived to find an armed and maniacally laughing Sirius Black, a Pettigrew who has apparently been blown to bits, and a number of Muggle witnesses all telling the same story. And then Dumbledore tells Crouch that Black was the Potters' Secret Keeper. Why would Crouch or anyone else think to examine Black's wand--or the "dead" Pettigrew's--to determine which of them had cast the spell? If Black had behaved differently (personally, I think he was temporarily insane from grief and rage), if he had calmly stated the facts, even admitting to being an illegal Animagus as evidence that PP was one, too, and offered his wand as evidence or suggested that they check Pettigrew's, he could have been proven innocent (though he'd probably have had a short term in Azkaban for being an unregistered Animagus). But he must have thought that the evidence against him was overwhelming. Or perhaps, having lost James and Lily (and denied custody of Harry) and failed to bring PP to justice, he just gave up, laughing madly and bitterly at the irony of fate. He could have asked to talk to Dumbledore or to Lupin. He did nothing. I'm not blaming him. Under the circumstances, I'd have given up, too. (Okay, I wouldn't have gone running after Pettigrew to seek revenge, but aside from that . . . .) I'm just trying to explain why I think that Crouch et al. didn't use Priori Incantatem on Black's wand. They weren't looking for a scapegoat. They were certain that they had the right man. Carol, noting that Black could have averted the whole fiasco by going to Dumbledore rather than seeking vigilante justice against Pettigrew From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 15:42:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 15:42:57 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163830 Inge wrote: > I'd still like to know about other reader's irritation-points as to > where stuff doesn't make much sense. > Carol responds: I'm annoyed by the inconsistencies, particularly "the legendary Charlie Weasley." How can it be that Gryffindor has not won the championship since Charlie left, which would be the year before SS/PS if he's the age JKR says he is (three years older than Percy), yet they haven't won the cup for seven straight years in both SS/PS and PoA (which should make it nine years, if she's going to be consistent). Now, granted, I could pretend that Charlie is really seven years older than Percy, so that he would have left school the year before Percy entered, but then JKR has Bill, who's two years older than Charlie, say that he hasn't been to Hogwarts for five years (GoF). That would make *him* 22 or 23 and Charlie 20 or 21--two or three years older than Percy, as JKR said in an interview--which makes nonsense out of "the legendary Charlie Weasley" who could have played Quidditch for England. And then there's the stuff about Ogg, the gamekeeper before Hagrid whom Molly Weasley remembers, and Apollyon Pringle, Filch's predecessor, who punished Arthur Weasley so badly that he still has the scars. If those two were at Hogwarts when the adult Weasleys were students, how could the Weasleys have married just out of school when VW1 was beginning? We know that Filch was the caretaker when the Marauders went to school the year after the Weasleys supposedly left, and we know that Hagrid became gamekeeper soon after he was expelled. He would certainly have been gamekeeper by the time the Weasleys were in school if they're only seven years older than the Marauders (he'd have been in his forties by then), and even if he were still only the gamekeeper's assistant, how could Molly not have remembered seeing someone that big on the school grounds? Carol, wishing that JKR had worked out a pre-Harry chronology and bought a calculator before writing the books From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 16 16:05:49 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:05:49 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Mike: > I am a Harry-is-a-Horcrux camper. Not to go into that so much as to > defend our camp on a point of order. Being in our camp does *not* > require us to believe that Harry is going to sacrifice himself in the > end. There are just as many Horcrux!Harry campers in Geoff's IWHTL > club as not . There are many > theories floating around as to how Harry can safely get the Horcrux > *OUT*, which of course means those people believe both in the Horcrux! > Harry and in IWHTL. > I guess I see "Harry as horcrux" like so many other plot theories at this point: they are a herd of Schr?dinger's cats. They are neither dead nor alive, they are both dead and alive, until we all finally get the chance to "observe" them. Then all the quantum-mechanical wave functions will collapse into a "reality". Whether or not we will like that reality is another question entirely and the answer will undoubtedly vary from individual to individual. I agree with Mike that Harry could be a horcrux and that this does not doom him. We know nothing really about how horcurxes are made or destroyed. Of the two examples we have, the diary has a hole in it and the ring has a cracked stone. It is true that the contents of the diary have been rather thoroughly destroyed but then they were in a very real sense a living part of Riddle, they would be destroyed when the soul bit died. The physical diary itself only has a hole in it. If Harry happened to have a soul bit embedded in that scar then he certainly could survive a cracked skull or having a bit of his skull removed as many modern accident victims and surgical patients survive these types of injuries and procedures. Could a horcrux be created accidentally? Well in some sense, no, it is a deliberate act. But the details of that process have been deliberately hidden from us and that in itself is suspicious. We simply do not know if the spell can be cast in advance to take effect once the murder has been committed or if it can only be cast afterward. If it is the former and if Voldemort had intended to make a horcrux of young Harry's skull then it is quite likely that the spell would have gone off as "scheduled". Like so many things it is unclear if Voldemort has considered this possibility and if he has what he believes happened that night. "Leave the boy for the Dark Lord" could be an indication that he knows, or suspects, that Harry is a horcrux. I don't consider the appearance of Tom Riddle during his school years a reliable guide to whether or not he had created a horcrux by the time of the Slughorn interview. He was a growing boy, of course his appearance changed during this period. It did not change in a way that made him unrecognizable or inhuman but it is reasonable to think that whatever changes had occurred by the creation of a single horcrux could have been masked by the changes one expects in an adolescent. Neither I, nor Dumbledore apparently, think that the point of Tom's questions to Slughorn were intended to uncover how to make a horcrux. They were directed at getting his reaction to the notion of multiple horcruxes. Tom either already knew how to create a horcrux or where to get that information, in my opinion. The fact that Dumbledore did not mention the possibility that he might be a horcrux to Harry is hardly conclusive. Dumbledore is famous for withholding information from Harry because he fears that Harry is not ready for it. This simply could be another case of that. Dumbledore never did get around to relating the story of how he disarmed the ring horcrux either and you would think *that* was information Harry needed to know too. I somewhat doubt that the diary would have been the first horcrux Riddle created. It seems a little too ordinary to have been the first but as Dumbledore says it may not have seemed so ordinary to Tom. I don't think that Tom's wearing the ring during the Slughorn interview is a reliable indicator that it was not a horcrux at that point. Tom was a cocky teenage boy. The species is known for doing inadvisable things while showing off. He may have been afraid of death but like most teenagers he would have thought it was years away anyway. There was plenty of time to hide it later and wearing a horcrux to class every day under Dumbledore's nose would be a very appealing stunt in Tom's eyes, if the ring were one at that point. Even if it was a private joke with himself. I haven't seen an argument yet that is sufficient to convince me one way or the other. A scar horcrux feels right to me but since many of you strongly disagree personal feelings aren't a reliable indicator either. Until Rowling finishes the chapter describing Voldemort's (presumed) demise there truly is no answer to the question. She could still go either way up until that point. Some of our favorite cats will live, some will die, we cannot know which is which until we have the books. Rowling will know before us, hopefully very soon now if not already, but *she* isn't going to spill the beans. She's part of the wave function. Ken PS: Here is a really wild theory that came to me one night this weekend when I woke for some reason. Could Dumbledore have been a horcurx? Tom did make a wand movement in that scene in Dumbledore's office and we were intended to believe that was when he cursed the DADA position. What if it had a different purpose entirely? What if Tom had become convinced that Dumbledore was the closest thing to a Gryffindor relic that he was likely to find? Even I am distrustful of thoughts that come in the middle of the night and yet.... From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jan 16 16:31:26 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:31:26 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163832 > Nikkalmati > Agreed, that Snape is making a deliberate move here, but I don't think the > motive is hidden from us by JKR. I think she intends for us to be able to > figure it out. She is not holding back here. Magpie: I don't think she's holding back either. I think she means the reason for Snape's taking the Vow to be a big question mark. We can't know it without knowing his true allegiance. So she's intentionally hiding it from us. Nikkalmati: > This is my story and I'm sticking to it. (For now at least). I don't think > it is a comedy, if Snape doesn't know what he has promised with the UV. It > is even more of a tragedy. When he promises to do the deed if Draco cannot, > he steps off a cliff with no bottom visible. I find that plenty distressing > for Snape, especially as he didn't see it coming. Yes, that is exactly what > Snape ends up doing - chasing Draco around. How many times did he request > the little snake to come to his office and Draco defied him? Doesn't Snape > look pretty ineffective in his interview with Draco during Slughorn's party? > There is some real tragic irony here. Magpie: This paragraph confused me on first reading because I had no idea what the story was you were sticking to. Now that I've read the post I realize that you meant that Snape is taking the Vow in order to find out what Draco is up to. There's tragic irony to the scene regardless of whether Snape knows the task. What makes it comical to me if he doesn't is that every line of Snape's in the scene is really saying, "Um, what are we talking about, exactly? Could somebody give me a hint?" The tragic irony is lost on Snape himself, because he as yet has no idea what it is he's agreed to do. He's got to wait a while before that dramatic moment comes--and when it does we never see it. I find it hard to believe Rowling would write a tragic story all about somebody agreeing to do something terrible without realizing it and then forget to write the moment where the person has that terrible realization. Yes, Snape looks ineffective in trying to chase after Draco--but that can't be blamed on Draco being a little snake and does not require Snape to have taken the Vow to find out the truth. In fact, once again imo, we're given a scene where Snape's trying to find out what the task is where he's given lines that don't match up to that in a way that Rowling really doesn't usually do. Snape's lines to Draco in the Xmas party scene, imo, make far more sense if he's trying to find out what Draco is specifically doing to fulfill his task than if he's trying to figure out what the task is. Nikki: > Yes, "he means me to do it in the end, I think" is a bluff and a lie. We > know that isn't true, because LV intends for Draco to fail and the instructions > the DEs on the Tower have is to stand back and let Draco do it. Snape > doesn't even pay lip service to those instructions. He runs in, blows DD away and > drags Draco out by the scruff of his neck. Those were not LV's orders. If > LV talked to Snape before Spinners End, his orders would have been to stand > back and let Draco hang himself. If he had planned for Snape to kill DD, he > could have ordered Snape to do it at any time. No, LV doesn't think DD can be > taken out that easily by Draco or by Snape and as long as DD is at Hogwarts > he wants Snape there too. LV is not going to order Snape to reveal himself > by making a potentially useless murder attempt. Draco doesn't matter. He, > unlike Snape, is expendable. Magpie: You're answering a lot of questions here, but none of them seem to back up the idea that Snape took the Vow to find out the task. Snape's line here does not have to be a complete lie just because of LV's orders as shown on the Tower. Snape's full line is to say that "He" means Snape to do "it" in "the end," but that he means for Draco to "try first." In the unlikely event Draco succeeds, Snape can stay at Hogwarts a while longer, Snape says. It would be totally in character for LV to like the idea of Dumbledore being killed by Snape to drive home the betrayal and Dumbledore's mistake at trusting Snape. Only Snape and Voldemort are privvy to Voldemort's feelings about Snape as a double agent. Snape could very well understand correctly that killing Dumbledore is something he wants Snape to do *in the end*. That, in any event, is what he is saying to Bellatrix and Narcissa, who do know what the task is. He's telling them that Voldemort intends for Snape to eventually be the person who kills Dumbledore, but that he is still demanding that Draco try to kill him first. He understands that his killing Dumbledore will spell the end of his time at Hogwarts. If he's truly working blindfolded here, he's pinned the tail right on the donkey. It's a good thing Draco's task really did fit all that. That's part of the oddness of Snape in the scene if he's gathering information--he does most of the talking instead of letting anyone else fill things in. > Nikkalmati: > It is not in character IMHO for Snape to take foolish risks. He is putting > his life on the line and I think there has to be a corresponding payoff. He > doesn't risk himself unnecessarily. He knows he has a valuable part to play > to bring down LV and he is not going to waste himself. It is in Snape's > character to risk himself to find out vital information about what Draco plans > to do and to position himself to stop it. Magpie: But you've just had him take a completely foolish risk unnecessarily. It sounds smart when you say "risk himself to find out vital information about what Draco plans to do and to position himself to stop it." The trouble is that description doesn't fit what he's supposed to be doing. If Snape's goal is to find out what Draco's task is, his behavior should show that in Spinner's End. Yet his behavior in Spinner's End doesn't show getting information as a priority. At one point he even literally stops someone from giving him the information he so desperately wants! If he's bluffing he's completely forgotten to do so in a way that draws out information from the other people. The only place in the scene where he's allegedly actively doing something to find out the secret is where he takes the Vow...an action that isn't related to getting a secret at all. Why would agreeing to do some undisclosed thing on pain of death reveal to you what the undisclosed thing is? It doesn't. It's only after he takes the Vow that Snape has to start frantically trying to get Draco to tell him what he's been told to do--he apparently didn't manage to get it out of Narcissa and Bellatrix even after he took the Vow. The Vow as an attempt to find out information is never referenced again. And why doesn't Dumbledore just tell Snape what the task is, btw, since he seems to know perfectly well for most of the year? Why is he making Snape chase after Draco to get him to tell him when he's got no trouble figuring it out himself that I can see? In fact, why hasn't Snape figured it out by the time of the Xmas party when he's seen the first murder attempt? By that point a big portion of the audience has figured it out (if they hadn't already in Spinner's End), and it's not often we're ahead of Snape. Then there's the question of why Snape kills Dumbledore, which it leaves open (Snape didn't stop Draco). If he only took the Vow to find out the task, why does he go through with it himself? To save his own life at the expense of Dumbledore's? That's fine, but it makes Snape's motivations all about Snape himself rather than anything he's trying to do for anyone else, and so far we haven't seen anything about the dramatic fallout of that between Snape and Dumbledore. It makes Dumbledore's death essentially a sacrifice to protect Snape all due to this mistake of Snape's that isn't really referenced. If Snape knows what Draco's supposed to do I think it makes far more sense at every level. Snape is chasing Draco not to find out what his task is, but to find out how Draco is trying to carry it out so that he can run interference. He took the Vow for some reason that had to do with killing Dumbledore or agreeing to kill Dumbledore upon the pain of death--not for a reason that doesn't really follow from what he's doing and is never linked to his actions in the book. That seems far more in keeping with the book's climax where the two boys (Draco and Harry) learn that Draco has been being watched as he tried to become a murderer. The only person for whom Draco's task seems an important surprise seems to me to be Harry. (The surprise for Snape and Dumbledore seems to me to be Draco's method of killing Dumbledore--the Cabinets.) Plus, if we were really supposed to have figured out that Snape took the Vow in order to find out "vital information about what Draco plans to do so that he can position himself to stop it", wouldn't we all know he was really DDM? -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 16:34:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:34:56 -0000 Subject: The Diary!Horcrux Great Debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163833 Carol earlier: > > His appearance has not changed since Harry sees him after in the > > diary memory, which obviously occurs before he's written the diary > > and placed that memory in it. That Tom, the Tom he encounters in > > the CoS, and the Tom who visits Slughorn (and has committed four > > murders) all look virtually identical. > > Mike: > The first one *is* the Diary!Tom, right? I'm not sure what you're > referring to. How can the first Tom be before he created the diary if it is the diary? As to indisputable, sorry, as I've just said above, it isn't indisputable that Diary!Tom looks that way after the first Horcrux since imo Diary!Tom is the *result* of the first Horcrux. > Carol responds: Sorry to be unclear. The first Tom is *not* the Tom that Harry encounters in the Chamber of Secrets. There's the Tom in the *memory* that Diary!Tom takes Harry into, the memory of his framing Hagrid that he placed in the diary CoS chapter 13, "The Very Secret Diary," and there's Diary!Tom himself, whom Harry encounters in chapter 17, "The Heir of Slytherin." One is a memory, unaffected by the diary's being a Horcrux. Harry can only observe him as he later observes the various Pensieve memories, not interact with him in any way. He is as he was near the end of his fifth year, after he killed Myrtle but before he had created the diary that contains that memory. The other, Diary!Tom, is a nearly flesh-and-blood being possessed of most of Ginny's soul. They are not the same. The second one may be affected by the diary's being a Horcrux (note the red eyes) though I don't think he has yet killed his parents since he doesn't seem aware that his hated Muggle father is dead. The first, though he has killed Myrtle using the Basilisk, has not yet created the diary or even decided to place the memory of himself into it. He's just figuring out how to keep Hogwarts from closing and concluding that he has to close the Chamber of Secrets and frame Hagrid. Soon after that, he decides to create the diary as a way of carrying on Salazar Slytherin's "noble work." He does so by placing *that* memory, and perhaps others, in the diary (which he apparently enchants to make it interactive, much as the Sorting Hat is). The memory that he placed in the diary has to have occurred *before* he placed the memory it in the diary. Ergo, we're seeing Tom as he looked before he had created any Horcruxes. Also, I see no evidence that the Horcrux object has to be present at the murder scene. (Sorry--snipped that part of your post.) Did he have the diary in his pocket when he killed Myrtle or the Riddles? I doubt it. He didn't go to Little Hangleton intending to find and kill his father. He went there looking for the Gaunts, his Slytherin relatives. And when he found out about "that Muggle," he killed his father for revenge. Sure he took Morfin's ring, but he didn't kill Morfin. It was a souvenir, just like the harmonica, only more valuable to him personally. But he didn't make it into a Horcrux because, IMO, he didn't know how. By your logic, he couldn't have used the murders of the elder Riddles to make a Horcrux. He'd have to kill someone else because all he had at that time was the diary (Myrtle's murder, surely) and the ring (his father's murder). The other two murders were just wasted if he killed only to create Horcruxes. Also, he should have turned the ring into a Horcrux on the spot if he knew how to do so. The diary Horcrux, if it were a Horcrux and not just proof that he was the Heir of Slytherin, would have protected him from any harm. And though the cup and the locket were both present at the murder of Hepzibah Smaith, the murder was committed to obtain them. Only one of the objects, presumably the cup, could be made into a Horcrux using her murder. For the locket, he'd need someone else. By my reasoning, two soul fragments were available, from his Riddle grandparents. Either one would do, though he would probably prefer the grandfather's if he could distinguish between them, because he was concerned with eradicating the Riddle line. Why not use that one for the locket rather than taking the locket with him to commit some other, unknown murder, unconnected to his bloodline, which was by then extinct except for him? Nope. I just don't see the evidence that the object has to be present at the murder, and I take his questions to slughorn as very strong evidence that he didn't know how to create a Horcrux at that time. At any rate, my view that any murder splits the soul and the soul bit remains available until it's used in a Horcrux is irreconcilable with your view that the Horcrux object must be present at the murder, for which I can find no supporting evidence in canon. We'll never convince each other. I just wanted to clarify my view regarding the different Toms in CoS and why I'm sure we *do* know what pre-Horcrux Tom looked like. Carol, counting on a Grindelwald/Riddle connection to explain when and how Tom learned to create Horcruxes and still certain that he did not create one at age sixteen From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jan 16 17:11:17 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:11:17 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... Message-ID: <3639604.1168967477807.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163834 Anne Squires: > Just how big are Hogwarts' pipes anyway? > A Basilisk seems to go unimpeded through them. Huh? Also, access to >the Chamber which is a thousand years old is by means of a modern >plumbing system. It seems to me that when the castle was renovated to >include said plumbing system then whoever installed it would have >noticed that their new pipes led to an underground Chamber. It makes >no sense whatsoever that Salazar Slytherin had anything to do with >installing a modern bathroom, yet through this bathroom one gains >direct access to his "hidden" Chamber. It makes no sense at all. Bart: Check out the etymology of the word, "plumbing". It's a lot more ancient than you might realize. The problem was twofold; the first was that plumbing (as the name would imply) was originally lead pipes, which Muggles have found to be poisonous (and, according to some theories, helped to cause the fall of the Roman Empire). The second was that the need for plumbing is greater in cities, and, after the fall of Rome, many civilized places became ruralized. >Another thing that bugs me is the schedule (or should I say >timetable?) for the teaching staff. The way I figure it, some staff >members are teaching a minimum of twelve classes. (Flitwick, for >example, would teach 2 first year classes, 2 second year, 2 third >year, 2 fourth year, 2 fifth year, 1 sixth year, and 1 seventh year) >On top of which many of these classes appear to be double at times. >Some classes seem to meet a least three times a week, some even more >often. This would also mean seven distinct preps. Does this strike >anyone else as impossible? There just aren't enough hours in the week >to teach this many classes, imho. Madame Hooch has the best >schedule, it would seem. I get the impression that she teaches a few >flying lessons to the first years. Then she's through with her >teaching duties. Of course she supervises Quidditch on the odd >weekend. Still, I think she has the best hours of anyone on the staff. Given the high school/college formula of just under an hour per class, it doesn't sound so bad. And there are a bunch of classes (and professors) that are not as well documented. Bart > > > >Lots of great events happening in summer 2007, so start making your travel plans now! > >Phoenix Rising: New Orleans, May 17 - 21 http://www.thephoenixrises.org/ >Enlightening 2007: Philadelphia, July 12 - 15 http://enlightening2007.org/ >Sectus: London, July 19 - 22 http://www.sectus.org/index.php >Prophecy 2007: Toronto, August 2 - 5 http://hp2007.org/ > >Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 17:11:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:11:14 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Horcrux (was:Hogwarts Houses Unite!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163835 Betsy Hp: > I'm not really married to any particular methodology -- just > *something* to get members of each House working together! But > it may be that rather than a *set* rule of how a horcrux gets > destroyed (ie: Luna the Ravenclaw, Harry the Halfblood) each student > will have an original connection to the Horcrux. > > So for example, Magpie's idea about Regulus charming the locket to > respond only to a (pureblood?) member of the House of Black will > bring Draco into destroy (or make vulnerable) that horcrux. But Zach will come into play with the Hufflepuff cup for an entirely different > reason. > > I do like the idea of Harry having a special connection with > Voldemort proper (I suppose that means I like the Horcrux!Harry > theory?) and that being a big reason he was able to so easily destroy the diary. But the diary was really linked to Tom Riddle, not to any Founder or even Hogwarts in the end. So there was a personal > connection there that I'm not sure the other Horcruxes (at least, the Founder specific ones) will have. Carol responds: While I agree that House unity will play a role and that Zacharias Smith is related to Hepzibah smith (and conceivably the Heir of Hufflepuff--note how snooty his father is), I don't think that Harry's destruction of the diary Horcrux resulted from any special abilities (other than loyalty to Dumbledore, which summoned Fawkes, who must have been ordered by DD to take along the Sorting hat, in which DD had concealed the Sword of Gryffindor) and the courage of a true Gryffindor, which enabled him to kill the Basilisk and have its fang available to stab the diary. and, of course, luck or instinct prompted him to stab it and destroy it. The venom may or may not have helped. (BTW, he doesn't repeatedly and murderously stab it as he does in the film--once is sufficient.) I think that Harry was able to destroy it so "easily" (after undergoing the ordeal of killing the Basilisk with Fawkes's help) because the diary was always intended to be interactive. Unlike the ring, and presumably the other magical objects that were made into Horcruxes, it would not need additional protections. It wasn't hidden; it was given into Lucius Malfoy's keeping to be used at an appropriate time. The others (except Nagini) exist solely to anchor Voldmort's soul to the earth. That's the whole reason for creating a Horcrux. It was, IMO, pretty stupid to turn an interactive object into a Horcrux (or, alternatively, to make it interactive at the same time it was made a Horcrux--sorry, Mike. It makes no sense.) At any rate, he didn't hide the diary as he hid the others, and he could hardly put a curse on it to prevent it's being used or opened as it was *intended* to be used. That's why Harry could destroy it so easily, in contrast to Dumbledore, who was cursed by the ring when he dared to crack it open and release the soul bit. For that reason, I don't think that he'll need a Ravenclaw and a Hufflepuff to help him destroy the cup and the tiara or wand or whatever the Ravenclaw Horcrux is. Nor do I think that Draco, part Black though he is, will play a role in destroying the locket Horcrux. If all that's required to destroy it is to open it, wouldn't Regulus already have done so? And if it were already de-Horcruxed by his opening it, why would he seal it again? IMO, it's probably cursed like the ring, and whoever gets past the seal that Voldemort placed on it will suffer a fate similar to Dumbledore's unless they're a Dark Arts expert like Snape or a curse breaker like Bill Weasley and can figure out a way to get around it. (Personally, I half-expect Bill to destroy it and be killed in the process. I don't think a near-death in HBP rules him out as a victim in DH.) Also, If Regulus charmed the locket so that no one but a Black could open it, his father or mother would surely have opened it out of mere curiosity. (It's obviously an heirloom of Slytherin, right?) And he couldn't risk having Death Eater Bellatrix or DE-wife Narcissa open it if they were guests in the house. And, again, if he'd already opened it himself, somehow surviving the experience, why would he lock it again? I'm sure that Voldemort locked it himself as an additional level of protection, with a curse as a last resort for anyone who got past the other protections (Inferi, green potion, locking spell). Carol, sure that Zacharias and Luna the Ravenclaw and Draco will all play a part in DH but equally sure they won't be opening or otherwise destroying any Horcruxes From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 17:20:31 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:20:31 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: <858971157.20070116001734@mindspring.com> References: <858971157.20070116001734@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470701160920l39568b69v7727b6ca0052674a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163836 Jeremiah: > Well, I would think that you can only find out the previous spell cast by a > wand but not a long line of them, Dave: Yet, in the graveyard, a whole sequence of LV's spells, going back in time, are regurgitated, and not just the AK's but the Crucios and Wormtail's silver hand. -------------------------- Jeremiah: Nice try, Dave, but you snipped the other portion of my explanation. (Or didn't read it). Teh difference between the spell used on Harry's wand for the Dark Mark and the event in the grave yard is that Harry's wand & the Dark Mark was found by using Priori Incantatum (singular) and then Dumbledore says "Priori Incantata" (plural) with the event that can only occur when wands are "brothers" and are used to duel. They aren't the same thing. No words were uttered in the Graveyard to make the wands lock and regurgitate LV's spells whereas you have to say something to have had Harry's wand puff out the Dark Mark at the Quiddich World Cup. I hope I'm not the only person who sees this difference. (And I'm sure I'm not.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 17:26:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:26:08 -0000 Subject: De-Horcruxing Harry (Was:Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163837 Angie wrote: > I believe also that LV by accident left part of his soul in Harry's scar. DD told Harry that LV transferred part of himself unintensionally to Harry. > Perhaps DD never mentions this scar horcrux theory to Harry to stop Harry from thinking he has to kill himself or try to rid himself of the scar in order to rid the world of LV instead of killing LV. > Carol responds: For the record, Harry's future scar was still an unhealed, open cut when he was placed on the Dursleys' doorstep. If a soul bit somehow got in there (on its own initiative?), how could it have stayed there without the incantation required to encase (seal) it inside the cut? The cut became a scar without any such incantation as part of the normal healing process. Certainly, Voldemort transferred some of his *powers* (Parseltongue and possibly possession) to Harry, and the scar formed a mind link between him and Voldemort, but that doesn't make it a Horcrux, which requires an incantation. (Slughorn: "There is a spell. Don't ask me!") I would join Lupinlore in condemning Dumbledore's behavior as "reprehensible" if he believed that Harry's scar was a Horcrux and neglected to inform him of that possibility. He lists the objects he believes are Horcruxes, and I think that he's correct. Carol, sure that accidental Horcruxes are contrary to canon From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 17:35:21 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:35:21 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470701151514u6f8bf64qad9828ac5113f4a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470701160935y28c5283esd36dcd91cca2a437@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163838 > Ok,I gues you're counting Petunia and Vernon. Not Dudly. No, I'm counting Petunia and Dudley, Vernon doesn't enter into it. Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents and 8 great great grand parents; after a thousand years and 40 generations the number becomes huge. HUGE! That's why you're almost certainly related to the Emperor Charlemagne; but as I said before I'm just nitpicking and JKR is still a genius of the first magnitude. In the really important stuff JKR got it right. eggplant ===================== Jeremiah: LOL. It's hillarious that I would have counted it that way. Yes, now I see where you were going with the idea that there should have been someone in the magical workd who would have had some scrap of Lilly's bloodline and be able to house Harry as a baby. It's sort of like how the Ms. Weasley is a Prewett. Weren't her borthers killed by LV or some DE's? (Or were they cousinc.. anyway...) so, now I understand that there should have been some "Potter" kin to have taken him in and given him a home. But I think Dumbledore was working on the Mother's magic (and I understand that JKR would think a mother's love is more imprtant... though I have a loving father and I think I would be a very loving dad given the chance...) So, she put Harry in Lilly's family and that's where things are still strange... What happened to Lilly and Petunia's parents? I know that I lost my Grandmother when I was in my 20's so maybe Lilly's grandparents are dead. So, I guess that would only leave Petunia. (*sigh* sadness...) Is that what you were saying? Because I would think that James' death would be just as important to Harry's livelyhood, giving him protection seeing as how James died for both his wife and son... So what happened to the Potter line? Where are Ma and Pa Potter? And you're right about there being lots and lots of family for Harry. I think he sees hundreds of them when he looks into the Mirror of Erised. The room was full. (in the movie they just have his mom & dad). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 17:42:35 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:42:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, a vampire? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701160942w56c2be7endb2deb27ee31885a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163839 I heard some theories which state that Severus might indeed be a vampire. He has the looks, the attitude etc. Is there any real evidence on this? Did JKR mention anything about this? Antonia ============================ Jeremiah: Ya know, I had thought that, too. then she wrote that one on her site and said No Way. I know, I know, I know, I know, I know... The bat references... Snape is always "swooping like a bat" in some way or other. He loves the dark. He loves the cold. I guess that it's actually due to the fact that Snape is just really odd... (bless is heart... I mean all of this in the best way...) But to anser your question: No, Snape is not a Vampire. However, we may find out that there is something important about the bat references... unless it's just been a great litereary way to give Snape all those "creepy" ( and to some out there.. sexy- though not to me...) quirks. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 18:11:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:11:29 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163840 Nikkalmati wrote: > Agreed, that Snape is making a deliberate move here, but I don't think the motive is hidden from us by JKR. I think she intends for us to be able to figure it out. She is not holding back here. If Snape is taking the UV to placate or to please Narcissa, it seems grossly insufficient as a motive to me. The UV is a terrifying piece of magic. Unless you propose Snape is in love with Narcissa (for which we have no evidence), he cannot gain anything by swearing his life away to comfort her. I also cannot see that he need to impress Bella. In fact, he is swearing to do something LV wants Draco to do or to die attempting. He is going against LV's wishes and that is no way to impress Bella. I also don't think Snape would say to himself - well I plan to kill DD anyway so I might as well have this sword of Damocles hanging over me to give me a little extra motivation. Carol responds: And yet Bellatrix expects him to "slither out of action." the last thing she expects is for Snape to agree to "do the deed" if it appears that Draco can't. He's spent the first half of the interview convincing her or his loyalty, and that work would be undone if he backed out of the UV, as would Narcissa's trust in him. I think he does respond to her with pity and agree to the first two provisions of the vow partly for that reason. But his primary motivation is almost certainly to help and protect Draco, which is what he agrees to do before Narcissa states the provisions of the vow. That's why he doesn't flinch or react during the first two provisions, which require him to watch over and protect Draco, whom he knows to be in grave danger of either being killed or commiting a terrible crime. He would have done so anyway as a friend of the Malfoys and as head of slytherin House. It's also what Dumbledore would expect him to do. He's used to risking his life for DD. He's doing so yet again. As for the third provision, I don't see how he could have escaped from it, bound as he was by ropes of fire. Certainly, he would have destroyed all he had accomplished with both women. Bellatrix would merely think that he was willing to kill Dumbledore if Draco failed, which would certainly clear away any suspicions that he was Dumbledore's man, or even disloyal to Voldemort in the end. "I think he means for me to do it in the end" would be sufficient explanation for the action. It wouldn't seem disloyal; it would seem quite the opposite, willingnes to rid Voldemort of the only one he ever feared. (Bella's objection is not that he's defying Voldemort; it's that he's robbing Draco of his chance for "glory" (which is why she later thwarts him by teaching Draco rudimentary Occlumency). But I also think that Snape hoped that he and DD could work together to keep Draco from confronting Dumbledore. I'm sure he thought that he was more likely to die from breaking the vow than he was to kill a wizard as powerful as DD, especially after he told DD about the vow. It was a calculated risk, and the primary goal was to keep Draco from killing DD--at all costs to Snape himself. Nikkalmati: When he promises to do the deed if Draco cannot, he steps off a cliff with no bottom visible. I find that plenty distressing for Snape, especially as he didn't see it coming. Yes, that is exactly what Snape ends up doing - chasing Draco around. How many times did he request the little snake to come to his office and Draco defied him? Doesn't Snape look pretty ineffective in his interview with Draco during Slughorn's party? Carol responds: I disagree. Snape finds out that Draco has "backup" other than Crabbe and Goyle (whom he has already placed in detention and presumably Legilimensed). That has to mean that he's working with Death Eaters. He also informs Draco that he's suspected of being connected with the cursed necklace incident and warns him against using amateurish tactics that can easily be traced to him. It's too late to stop the poisoned mead from being sent to Slughorn, but Draco ceases such dangerous tactics and focuses on the cabinet from that point on. He learns that Draco has a "plan" that's taking him longer than he expected (though Draco refuses to tell him what the plan is). He also deduces that Aunt Bellatrix is involved (teaching Draco Occlumency). I suspect that he saw something in Draco's eyes while Draco was wasting time talking ("I know what you're doing. I can block you.") I also suspect that he knew or guessed where Draco was when Filch found him upstairs (note that he looks both angry and a little bit afraid). If Snape doesn't suspect that Draco is using the RoR and that the girls who occasionally accompany him are the Polyjuiced Crabbe and Goyle, I'll be very surprised. All he needs to do is to question the real girls, using Legilimency if necessary, to discover that they have no knowledge of Draco's plans and no connection with him. Carol, who thinks that Snape and DD together had a very good idea of what Draco was up to--everything except the Vanishing Cabinet plan itself From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 18:12:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:12:52 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163841 > Mike: > In OotP; > 2) Why was the MoM devoid of people (not counting the hidden DEs) > when Harry and the gang show up? If it is this easy to get into the > Hall of Prophesies, why bother with the whole ruse? Why didn't > Voldemort just show up after his DEs cleared whatever path they > cleared (by all appearances, not much clearing was needed), to take > the prophesy himself and skeedaddle? It took all night for the > Ministry and Fudge to show up and that was just barely in time to > see Voldemort before he disapparates. Who was suppose to be guarding > the hen house? > zgirnius: I won't argue about Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, because you could be right. I just don't care, becaue I love that whole sequence WAAAY too much. On your second objection, I think the point of the ruse was to keep Voldemort out of it. If Harry had an ironclad alibi, the disappearance of the Prophecy would prove Voldemort's back. It would have lost him the advantage he gained because the Ministry refused to believe in his return based on Harry's word. (Stealing it from Harry is OK, though - just another raving of the disturbed, attantion seeking Harry Potter.) From chellblanc at aol.com Tue Jan 16 19:10:05 2007 From: chellblanc at aol.com (chellblanc) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:10:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore not dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: > wellll....it is more than "despite everything we have read".... > > Rowling herself stated that Dumbledore is dead, dead, dead... > > she stated, back in august 2006 at Radio City Music Hall in NYC thatio > City Music Hall in New York City, that Dumbledore is "definitely" dead. > > I wasn't aware of JKR's comments on DD being dead, so I always suspected that he might not be because of a line in HBP, The Lightning Struck Tower: "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine..." It sounds to me like he is referring to a *fake death* the WW's version of a witness protection program. And that perhaps JKR is hinting to a possibility for DD... I'm still new and I don't know if this has been discussed before. So my question is, what are some other interpretations of these lines? I have to assume after the Potter fiasco that he is not referring to a simple Fidelius Charm. chell From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Tue Jan 16 17:47:30 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:47:30 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163843 > Nikkalmati > It is not in character IMHO for Snape to take foolish risks. He is putting > his life on the line and I think there has to be a corresponding payoff. He > doesn't risk himself unnecessarily. He knows he has a valuable part to play > to bring down LV and he is not going to waste himself. It is in Snape's > character to risk himself to find out vital information about what Draco plans > to do and to position himself to stop it. > > Nikkalmati > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Lilygale here: I think that Snape knows (or at least has made a pretty good guess) about Draco's task at Spinner's End. He also probably knows (or guesses from Narcissa's speech and affect) that LV means Draco to fail. But neither Bella nor Narcissa know to what extent Snape is privy to Voldemort's intentions. Bella seems to be on the outs with LV after the Ministry fiasco. So Snape could lie to her, saying untruthfully "he (LV) means me to do it in the end" as a way for Snape to protect himself and Draco. This lie sets up a future expectation that may work in Snape's favor. Regardless of whether Snape knows Draco is planning on murdering Dumbledore, or simply thinks that Draco will be engaged in an unknown but obviously difficult and dangerous task, Snape knows that by stepping in himself and taking control of the situaion, it is likely to be to his (and Draco's) benefit. Some control over the end game is preferable to little-to-no control. The alternative, where Snape passively lets Draco play out a scenario without active involvement by Snape, sets up a situation less favorable to outcomes favorable to Snape and, if you assume DDM!Snape which I do, to Dumbledore. So for Snape to tell Bella in advance that 'he expects me to do it in the end', he is setting up the expectation that he will do the deed for Draco, and also setting up the expectaton among Death Eaters that Snape's actions are with LV's tacit blessing. Regardless of whether or not this is the truth, it would make it easier for Snape to maneouver in a crisis in future. From myboy41902 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 14:49:24 2007 From: myboy41902 at yahoo.com (myboy41902) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:49:24 -0000 Subject: What *Do* You know? Dumblodore Context In-Reply-To: <3202590701160139u194c83e8m946b4a499b47637e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163844 > Sarah: > What do you suggest are the mechanics of the seemingly legitimate > Pensieve recreation of Trelawney giving the prophecy? For this > theory to be true, either Dumbledore has her under the Imperius > Curse or similar, or he has, for lack of a better word, > Photoshopped the memory. The 'shopping seems more in character, > and I wouldn't trust Harry to recognize a 'shop, but I'm curious > how you would explain it. > (There *is* canon of Harry recognizing the telltale signs of an > obvious (what I'm calling) 'shop in the Pensieve, but that's in the > much different context of going inside the memory, rather than the > memory's personification rising out of the basin. I think the > difference in mechanics is sufficient cause to speculate on a > difference in counterfeitability.) I would like to ask what evidence you can present to the fact that Dumbledore's memory of Trelawny's prophecy being 'tampered' with? In book 6 Slughorn reworks the memory of explaining the horcruxes to Voldemort and we know immediately because of the 'large ammount of smoke' that ends up filling the room when Dumbledore and Harry enter it. Also- if Dumbledore really did plant the memory on Trelawney, how does she end up making yet another prediction in book 3, and in the strange voice with her eyes rolling all around- as they've said so many times- someone under the imperius curse shows hardly any signs of being placed under. If we take the prophecy as being true-which JKR has said many times that it is worded very particularly for a reason- it says "Voldemort will mark him as his equal' thus proving that Dumbledore could not have chosen Neville or Harry- Voldemort had to do that all by himself. Also worthy of note is that he ends up choosing the boy that most closely mirrors himself- half blood, orphaned, they both come from almost the same backround- raised in terrible places- yet they both turn out so differently- Why? myboy41902 From myboy41902 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 14:55:10 2007 From: myboy41902 at yahoo.com (myboy41902) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:55:10 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me - Relatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163845 I believe Dumbledore puts Harry with Aunt Petunia because she is the relative that is most closely related to Lily- the whole point of him placing Harry with those terrible people is to seal the charm that protects Harry from Voldemort, the protection that his mother leaves in him- by sacrificing herself. Also- JKR has said more than once that there is "more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye". What are your thoughts on this matter?? From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 16 22:17:36 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:17:36 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163846 "justcarol67" wrote: > Black could have averted the whole fiasco > by going to Dumbledore rather than seeking > vigilante justice against Pettigrew Huh? Black was in Azkaban, everybody including Dumbledore thought he was a mass murder; and Black was the only one who knew Pettigrew was alive and had no way of proving it. It was either vigilante justice or no justice at all. And I think Black could be forgiven for not having a lot of faith in the Ministry, not after unjustly sentencing the poor man to a living hell for 12 years! And remember, even Dumbledore testified against him and helped send him to that hideous place. > even if he were still only the gamekeeper's > assistant, how could Molly not have > remembered seeing someone that big on the > school grounds? Huh? Molly never said she don't remember Hagrid, she just said there was another gamekeeper. > I'm annoyed by the inconsistencies, > particularly "the legendary Charlie Weasley." > How can it be that Gryffindor has not won > the championship since Charlie left, which > would be the year before SS/PS if he's the > age JKR says he is (three years older > than Percy), yet they haven't won the cup > for seven straight years in both SS/PS and PoA No matter how good Charlie Weasley was he was only one man, he is not a team. Look at Victor Crumb at the World Cup, he was by far the best player on either side, but his team still lost. As one of the twins said, Romania had one good player, Ireland had 7. Ireland won, although it must be admitted Romania lost in a very classy way. Eggplant From rkelley at blazingisp.net Tue Jan 16 22:22:49 2007 From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:22:49 -0600 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163847 > Geoff: > If all the Horcruxes have to be destroyed to finally dispose of Voldemort, > then this scenario dictates that Harry has to die - not might have to - > but has to. I haven't decided if I believe Harry is a horcrux, but if he is, I can think of one way LV's soul residing in Harry could be destroyed without harming Harry - if Harry received a dementor's kiss, and the dementor sucked out LV's soul instead of Harry's, then it should leave Harry whole. (That's assuming someone comes to Harry's aid before the dementor has a chance to continue feasting on Harry.) It would make a very interesting scene, at least. Anders, who desperately hopes that Harry survives. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 16 22:54:51 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:54:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701161454t540fa009t9661bcc47a6e5a64@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163848 > Geoff: > If all the Horcruxes have to be destroyed to finally dispose of Voldemort, > then this scenario dictates that Harry has to die - not might have to - > but has to. I haven't decided if I believe Harry is a horcrux, but if he is, I can think of one way LV's soul residing in Harry could be destroyed without harming Harry - if Harry received a dementor's kiss, and the dementor sucked out LV's soul instead of Harry's, then it should leave Harry whole. (That's assuming someone comes to Harry's aid before the dementor has a chance to continue feasting on Harry.) It would make a very interesting scene, at least. Anders, who desperately hopes that Harry survives. ============================================= Jeremiah: Well, I would like to chime in on this one. I totally disagree that Harry is a Horcrux on one basic principle. JKR was asked if the Sorting Hat was a Horcrux and she said No. Horcruxed do not draw attention to themselves. Now, granted, Harry isn't one for the spot light... unless he's on a broom chasing a Snitch. Since Harry is capable of drawing that much attention to himself I would have to say that he's not a Horcrux. However, I have always felt that Harry was going to die in the end. Brobably because I like the Tragic Hero in literature. It's so stoic and sad. Though I would also like to mention I hope he gets to live: I'm just not convinced he will. JRK has always mentioned little things about not having any more story left after the 7th book. She's said that's all there is are 7 stories and it's all over, so I think the's a gonner. But a Horcrux? No way, I just don't see it and I've read all these posts but I'm still not convinced. Until I read it in the book I will say "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no." (Jeremiah would also like to say he respects everyone's opinion but still thinks the Harry=Horcrux idea is insane). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 23:06:03 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:06:03 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Schr=F6dinger's_Horcrux_Hunt_(was:Re:_Slytherin's_Horcrux_(was:Hogwarts_Houses..?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163849 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm not really married to any particular methodology -- just > > *something* to get members of each House working together! > > > > I do like the idea of Harry having a special connection with > > Voldemort proper (I suppose that means I like the Horcrux!Harry > > theory?) and that being a big reason he was able to so easily > > destroy the diary. > > > >>Carol responds: > While I agree that House unity will play a role and that Zacharias > Smith is related to Hepzibah smith (and conceivably the Heir of > Hufflepuff--note how snooty his father is), I don't think that > Harry's destruction of the diary Horcrux resulted from any special > abilities (other than loyalty to Dumbledore, which summoned Fawkes, > who must have been ordered by DD to take along the Sorting hat, in > which DD had concealed the Sword of Gryffindor) and the courage of > a true Gryffindor, which enabled him to kill the Basilisk and have > its fang available to stab the diary. and, of course, luck or > instinct prompted him to stab it and destroy it. > Betsy Hp: Right, but that sudden decision to stab the book is exactly what I'm talking about. Luck, instinct, whatever you want to call it, Harry was able to come up with (on the fly, no less) a methodolgy to destroy a horcrux completely with no injury to himself or others. Something Dumbledore was unable to do. So that's where I see a possibility of a special connection. > >>Carol: > I think that Harry was able to destroy it so "easily" (after > undergoing the ordeal of killing the Basilisk with Fawkes's help) > because the diary was always intended to be interactive. Unlike the > ring, and presumably the other magical objects that were made into > Horcruxes, it would not need additional protections. It wasn't > hidden; it was given into Lucius Malfoy's keeping to be used at an > appropriate time. > Betsy Hp: Wait, do we *know* this, or are you making some educated leaps? I mean, just because Lucius *chose* to treat the diary in a rather cavalier manner doesn't mean that's how Voldemort *intended* the diary to be treated. (Wasn't Voldemort upset with Lucius for what Lucius did with the diary?) I'd say that we don't really know what extra protections were on the diary. There may have been a dozen doozies, but the use of the fang managed to bypass them all (lucky Harry, again ). > >>Carol: > For that reason, I don't think that he'll need a Ravenclaw and a > Hufflepuff to help him destroy the cup and the tiara or wand or > whatever the Ravenclaw Horcrux is. Nor do I think that Draco, part > Black though he is, will play a role in destroying the locket > Horcrux. > > (Personally, I half-expect Bill to destroy it and be killed in the > process. I don't think a near-death in HBP rules him out as a > victim in DH.) Betsy Hp: Harry and gang step back and let the adults take care of everything? I don't see that sort of thing occuring, frankly. I think Harry will be front and center and he'll be surrounded by peers, not adult members of the Order. (McGonagall didn't help the Trio protect the Stone after all.) > >>Carol: > Also, If Regulus charmed the locket so that no one but a Black could > open it, his father or mother would surely have opened it out of > mere curiosity. (It's obviously an heirloom of Slytherin, right?) > And he couldn't risk having Death Eater Bellatrix or DE-wife > Narcissa open it if they were guests in the house. > Betsy Hp: I doubt Regulus expected to hold onto the locket for all that long. But even so, the Black house is stuffed to the gills with ancient things covered in snakes. One locket isn't going to stand out. Plus, the family Black was just entering into their death throes. One son dead, the other locked away in Azkaban: I doubt the parental Blacks were around for too much longer, and probably not in a state to go poking through display shelves. > >>Carol, sure that Zacharias and Luna the Ravenclaw and Draco will > all play a part in DH but equally sure they won't be opening or > otherwise destroying any Horcruxes Betsy Hp: Again, I'm working in the dark (or with Schrodinger's cat ::waves at Ken; wonders how he did that "o" thing::) so I'm not really *sure* of anything. However, I think it'd make for a more efficient story if House unity was tied in some way to the Horcrux hunt. But yeah, it doesn't *have* to be through the horcrux destruction. It could be throught finding the horcruxes, or maybe making them vulnerable for destruction. And really, there's no need for it to be *set* way either. Draco (Slytherin) helps *destroy* the Slytherin horcrux. Zach (Hufflepuff) helps *find* the Hufflepuff horcrux. Luna (Ravenclaw) helps *identify* the Ravenclaw horcrux. And Ginny (Gryffindor) helps Harry *survive* the destruction of the Gryffindor horcrux. How do you like them cats? Betsy Hp From kennymod at yahoo.com Tue Jan 16 23:48:19 2007 From: kennymod at yahoo.com (kennymod) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:48:19 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me - Relatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163850 Did James have any brothers or sisters? kennymod From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 16 23:53:09 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (plantlady Angie) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:53:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Godrics Hollow query Message-ID: <916291.15248.qm@web33615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163851 Being a novice Harry Potter fan I have a question. At the end of book 6 Harry says he is going to Godric Hallow and there is also the missing 24 hours in the first book after the attack before the baby arrived at the Dursleys'. Do any of you think that there may be a significant scene at Godrics where there is some sort of residual magical energy that Harry needs? Angie Angie, the plant lady Ontario Canada (plant zone 5/6) If you can laugh at it, you can live with it. -Erma Bombeck From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 17 00:01:06 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (plantlady Angie) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:01:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: more questions from a newbie Message-ID: <826580.28264.qm@web33605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163852 Godrics Hallows - Does anyone else think it is a coincidence that Harry's home has the same name as Godric Gryfindor? Could Harry be a direct descendant? And what about the fact that it is called Hallows and the title of the book is also Hallows? Hogwarts - Since this building is supposed to be something like 1000 years old would it not make sense that there would be an underground crypt on the property somewhere that could also be considered the "deathly hollows"? Angie Angie, the plant lady Ontario Canada (plant zone 5/6) If you can laugh at it, you can live with it. -Erma Bombeck --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail - --------------------------------- Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 17 01:17:22 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:17:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] more questions from a newbie In-Reply-To: <826580.28264.qm@web33605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <826580.28264.qm@web33605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45AD7922.40907@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163853 plantlady Angie wrote: > Godrics Hallows - Does anyone else think it is a coincidence that > Harry's home has the same name as Godric Gryfindor? Could Harry be > a direct descendant? And what about the fact that it is called > Hallows and the title of the book is also Hallows? Bart: A) No. Nobody thinks that it is a coincidence. B) Hollow, NOT Hallows. > Hogwarts - Since this building is supposed to be something like 1000 > years old would it not make sense that there would be an underground > crypt on the property somewhere that could also be considered the > "deathly hollows"? Bart: HALLOWS!!!!!!!!! YEESH! From charober at sympatico.ca Wed Jan 17 01:38:32 2007 From: charober at sympatico.ca (charober at sympatico.ca) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:38:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godrics Hollow query Message-ID: <20070117013832.VCSQ1750.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp1.sympatico.ca> No: HPFGUIDX 163854 plantlady Angie: Being a novice Harry Potter fan I have a question. > At the end of book 6 Harry says he is going to Godric Hallow and there is also the missing 24 hours in the first book after the attack before the baby arrived at the Dursleys'. > Do any of you think that there may be a significant scene at Godrics where there is some sort of residual magical energy that Harry needs? Well, we know that Hagrid fetches Harry from the burned-down rubble of his parents' house, and someone earlier mentioned that Snape puts medicine on Harry's cut which will then be the permanent scar...the celebration of the morning after as all the wizards celebrate the day of The Boy Who Lived... other than that, not much detail I can name. Charlotte From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 17 00:20:26 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (plantlady Angie) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:20:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow Message-ID: <72950.35166.qm@web33611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163855 I love this theory, what does everyone else think? "Harry finds a time turner in Godric Hollows and uses it to go back in time to the night of his parents death. There he sees the truth about what really happened and it turns out that it is he who was the other person there that night. Harry tells DD about what happens and that is how DD knows exactly what to do with the baby and why he is so elusive about telling Harry any more than he absolutely has too. Also remember when Snape first sees Harry in the first book and movie, he has kind of a surprised expression on his face. What if he knows Harry was there that night? Also this trip back in time gives Harry what he needs to finally end LV rein over the darkness once and for all." Angie Angie, the plant lady Ontario Canada (plant zone 5/6) If you can laugh at it, you can live with it. -Erma Bombeck --------------------------------- Now you can have a huge leap forward in email: get the new Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From charober at sympatico.ca Wed Jan 17 01:35:10 2007 From: charober at sympatico.ca (charober at sympatico.ca) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:35:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me - Relatives Message-ID: <20070117013510.MHKH12977.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp1.sympatico.ca> No: HPFGUIDX 163856 kennymod: > Did James have any brothers or sisters? I wondered that too as I was reading my posts today... I don't remember it ever being mentioned if James had any siblings, or if Lily or James' parents were still alive, or at least around. Charlotte, who has fallen to belief that Harry is a Horcrux, and first guessed he would die in the upcoming book, but now is re-thinking her guess (and who dared to guess that Dumbledore would die, and won!) From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 17 03:09:59 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:09:59 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me - Relatives In-Reply-To: <20070117013510.MHKH12977.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163857 Charlotte > I wondered that too as I was reading my posts today... I don't remember it ever being mentioned if James had any siblings, or if Lily or James' parents were still alive, or at least around. > Potioncat: Here's a link to JKR's quotes. The search is a bit cumbersome, but you can look up a person (topic) and find out what JKR has said http://www.accio-quote.org/ James was an only child. James's parents and Lily's parents died of illness, pretty much because JKR needed them to. I know it bothers some readers that Harry wouldn't have any relatives, but, if an author is going to write about an orphan, it's pretty much a requirement that there aren't any relatives around. And, like it or not, these things happen in real life too. (Well, not the Dark Wizard, ancient magic part.) From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 17 03:19:50 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:19:50 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <72950.35166.qm@web33611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163858 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, plantlady Angie wrote: > > I love this theory, what does everyone else think? > > "Harry finds a time turner in Godric Hollows and uses it to go back in time to the night of his parents death. There he sees the truth about what really happened and it turns out that it is he who was the other person there that night. Harry tells DD about what happens and that is how DD knows exactly what to do with the baby and why he is so elusive about telling Harry any more than he absolutely has too. Also remember when Snape first sees Harry in the first book and movie, he has kind of a surprised expression on his face. What if he knows Harry was there that night? Also this trip back in time gives Harry what he needs to finally end LV rein over the darkness once and for all." > > Angie Julie: Lord, I hope you're wrong! Sorry, while I don't mind how the time- turner was used in POA, I really don't want to see it used again. It's too easy a fix, especially as we've already seen Harry save his younger self once. Not again please. OTOH, JKR did say something about the time-turner resurfacing :-( If it does, I can accept it if it helps explain why Dumbledore had to be so careful about what and how much information he revealed to Harry (anything that keeps Dumbledore's character from being the cold- hearted, manipulative bastard many fans see right now works for me). And just so long as it doesn't a major role in resolving the plot. Julie From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 17 03:29:17 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:29:17 -0000 Subject: Godrics Hollow query In-Reply-To: <20070117013832.VCSQ1750.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163859 Charlotte wrote: > > Well, we know that Hagrid fetches Harry from the burned-down rubble of his parents' house, and someone earlier mentioned that Snape puts medicine on Harry's cut which will then be the permanent scar...the celebration of the morning after as all the wizards celebrate the day of The Boy Who Lived... other than that, not much detail I can name. Potioncat: Nit picker that I am, --that is, when I'm sharp enough---Snape's doing anything to baby Harry is theory. (DRIBBLE SHADOWS and TURBAN) That there were 24 hours between the blast and Harry's arrival at Privet Dr is canon. SSSusan has taken canon about dragons, dragon blood and Harry's eyes, and expanded on DRIBBLE. I joined in with TURBAN. It seems to me that Harry's dream the very first night at Hogwarts, may reflect his memories of that traumatic night. I think Hagrid may have taken Harry to Snape. Now that we've had HBP and seen Snape's skill at healing Dark Injuries, I think the theory is even stronger. In a different post someone commented on Snape's expression when he first saw Harry. Actually, no emotion or description is given of that expression. Their eyes meet, Harry's scar hurts. Potioncat, who should not nit pick when she is this tired. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 17 03:32:08 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:32:08 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... (Sirius and portkeys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163860 Potioncat: > It just seems to me that there was something about Black that so few > questioned the betrayal...or there was something about the WW itself. > Pippin: I think there *is* something about the WW. There's a belief that once a wizard goes over to the Dark Side, "there's nothin' and no one that matters to 'em anymore."(PoA ch10) I've just noticed that a good part of HBP seems devoted to undermining this idea. Narcissa has apparently been a dark witch all her life and yet she's deeply concerned for her son. Draco finds that his willingness to join the Dark Side doesn't make it easy for him to become a murderer. As for Voldemort, his psychology seems to have become abnormal long before he became a wizard. But it's easy to see how someone who did believe that Dark Magic turns you into a psychopath could think that a once brave and loyal wizard like Sirius had become completely amoral and utterly turned against all he had stood for. I don't think Dumbledore shared this superstition. But if he already believed that Sirius had tried to kill Snape, then Sirius had run out of second chances. ---- One of my favorite nagging implausibilities is the "toothbrush problem" -- couldn't Crouch Jr have turned some mundane object of Harry's into a portkey instead of carrying out such a ridiculously elaborate scheme? And why does the portkey return Harry to a spot outside the maze when it took him away from inside it? But actually, now that we know about Voldemort's fetish for famous wizarding heirlooms, it's starting to make sense, especially if Voldemort isn't quite as far along with his horcrux project as Dumbledore thought. How convenient -- kill Harry and use the TWT cup as the horcrux to mark the occasion. Also, we now know that the mInistry can detect where and when a spell is performed but not who is responsible. We don't know if any of the visiting wizards on the night of the 3rd Task had portkeys with them, but if they did, then Crouch might have hoped his portkey spell would go undetected. Even if it was noticed, there would be a number of strange wizards who would be more likely suspects than the trusted Mad-eye. Now, if a portkey returns to the place where it was bespelled instead of the place where it was activated, then Crouch could have enchanted it as he was carrying it into the maze, and we don't need any theories about extra stops. Pippin From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jan 17 04:53:01 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:53:01 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: <3639604.1168967477807.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163861 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Anne Squires: > > Just how big are Hogwarts' pipes anyway? > > A Basilisk seems to go unimpeded through them. Huh? Also, access to > >the Chamber which is a thousand years old is by means of a modern > >plumbing system. It seems to me that when the castle was renovated to > >include said plumbing system then whoever installed it would have > >noticed that their new pipes led to an underground Chamber. It makes > >no sense whatsoever that Salazar Slytherin had anything to do with > >installing a modern bathroom, yet through this bathroom one gains > >direct access to his "hidden" Chamber. It makes no sense at all. > > Bart: > Check out the etymology of the word, "plumbing". It's a lot more ancient than you might realize. The problem was twofold; the first was that plumbing (as the name would imply) was originally lead pipes, which Muggles have found to be poisonous (and, according to some theories, helped to cause the fall of the Roman Empire). The second was that the need for plumbing is greater in cities, and, after the fall of Rome, many civilized places became ruralized. Anne Squires replies: Actually, Bart, I am aware that plumbing in general is rather ancient. I am aware of the ancient Roman baths having seen some in person. I suppose that instead of using the term "modern plumbing" I should have said "modern toilet." According to a website called The History of Plumbing - Roman and English Legacy http://www.theplumber.com/eng.html the first toilet ever built on English soil was constructed by Sir John Harington for his godmother, Queen Elizabeth I, in 1596 and installed for her use in Richmond Palace. Although the Queen did use it, the toilet and Harington were subject to ridicule and derision. Harington never made another. It would be another 200 years before the idea took hold again. The first patent for a "modern" toilet belongs to Alexander Cumming, who invented the "S" trap in 1775. Three years later, Joseph Bramah, a locksmith and engineer, patented an improved version with two hinged valves. In 1848, England passed the national Public Health Act, which would become a model plumbing code for the world to follow. It mandated some kind of sanitary arrangement in every house. The site goes on to document various improvements and innovations that were made to the design of the toilet throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Given the history of the "modern toilet" I do not believe that Salazar Slytherin, wizard or no, had anything to do with the construction of a girls' bathroom. As I stated in my previous post, Hogwarts must have undergone a renovation at some point to have bathrooms and accompanying piping installed. It makes absolutely no sense to me that those who were responsible for these renovations did not notice that their pipes led to a secret chamber. I still maintain that it is a plot hole. It is canon that Slytherin and the founders built Hogwarts a thousand years ago. No where in the UK were there indoor toilets like the one in CoS at this time. Assuming CoS takes place in 1992-93 the toilet had been around for a little less than four hundred years at the most. (1992 - 1596 = 396) The Wizarding World is not known for being very quick to follow Muggle technology and trends; so, I really think it wasn't until at least the 1800's before Hogwarts had the girls' bathroom in question installed, well after Salazar Slytherin's time. Having said all that, I feel I must qualify my observations by stating that this is really only a minor irritation. It doesn't bother me all that much. I am one of those people who is able to "suspend disbelief" quite willingly when I read something like Harry Potter. However, I do not forget all history I am aware of that pertains to the Real World. Inge had asked in her original post if we had noticed any inconsistencies. This is something I had noticed when I read CoS. I dismissed it at the time by saying to myself, "Well, the rooms and stairs rearrange themselves, after all. Perhaps the castle magically built itself a series of bathrooms." Given what we later were to learn about the Room Of Requirement, I don't think this was an illogical conclusion on my part. Anne Squires From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jan 17 05:26:12 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:26:12 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163862 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, plantlady Angie > wrote: > > I love this theory, what does everyone else think? > > "Harry finds a time turner in Godric Hollows and uses it to go > back in time to the night of his parents death. There he sees the > truth about what really happened and it turns out that it is he who > was the other person there that night. Harry tells DD about what > happens and that is how DD knows exactly what to do with the baby > and why he is so elusive about telling Harry any more than he > absolutely has too. Also remember when Snape first sees Harry in > the first book and movie, he has kind of a surprised expression on > his face. What if he knows Harry was there that night? Also this > trip back in time gives Harry what he needs to finally end LV rein > over the darkness once and for all." Anne Squires: I'm not sure what I think of this idea. I'll have to think about it for a while. But, if it turns out to be true, perhaps it is time traveling Harry who gives the invisiblity cloak to Dumbledore. Didn't JKR say that we, the fans, should be asking ourselves from whom did DD receive this cloak/how did it come to be in DD's possession? Anne S. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 17 07:33:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:33:10 -0000 Subject: more questions from a newbie In-Reply-To: <45AD7922.40907@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163863 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > plantlady Angie wrote: > > Godrics Hallows - Does anyone else think it is a coincidence that > > Harry's home has the same name as Godric Gryfindor? Could Harry be > > a direct descendant? And what about the fact that it is called > > Hallows and the title of the book is also Hallows? > > Bart: > > A) No. Nobody thinks that it is a coincidence. > > B) Hollow, NOT Hallows. > > > Hogwarts - Since this building is supposed to be something like 1000 > > years old would it not make sense that there would be an underground > > crypt on the property somewhere that could also be considered the > > "deathly hollows"? Bart: > HALLOWS!!!!!!!!! > YEESH! Geoff: Just to repeat part of what I wrote in message 163332..... Again, just my own gut feeling, I have said that I see the Deathly Hallows as being a place, although "Hallowe'en = All Hallows Eve = All Saints Eve" is the interpretation which has been bounced around, which leads me to the intriguing point that in the DVD of the "Prisoner of Azkaban", there is an interview involving Jo Rowling and Alfonso Cuar?n. In it, the latter remarks that he wanted the execution scene with Buckbeak to be in a graveyard but JKR vetoed this because, although there was a graveyard at Hogwarts, it was not in that location and she explained to Alfonso that it had a part to play later. Suspicious.... From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 08:55:39 2007 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:55:39 -0000 Subject: Each Patronus is unique Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163864 According to JK's answer as to how Order Members communicate with each other (Section FAQ in her own site), each Patronus is unique. What she says is (quote): "The Patronus is an immensely efficient messenger for several reasons: it is an anti-Dark Arts device, which makes it highly resilient to interference from Dark wizards; it is not hindered by physical barriers; each Patronus is unique and distinctive, so that there is never any doubt which Order member has sent it; nobody else can conjure another person's Patronus, so there is no danger of false messages being passed between Order members; nothing conspicuous needs to be carried by the Order member to create a Patronus." Yet Tonks' Patronus *does* change - and if one can change, then probably other Patronuses can change, too. So how does that fit with Rowling's wording "there is never any doubt which Order Member has sent it" ? Just wondering (again), Inge From peckham at cyberramp.net Wed Jan 17 08:58:10 2007 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:58:10 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow - How did Dumbledore know of Lilly's sacrifice? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163865 Are there any theories on how Dumbledore knew Harry had survived Voldemort's attack at Godric's Hollow and that Lilly's sacrifice was a part of Harry's survival? Either James of Lilly could have used a patronus to send a warning/distress call during Voldemort's attack. It is thus possible for Dumbledore and the rest of the Order learned of the attack either during the event or shortly there after. It is even possible that Lilly sent a report of James' death. It is not however possible for either Lilly or James to have reported that Harry had survived. This raises the issue of how then did Dumbledore know enough to order Hagrid to retrieve Harry from the ruins of his parent's house and then place him with the Dursleys? Hagrid even reports having argued with Sirius at the Potter house about custody of Harry due to Dumbledore's orders to take Harry to his aunt and uncle (POA Ch 10). It is thus clear that Dumbledore at least suspected Harry had survived Voldemort's attack and had decided to use Lilly's sacrifice before Harry had even been rescued by Hagrid. Allen From rduran1216 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 06:51:14 2007 From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:51:14 -0000 Subject: Subtleties show things Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163866 Someone of my ilk, being part of the "Snape is Dumbledore's man through and through just as Harry is," group showed me a wonderful passage from OOtP that gives what she calls indisputable proof of Snape's intentions. On page 531 of the US version Snape says, "The Dark lord, for instance, ALMOST always knows when someone is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency are able to shut down those feelings and memories that contradict the lie, and so utter falsehoods in his presence without detection." Unless I'm mistaken, Snape would be the one and only person flying under the radar and getting away with this kind of activity. The almost, while subtle, seems to be a raving admission of his actions, given that this doesn't seem like the kind of setting for him to be lying. rduran1216 From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jan 17 07:29:40 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:29:40 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me - Relatives In-Reply-To: <20070117013510.MHKH12977.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > kennymod: > > > Did James have any brothers or sisters? Charlotte: > I wondered that too as I was reading my posts today... I don't remember it ever being mentioned if James had any siblings, or if Lily or James' parents were still alive, or at least around. Anne Squires: To quote cannon--- On page 13 of SS (US hardback) Dumbledore tells McGonagall,"I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." On page 836 (US hardback edition)of OotP Dumbledore tells Harry, "I put my my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only living relative." Thus, it is clear from the books that Harry doesn't have any relatives other than the Dursleys. From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Wed Jan 17 08:19:47 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:19:47 -0000 Subject: Snape, a vampire? In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701160942w56c2be7endb2deb27ee31885a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163868 Antonia wrote: > I heard some theories which state that Severus might indeed > be a vampire. He has the looks, the attitude etc. Is there > any real evidence on this? Did JKR mention anything about > this? > > Jeremiah: > Ya know, I had thought that, too. then she wrote that one on > her site and said No Way. Anne Squires: I looked this up on JKR's website and couldn't find where she addresses this particular issue. But, I think it must be there somewhere and I just can't find it because in the MuggleNet/Leaky Cauldron interview on 7-16-05 JKR told Emerson and Melissa, "Generally speaking, I shut down those lines of speculation that are plain unprofitable.... It's when people get really off the wall - it's when people devote hours of their time to proving that Snape is a vampire that I feel it's time to step in, because there's really nothing in the canon that supports that." I personally think that there are plenty of subtle and not so subtle clues in canon that Snape might be a vampire. I conclude from the above quote from JKR that she had planted a red herring that people, in her opinion, were just getting too carried away with. JKR, for whatever reason, wanted people to stop wasting their time investigating something which is clearly there, despite what she says. So, she shut down that particular red herring. This, of course, is just my humble interpretation of her words. I just can't believe that she is completely serious when she says, "there's really nothing in the canon that supports that." "That" refers to Vampire!Snape. I mean come on. She knows she planted that red herring. Not sure why she is denying it. Just my two knuts worth. Anne S. From violet_verdi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 12:14:59 2007 From: violet_verdi at yahoo.com (:::: Violet ::::) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 04:14:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Each Patronus is unique In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070117121459.8644.qmail@web59105.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163869 Inge said: <> Violet now: Being Tonks a metamorphmagus, it seems only natural that her patronus change as well. It would be as an extend to her powers. That would be my first guess. However, when Lupin says that Tonks patronus probably changed because she received a profound shock (HBP 15) it suggests that it didn't change normally (that it wasn't due to her abilities), but it can happen; that is not too unusual as we think. JKR's statement and the book's information leave a few questions open though: 1) How profound does the shock has to be in order for a person's patronus to change? 2) How do you know that a person's patronus has changed? Is there something in it that marks it as your own or is it only the shape? Perhaps, what Rowling said was that there are no two alike, all patronuses shape differently, but that's a little too far fetched to me seeing as how many wizards there are and how many animals exist (taking into consideration that the UK is not the only place where wizards lived and every wizard has a unique patronus). ~*~ Violet ~*~ "Who knows, maybe a lightening can strike." From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 15:17:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:17:08 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163870 Anne Squires wrote: > > I'm not sure what I think of this idea. I'll have to think about it for a while. But, if it turns out to be true, perhaps it is time traveling Harry who gives the invisiblity cloak to Dumbledore. Didn't JKR say that we, the fans, should be asking ourselves from whom did DD receive this cloak/how did it come to be in DD's possession? Carol responds: It takes one turn for the Time Turner to take the user back one hour. Even if Harry got hold of one or found one that had, say, belonged to Lily, he would have to figure out exactly how many hours it would take to go back to October 31, 1981. Let's say, for simplicity's sake, that he visits Godric's Hollow just before midnight on October 31, 1997. He needs to multiply 24 hours in a day times 365 days a year times sixteen years, not counting an extra day for the Leap Years (1984, 1988, 1992, 1996) that occurred in between. By my calculations, that's exactly 140,256 turns of the Time Turner. If we calculate one turn per second, that's approximately minutes or roughly 39 hours of standing there turning the Time Turner, trying not to lose count or allow anything to distract him (like eating, sleeping, or using the bathroom), and the same thing for the return trip back to 1997. Somehow, I don't think that's feasible. It's one thing to go back an hour or even three hours at a time; quite another to go back sixteen years. He needs a more reliable method of Time Travel. A Muggle sci-fi time machine not being available, I think he'll have to settle for a memory, presumably his own, placed in a Pensieve. Of course, he'll need a Legilimens to extract it for him and a Pensieve to put it in, but no doubt that can be arranged. As for the Invisibility Cloak, IIRC, DD says in the note he includes with the cloak when Harry receives it as a Christmas present in SS/PS that James placed it in his (DD's) keeping before he died. Carol, sure that Harry will learn about Godric's Hollow somehow but not by Time Turner From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 17 15:16:18 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:16:18 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Schr=F6dinger's_Horcrux_Hunt__And_Some_Advice_For_Lord_Voldemort?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > Again, I'm working in the dark (or with Schrodinger's cat ::waves at > Ken; wonders how he did that "o" thing::) so I'm not really *sure* of > anything. > Ken: Oh, that's easy. Hold your wand loosely between thumb and forefinger and at an angle of 22.5 degrees inwards from the latter. Trace out the shape of the Greek letter zeta with the tip while thinking the word "umlautium". I suppose Muggles could copy and paste from a Wikipedia article and hope for a lucky accident. According to Windows XP help another option is to use the character map. The spell seems to be "To open Character Map, click Start, point to Programs, point to Accessories, point to System Tools, and then click Character Map." I presume you then select the desired character from a window that opens up and hope that YahooMort knows how to display them. Here, I will try a few that way and we can see what happens => ? ? <=. If that works wizards and witches who prefer the first method and don't know what a zeta looks like can study this => <=. If that doesn't work perhaps someone else knows how to circumvent YahooMort. I was reading the following by Robert Anton Wilson, a libertarian novelist, journalist, humorist, and philosopher who died earlier this week and thought it was something Tom Riddle needed to learn and never did. I'd never heard of Mr. Wilson until someone posted about his death on an alternate history forum I visit on occasion. Anyway here is what he said in an essay for *The Realist* called "13 Choruses for the Divine Marquis": > I dreamed I called D.A.F. de Sade on the phone and asked him, > "Jesus told me that he and you agree on at least one thing > and it explains freedom. What is that one thing? > > "Quite simple," he replied, "don't be afraid of the Cross. > The fear of death is the beginning of slavery." Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 15:37:04 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:37:04 -0000 Subject: Snape, a vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163872 Anne Squires wrote: > > I looked this up on JKR's website and couldn't find where she > addresses this particular issue. But, I think it must be there > somewhere and I just can't find it because in the MuggleNet/Leaky > Cauldron interview on 7-16-05 JKR told Emerson and Melissa, > "Generally speaking, I shut down those lines of speculation that > are plain unprofitable.... It's when people get really off the > wall - it's when people devote hours of their time to proving > that Snape is a vampire that I feel it's time to step in, because > there's really nothing in the canon that supports that." > > I personally think that there are plenty of subtle and not so > subtle clues in canon that Snape might be a vampire. I conclude > from the above quote from JKR that she had planted a red herring > that people, in her opinion, were just getting too carried away > with. JKR, for whatever reason, wanted people to stop wasting > their time investigating something which is clearly there, > despite what she says. So, she shut down that particular red > herring. This, of course, is just my humble interpretation of > her words. I just can't believe that she is completely serious > when she says, "there's really nothing in the canon that supports > that." "That" refers to Vampire!Snape. I mean come on. She > knows she planted that red herring. Not sure why she is denying > it. Carol adds: There was also an interview or rather an Internet chat in which she was asked whether Snape was a Vampire and she replied, "I don't think so." Sarcasm being hard to detect in writing, some advocates of the theory hopefully interpreted those words as JKR, the author of the books, being somehow unsure whether her "gift of a character" was a Vampire or not. I think the response in the interview you cited was intended to shut down such unproductive rumors once and for all. As for bat imagery associated with Snape, I think it's merely intended to emphasize his sweeping, swooping movements and somewhat sinister appearance, especially Harry's view of him as dangerous. But note that bats in general, unless they're rabid, aren't actually dangerous, nor do bats turn into vampires or vice versa in the WW. (I think that JKR shows us a "real" vampire, Sanguini, in HBP to contrast his behavior with Snape's and squelch the rumors once and for all, as she also squelched the Harry/Hermione SHIPping rumors.) It's possible, I suppose, that Snape's Patronus could be a bat (though I expect it to be changed to something more Dumbledorish in DH). At any rate, I think any sinister imagery associated with Snape (bat, spider, or anything else) is a red herring, and any suggestion that he might be a vampire is accidental. (Incidentally, it's Sirius Black whom Harry associates with vampires when he sees his photograph, pale, waxy skin and all that.) Carol, who thinks that Snape as the second most wanted man in the WW has enough to be getting on with without adding vampirism to his plate From swapnil_d2727 at yahoo.co.in Wed Jan 17 09:40:40 2007 From: swapnil_d2727 at yahoo.co.in (swapnil_d2727) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:40:40 -0000 Subject: Each Patronus is unique In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163873 Yeah it's a nice doubt, but I think as JK says it changes its shape due to attack or some sorrow resting in your mind which Tonks certainly had (she loves Lupin)or about Harry who misses his parents so his patronus has the shape of stag. But as you say, it can confuse the person if it changes its shape, then the person not trusting the patronus would immediately send msg to other colleagues & tell them that someone has sent me this shape of patronus, is it yours or not? So the person whose patronus has changed its shape will immediately come to know this. And yes, there will be at least one person whose patronus doesn't change. DD must have taken your points into consideration before using patronus to communicate since he is 'cleverest wizard'. Good bye. Love, Swapnil_d2727 From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Wed Jan 17 12:58:11 2007 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:58:11 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Each Patronus is unique In-Reply-To: <20070117121459.8644.qmail@web59105.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <62AFCBE4-A62A-11DB-9436-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 163874 On Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 11:14 pm, :::: Violet :::: wrote: > Perhaps, what Rowling said was that there are no two alike, all > patronuses shape differently, but that's a little too far fetched to > me seeing as how many wizards there are and how many animals exist > (taking into consideration that the UK is not the only place where > wizards lived and every wizard has a unique patronus). I think we should consider it more in the nature of 'every snowflake is unique'. Twenty Wizards may each have a patronus shaped like a stag, but each stag will look different, reflecting size, luminosity, species, shape of antlers etc... Each patronus will be as individual as its caster. Jocelyn From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 17 15:51:50 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:51:50 -0000 Subject: Snape, a vampire? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163875 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "anne_t_squires" wrote: > > Antonia wrote: > > I heard some theories which state that Severus might indeed > > be a vampire. He has the looks, the attitude etc. Is there > > any real evidence on this? Did JKR mention anything about > > this? >> > Anne Squires: > > I looked this up on JKR's website and couldn't find where she > addresses this particular issue. But, I think it must be there > somewhere and I just can't find it Pippin: Here's the quote you're looking for: Megan: Is there a link between Snape and vampires? JK Rowling replies -> Erm... I don't think so. and the link: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm It's from the World Book Day chat. Recently JKR's wizard of the month did confirm my longstanding and much maligned theory that there are part vampires. It's perfectly possible, IMO, that Snape is one of them, much as Flitwick is said to be part goblin but like Flitwick's ancestry it will never come up in the story, and therefore shouldn't engender theories about how it affects Snape's nature or fate. Flitwick's ancestry: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=95 Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 16:11:42 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:11:42 -0000 Subject: Each Patronus is unique In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163876 "swapnil_d2727" wrote: > I think as JK says it changes its shape due > to attack or some sorrow resting in your mind > which Tonks certainly had True, but Harry had even more sorrow. I think JKR wanted to introduce us to the fact that a Patronus can change to set us up for the next book. I think Harry's Patronus will change from a Stag to a Phoenix; I think JKR will do this so that when Harry dies at the end of the book readers can, if they wish, have a little ambiguity over Harry's fate; rather like Frodo at the end of Lord of the Rings. Eggplant From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 17 16:37:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:37:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... Message-ID: <23456427.1169051877831.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163877 Anne Squires: >Given the history of the "modern toilet" I do not believe that >Salazar Slytherin, wizard or no, had anything to do with the >construction of a girls' bathroom. As I stated in my previous post, >Hogwarts must have undergone a renovation at some point to have >bathrooms and accompanying piping installed. It makes absolutely no >sense to me that those who were responsible for these renovations did >not notice that their pipes led to a secret chamber. I still maintain >that it is a plot hole. Bart: Pun intended? However, do recall we are dealing with Wizards here. In addition, consider that the British "public school" system evolved, and didn't reach the state as described in the HP novels until about the 18th century or so (and the influence of the Ministry makes it an interesting cross between a public school and a state school). For example, the use of prefects was essentially done as a money-saving measure, although we don't see the upperclassmen vs. lowerclassmen (that's older vs. younger, not richer vs. poorer) that typified public school at one point (and, for all I know, still does). The RW resistance to indoor toilets was due, almost certainly, not to cultural rejection of the different but to the general disgusting quality of outhouses; even though the waste was being whisked away, there was still that psychological idea of fouling one's own nest. Mr. Binns would probably know more about this than you or I, but it may be that wizards used to keep offal eaters to keep their wayside chapels clean (which would explain Sally keeping his pet snakey down there, and how it stayed alive all those years). Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 17 16:41:46 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:41:46 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow Message-ID: <1561237.1169052106849.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163878 From: anne_t_squires >I'm not sure what I think of this idea. I'll have to think about it >for a while. But, if it turns out to be true, perhaps it is time >traveling Harry who gives the invisiblity cloak to Dumbledore. Didn't >JKR say that we, the fans, should be asking ourselves from whom did DD >receive this cloak/how did it come to be in DD's possession? Bart: Now would be a good place to point out that JKR never said that all the Time Turners were destroyed; just the ones that belonged to the Ministry. I do find it strange that JKR went through such measures to discredit prognistication and then put in Time Turners, however, seeing that they both pose highly similar plot problems to the writer. Bart From caaf at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 18:16:25 2007 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:16:25 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163879 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: Cyril here: > Jeremiah LaFleur" wrote: > > > Ok,I gues you're counting Petunia and Vernon. Not Dudly. > > No, I'm counting Petunia and Dudley, Vernon doesn't enter into it. > Think about it, you have 2 parents 4 grandparents and 8 great great > grand parents; after a thousand years and 40 generations the number > becomes huge. HUGE! That's why you're almost certainly related to the > Emperor Charlemagne; but as I said before I'm just nitpicking and JKR > is still a genius of the first magnitude. In the really important > stuff JKR got it right. > > eggplant > Cyril - True - Petunia and Dudley would be the only true "blood" relatives of Harry. There is no one else in the world that would share in the complete bloodline of his mother except these two. Any other relatives would have commonality in the bloodline from either Lily's mother and Father, but not both. So for the purpose of the Blood Protection which was due to Lily's self sacrifice, even either her own Mother and Father (ie Lily's) probably would not provide the same protection as Petunia would, as each would not have the genetic material in the blood that the other provided. Just my thought. On the topic at larg, sure there are inconsistencies in the small things of the story, but I do not seem at all bothered by most of them, and in fact woudl not notice most if I was not on this group. So while I do agree that there are some inconsistencies, I do not see that it takes away from the story that JKR is telling us. Cyril. From caaf at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 18:21:41 2007 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:21:41 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163880 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Cyril here: > Inge: > > Having just gone over the Dark Mark chapter in GOF, I realised how easy > > it really was to check Harry's wand for the last spell it cast (The > > Dark Mark). It took - what.... 1? minute to check it out? > > > > Why on earth then is it, that Sirius had to go to Azkaban with no > > trial, when all they needed to do, was to check *his* wand, to see if > > he indeed *did* cast the spell that killed all the Muggles - and all it > > would have taken was a few minutes..... not much compared to 12 years > > of socialising with Dementors. > > Pippin: > The Avada Kedavra curse kills only one person at a time, otherwise > Lily could not have thrown herself in front of Harry. The curse used > on the Muggles (and supposedly Pettigrew) was thought to have > killed thirteen people at once, and therefore could not have been > Avada Kedavra. The Ministry, if it tested Sirius's wand for shadows > at all, would only assume that the unknown curse had not produced > them, though I doubt that Crouch, power mad and increasingly > unjust, according to JKR's web site, even bothered. > > > Pippin > Cyril here: Well, the spell that forces the wand to regurgitate its last spell would not be sufficient evidence in many cases, as not finding the spell you want is no proof that it was not cast. All the prosecution has to say is that after the AK or other spell that Sirius cast, he did the simple Lumos spell (as an example), so the previous spell would not show. With regards to the ability to regurgiate more than one spell, that seems to be a unique situation which occured when the brother wands met, and may not necessarily be the case always. So we have no canon to support that wands can generally be forced to regurgigate more than one spell (or the reverse for that matter) Cyril - feeling the importance and the difference in the way LV's wand regirgigated spells was quite different from what Harry's did at the QWC. From icedragn at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 17:37:11 2007 From: icedragn at hotmail.com (Jacqueline) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:37:11 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163881 > Julie: > Lord, I hope you're wrong! Sorry, while I don't mind how the time- > turner was used in POA, I really don't want to see it used again. > It's too easy a fix, especially as we've already seen Harry save his > younger self once. Not again please. > > OTOH, JKR did say something about the time-turner resurfacing > And just so long as it doesn't a major role in resolving the plot. Jacqueline: Dumbledore and Harry said that during the fight at the Ministry of Magic when Sirius "died" all the timeturners were broken so I doubt he will find one and from the book when Hermione used it she could only go back a few hours, maybe max of 12, at least that's what I got from the book. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 19:00:36 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:00:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godrics Hollow query In-Reply-To: <916291.15248.qm@web33615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <916291.15248.qm@web33615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470701171100n1bf6fa36sd8c009f345327d30@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163882 Being a novice Harry Potter fan I have a question. At the end of book 6 Harry says he is going to Godric Hallow and there is also the missing 24 hours in the first book after the attack before the baby arrived at the Dursleys'. Do any of you think that there may be a significant scene at Godrics where there is some sort of residual magical energy that Harry needs? Angie Angie, the plant lady Ontario Canada (plant zone 5/6) If you can laugh at it, you can live with it. -Erma Bombeck -------------------------------------- Jeremiah: You bet. I think that there will be some interresting memories for Harry, I also think that there will be a some secret to be revealed. I say this because Hagrid mentions in PS/SS that the real question is why LV never tried to get the Potters on his side. We may find the either he did (never Lilly, but James? I doubt it but it's possible...maybe the Imperious Curse?) or LV just checked them off his list of potential recruits. Also, there is the way things went down. Harry remembers a sequence of events: James shouting for Lilly to take Harry out, the confrontation between LV and Lilly and then the flash of green light. I'm sure things happened pretty much in that order (if you own a 1st edition of Goblet of Fire there is a discrepancy with the order his parents re-appear from LV's wand that is corrected in subsequent editions) so we know Harry's memories are accurate but incomplete. Was there someone else there? Or more than one other person? I think you're on the right track thinking that there is residual magic. but here's an interresting entry: ===>Charlotte: Snape puts medicine on Harry's cut which will then be the permanent scar...the celebration of the morning after as all the wizards celebrate the day of The Boy Who Lived... other than that, not much detail I can name. I'm not sure where Charoltte found the entry that Snape puts a potion of Harry to make a permanent scar. So, I'd like to ask about that, Charlotte. Jeremiah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 19:20:03 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:20:03 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163883 > >>Inge: > > > > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure > > there must be :-) > >>Anne Squires: > Okay, Inge, I'll bite. > > In PS/SS the stone is protected by a series of tests and > enchantments that a group of eleven year olds with only one year of > training can bypass. > > (I actually believe the tests were purposely set up not to protect > the stone, but rather to test Harry. But it's still a plot hole.) > > > In CoS Dumbledore and his staff have not figured out that a Basilisk > is the Chamber's monster. What? > > I'll tell you why. DD wanted Harry to fight young Tom and the > Basilisk. It's still a plot hole though, imho. > > About Sirius, why didn't someone interrogate the man under > veritaserum? > > (I actually think DD may have wanted Sirius out of the way for his > own purposes. It's still a plot hole.) > Betsy Hp: I agree with all those plot holes: and I find it interesting that the most efficient way of filling them is to turn Dumbledore into a cold- hearted bastard. I seriously doubt that's how JKR wants her readership to see Dumbledore. (Though I could be wrong, of course. ) But she does have some serious contradictions that are hard to overlook. Did Dumbledore set up Harry to run the gauntlet in PS/SS? If so (and unfortunately there's nothing in canon to contradict this senario) then Dumbledore was willing to risk Harry's life (not to mention the lives of Harry's little friends) to test the mettle of the boy who would be hero. A tiny bit disgusting, yes? And if Dumbledore was that ruthless with young Harry then it's not impossible to make the second leap that Dumbledore set Harry up to face down yet another foe in CoS as you theorize, Anne. Which again, risked the life of Harry (and Ginny and any other child Harry pulled into the adventure with him). Which of course makes it easy to conclude that Sirius was packed off to Azkabahan because his existence was an inconvenience to Dumbledore. What wouldn't Dumbledore do to further his plans, after all? But the thing is, that view of Dumbledore is very hard (IMO) to tie in with the Dumbledore who loved Harry soo much he refused to tell Harry that Harry was destined to bring down Voldemort. There are two ways to deal with that seeming contradiction (IMO, again ). (1) Assume Dumbledore is lying. He's a cold-hearted bastard after all, what's one little lie compared to risking children's lives? (2) JKR screwed up her story-telling a tad. Dumbledore *never* meant for Harry to risk his life. Not in PS/SS, not in CoS. And he certainly never meant for an innocent man to go to Azkaban in PoA. Which means his reason for keeping things from Harry is valid and true to character. Just, JKR hasn't done all that great of a job in showing us Dumbledore's true character. I lean towards number (2) myself. It's annoying that JKR provides so little canon support for that version. (Just one tiny little line where Dumbledore says he never meant for Harry to go through the trap door in PS/SS would have done it, IMO.) And I personally think it's a place where her inexperience comes through. But... In the end it's something that doesn't bother most fans. It's something that bugs me only when we try and get a firm handle on Dumbledore's character (what I *think* JKR meant to write versus the man actually on paper). I'm able to shrug it off, personally. Though it can annoy at times. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 19:38:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:38:32 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me .../ DD again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163884 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > But the thing is, that view of Dumbledore is very hard (IMO) to tie > in with the Dumbledore who loved Harry soo much he refused to tell > Harry that Harry was destined to bring down Voldemort. > > There are two ways to deal with that seeming contradiction (IMO, > again ). (1) Assume Dumbledore is lying. He's a cold-hearted > bastard after all, what's one little lie compared to risking > children's lives? (2) JKR screwed up her story-telling a tad. > Dumbledore *never* meant for Harry to risk his life. Not in PS/SS, > not in CoS. And he certainly never meant for an innocent man to go > to Azkaban in PoA. Which means his reason for keeping things from > Harry is valid and true to character. Just, JKR hasn't done all that > great of a job in showing us Dumbledore's true character. > > I lean towards number (2) myself. It's annoying that JKR provides so > little canon support for that version. (Just one tiny little line > where Dumbledore says he never meant for Harry to go through the trap > door in PS/SS would have done it, IMO.) And I personally think it's > a place where her inexperience comes through. Alla: Oh, I agree and unfortunately IMO she provides rather strong canon support that DD indeed meant for Harry to do exactly that in PS/SS. That little speech of Harry's ( he wanted to give me a chance...) sounds to me as not what Harry would know or think, but a piece of exposition by JKR to explain to us what was happening. I also think that it is not just where her inexperience comes through if you are right and she did not mean to portray DD as coldhearted bastard ( and I do think you are right :), but I think there is another reason, although related for that. I am sure somebody speculated about that or maybe I did as well. I don't think JKR was sure that other books in the series were necessarily going to be published and that is why in the fairy tale context of PS/SS that makes IMO total sense for DD to provide that little exercise for Harry, or to give him a chance, in order for book to stand on its own, sort of. I mean I am guessing she had a character arc in mind where DD supposed omnisience dissappears book by book in front of Harry's eyes and readers' eyes, but for the book 1 to be complete, DDD had to be wise man, who is in charge, if that makes sense. Betsy Hp: > But... In the end it's something that doesn't bother most fans. It's > something that bugs me only when we try and get a firm handle on > Dumbledore's character (what I *think* JKR meant to write versus the > man actually on paper). I'm able to shrug it off, personally. > Though it can annoy at times. Alla: Heee, it is annoying a plenty of times to me including Dumbledore's "second chances when he feels like it". IMO of course. Nice post, Betsy :) From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed Jan 17 20:34:14 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:34:14 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godric's Hollow - How did Dumbledore know of Lilly's sacrifice? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701171234i72b21c3bxd7c725761a8de65d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163885 Allen: It is even possible that Lilly sent a report of James' death. It is not however possible for either Lilly or James to have reported that Harry had survived. This raises the issue of how then did Dumbledore know enough to order Hagrid to retrieve Harry from the ruins of his parent's house and then place him with the Dursleys? ---------------------------- Jeremiah: Well, I love what JKR did with Patronus (Patroni?) but I would think that Dumbledore went to Godric's Hollow afterwards to find out. The other idea is since Harry's feelings are so strong about that night, if DD took a chance and was able to read Harry's thoughts then DD may have figured it out through occlumency. Not only that, DD has all those nift little spindly gadgets in his office... Hmmmm... How did DD know about the attack? I think that's part of the mystery and a Patronus would be a great answer. (And it probably is the answer) but what if DD had people patroling the Potter's residence (maybe not knowint it's true location but just reporting on general-suspicious-activity) and tipped DD off when they heard the house blow up (or whatever it did). Sort of like Arabella Figg does with the Privet Drive? I'm sure DD had a ton of safety-valves put in place for the Potters and the Longbottoms during this time. Also, he may have suspected LV to have chosen the Potters and sent Fawkes to be there and monitor the situation. Fawkes would have sent his magically-apparating tailfeather... and DD would have known someting was going-down at the Potters. Maybe, if DD was in on the secret of the Potter's location, he was going to pop in for a morning cup of tea and found the nasty destruction himself. All of this is unknown. However, from McGonagall's Q&A with DD in the very first chapter of the very first book I would think that DD had been by the house at some point during the day... he seems so definite in his non-verbal answer... it just seems like he'd seen it for himself. Also, was Sirius there before Hagrid? (please correct me if I'm wrong) That leads me to believe that Sirius may have been the one to sound the alarm to the rest of the Order... and wouldn't that look slightly supicious? If Sirius was thought to have been the Secret Keeper and was the first to sound the alarm... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 17 21:29:42 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:29:42 -0000 Subject: Each Patronus is unique In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163886 > > "swapnil_d2727" wrote: > > > I think as JK says it changes its shape due > > to attack or some sorrow resting in your mind > > which Tonks certainly had > > True, but Harry had even more sorrow. I think JKR wanted to introduce > us to the fact that a Patronus can change to set us up for the next > book. I think Harry's Patronus will change from a Stag to a Phoenix; I > think JKR will do this so that when Harry dies at the end of the book > readers can, if they wish, have a little ambiguity over Harry's fate; > rather like Frodo at the end of Lord of the Rings. > > Eggplant > Julie: I agree that a Patronus can change, and a changed Patronus can still be unique to that person. As previously mentioned, Harry's stag Patronus can look very different from another wizard's stag patronus. Let's also remember that producing a Patronus is advanced magic, so it's not like there would be thousands of Patronuses around. As for Harry's Patronus changing, that is a possibility but I still think JKR introduced the concept because Snape's Patronus will change in DH. Which is also why she wouldn't reveal Snape's Patronus. I'm still not clear if a wizard can change a Patronus by will, or if a Patronus changes on it own in response to some emotional trauma (like Tonks' unrequited love for Remus). But if it is the latter, then it's a very good explanation why Harry and/or the Order might trust a new Patronus of Snape's even while not knowing *whose* Patronus it is--if the unknown Patronus reflects an undeniable loyalty to Dumbledore then the Order would trust it regardless. I like it! I'm also not quite sure what you mean about a changed Patronus of Harry's lending ambiguity to his fate, but that's not going to happen anyway, because Harry isn't going to die :-) Julie, member of the Harry Will Live club (though momentarily forgetting the exact acronym) From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Jan 17 21:43:01 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:43:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Each Patronus is unique In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <25928232.20070117134301@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163887 (RE: The thread in general) "And the meaning of Tonks's Patronus ... suddenly became clear to Harry; it had not been Sirius that Tonks had fallen in love with after all." -- HBP, Ch. 29. Dave: This to me leaves no doubt that Tonks's Patronus changed because she fell in love with Lupin. Eggplant: > I think Harry's Patronus will change from a Stag to a Phoenix; I > think JKR will do this so that when Harry dies at the end of the book > readers can, if they wish, have a little ambiguity over Harry's fate; Dave: I think Jo is asking for trouble if she gives us an ambiguous ending -- It leaves a back door for an eighth book. My guess however is that any potential ambiguity will be ironed out in the promised Epilogue of _DH_ Dave (realizing to his horror that his initials are the same as "Deathly Hallows_!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 17 22:09:19 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:09:19 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163888 > > >>Anne Squires: > > Okay, Inge, I'll bite. > > > > In PS/SS the stone is protected by a series of tests and > > enchantments that a group of eleven year olds with only one year of > > training can bypass. > > > > (I actually believe the tests were purposely set up not to protect > > the stone, but rather to test Harry. But it's still a plot hole.) > > > > > > In CoS Dumbledore and his staff have not figured out that a Basilisk > > is the Chamber's monster. What? > > > > I'll tell you why. DD wanted Harry to fight young Tom and the > > Basilisk. It's still a plot hole though, imho. > > > > About Sirius, why didn't someone interrogate the man under > > veritaserum? > > > > (I actually think DD may have wanted Sirius out of the way for his > > own purposes. It's still a plot hole.) > > > > Betsy Hp: > Did Dumbledore set up Harry to run the gauntlet in PS/SS? If so (and > unfortunately there's nothing in canon to contradict this senario) Pippin: "And then...well, you remember the events of your first year at Hogwarts quite as clearly as I do. You rose magnificently to the challenge that faced you, and sooner -- much sooner-- than I had anticipated, you found yourself face-to-face with Voldemort." --OOP ch37 Clearly Harry was not meant to go after the Stone as a first year. This is corroborated by Hermione's appalled reaction in Book One to the idea. There was no need for the challenges guarding the stone to be lethal or impassable -- which could have been arranged by having poison in *all* the flasks, requiring one to bring an antidote or concoct one on the spot. Even Fluffy, fearsome as he is, doesn't seem to be a killer. As Quirrell complains, he didn't even tear Snape's leg off. The mirror is the real challenge, everything else merely draws the questing wizard in. Voldemort used the same strategy in designing the protections for the horcrux in the cave. Hermione knows the monster is a basilisk because she's a well- educated Muggle. The basilisk's power to petrify is preserved in Muggle literature, but is apparently not known among wizard kind -- see Fantastic Beasts and the exerpt in CoS, both of which say nothing about petrification. Just like in the first book, Muggle knowledge is more useful than you might think. Pippin wondering if some bit of Muggle lore will be useful in the last book. From matthew at mjwilson.demon.co.uk Wed Jan 17 22:07:52 2007 From: matthew at mjwilson.demon.co.uk (matt_le_wilson2002) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:07:52 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <72950.35166.qm@web33611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, plantlady Angie wrote: >> I love this theory, what does everyone else think? >> "Harry finds a time turner in Godric Hollows and uses it to go back in time to the night of his parents death. There he sees the truth about what really happened and it turns out that it is he who was the other person there that night. Harry tells DD about what happens and that is how DD knows exactly what to do with the baby and why he is so elusive about telling Harry any more than he absolutely has too. Also remember when Snape first sees Harry in the first book and movie, he has kind of a surprised expression on his face. What if he knows Harry was there that night? Also this trip back in time gives Harry what he needs to finally end LV rein over the darkness once and for all." << I was thinking something along the same lines recently: in Prisoner of Azkaban, Lupin is surprised to hear that Harry heard James' voice in his memory of that night. If we take this to imply that James wasn't there, and that Harry was mistaken in his identification of James, then there's a very tempting parallel with the end of PoA - Harry thinks that he's seen James casting a patronus, but it turns out to be Harry himself. Similarly, if Harry thinks he heard James' voice, maybe that will turn out to be Harry's own voice. I'm not sure I buy it, but it would make for an interesting echo. Matthew From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 22:53:09 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:53:09 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163890 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Did Dumbledore set up Harry to run the gauntlet in PS/SS? If so > > (and unfortunately there's nothing in canon to contradict this > > senario)... > >>Pippin: > "And then...well, you remember the events of your first year at > Hogwarts quite as clearly as I do. You rose magnificently to > the challenge that faced you, and sooner -- much sooner-- > than I had anticipated, you found yourself face-to-face with > Voldemort." --OOP ch37 > > Clearly Harry was not meant to go after the Stone as a first year. > This is corroborated by Hermione's appalled reaction in Book > One to the idea. > > >>Alla: > ...unfortunately IMO she provides rather strong canon > support that DD indeed meant for Harry to do exactly that in PS/SS. > > That little speech of Harry's ( he wanted to give me a chance...) > sounds to me as not what Harry would know or think, but a piece of > exposition by JKR to explain to us what was happening. > Betsy Hp: See, I've long agreed with Pippin: Harry was wrong in his "he wanted to give me a chance" speech; Hermione's horror at the idea expressed the actual truth of the situation. But, unfortunately, JKR never made it clear which child had the correct understanding of Dumbledore. IMO, I don't think Dumbledore's "much sooner than I anticipated" speech in OotP does enough to kill the "he meant me to face him" theory Harry put forth in PS/SS. JKR should have had Dumbledore be more specific. Either have Harry prompt him, "But I thought you *wanted* me to face him my first year!", or have Dumbledore be a tad more detailed "I never dreamed you'd make a try for the Stone yourself", but either way, make it clear. That she doesn't is a failing on her part, IMO. > >>Alla: > I am sure somebody speculated about that or maybe I did as well. I > don't think JKR was sure that other books in the series were > necessarily going to be published and that is why in the fairy tale > context of PS/SS that makes IMO total sense for DD to provide that > little exercise for Harry, or to give him a chance, in order for > book to stand on its own, sort of. > I mean I am guessing she had a character arc in mind where DD > supposed omnisience dissappears book by book in front of Harry's > eyes and readers' eyes, but for the book 1 to be complete, DDD had > to be wise man, who is in charge, if that makes sense. Betsy Hp: It does. And I can totally understand why she wouldn't fully explain Dumbledore's real position *within* PS/SS. The controversy is there: Harry and Hermione represent each side. That's all that's needed in that particular book. Especially if it's the only one published. However, she's had time since then. As Pippin points out, she's had opportunity. But JKR hasn't taken advantage of either. Of course, there may be something in DH, which would be great and make this discussion moot. I'm just worried that with Dumbledore dead the chance has been missed. > >>Betsy Hp: > > But... In the end it's something that doesn't bother most fans. > > It's something that bugs me only when we try and get a firm > > handle on Dumbledore's character (what I *think* JKR meant to > > write versus the man actually on paper). I'm able to shrug it > > off, personally. Though it can annoy at times. > >>Alla: > Heee, it is annoying a plenty of times to me including > Dumbledore's "second chances when he feels like it". IMO of course. > Nice post, Betsy :) Betsy Hp: Thanks! I'm able to shrug it off because I refuse to accept the idea that JKR meant for Dumbledore to actually *want* Harry to go through the trap door in PS/SS. It's frustrating, because there's so little canon support for that view (at least that I've found -- I'd love for Pippin to contradict me here ), so it doesn't stand up to reader analysis. But if you begin with that particular Dumbledore, his character makes a lot more sense. At least, IMO. Betsy Hp From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 17 22:59:04 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:59:04 -0000 Subject: Each Patronus is unique In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163891 "julie" wrote: > As for Harry's Patronus changing, > that is a possibility Thank you. > but I still think JKR introduced the > concept because Snape's Patronus will > change in DH. [ ] Harry and/or the > Order might trust a new Patronus of > Snape's even while not knowing *whose* > Patronus it is--if the unknown > Patronus reflects an undeniable > loyalty to Dumbledore then the Order > would trust it regardless. I think you're probably wrong. Probably. But, but but, ., let me think about this for a second. Hmm, well OK , to tell the truth I've heard worse theories, a lot lot worse. At one time I thought that anybody who thought Snape was a good guy was insane, but after hearing what a brilliant man like Salman Rushdie said about Snape I began to realize there may be things about Snape I'm not picking up on but that other people are. I still think there is a 51% chance you are wrong, but I no longer think you deserve to be put in a straight jacket. And I've got to say that Patronus angle really isn't bad, it's not bad at all. > I'm also not quite sure what you mean about > a changed Patronus of Harry's lending > ambiguity to his fate, The Phoenix is the symbol of rebirth. I just thought that when Harry falls into a trash compactor, or wood chipper, or blast furnace, or whatever hideous fate awaits him at the end of book 7, I just thought those readers who demand a happy ending might find a little bit of consolation from that fact; not a lot but a little. Julie, you love Harry Potter and want him to live. Well I love him too, but what does that really mean? If Harry lives happily ever after you will smile when you close book 7 and a week later he will be completely out of your thoughts. But if Harry dies, well then things would be different. You will remember that. I want Harry to be alive in literature a century from now; and for that to happen, unfortunately, Harry must die. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 23:45:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:45:49 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163892 Matthew wrote: > I was thinking something along the same lines recently: in Prisoner of > Azkaban, Lupin is surprised to hear that Harry heard James' voice in > his memory of that night. > > If we take this to imply that James wasn't there, and that Harry was > mistaken in his identification of James, then there's a very tempting > parallel with the end of PoA - Harry thinks that he's seen James > casting a patronus, but it turns out to be Harry himself. Similarly, > if Harry thinks he heard James' voice, maybe that will turn out to be > Harry's own voice. > > I'm not sure I buy it, but it would make for an interesting echo. > Carol responds: I've already pointed out how many turns of the Time-Turner (a miniature hour-glass) would be required to go back sixteen years. Technical difficulties aside, however, it would be a bit odd for *Harry* to say, "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off!" (POA Am. ed. 240). To me, those sound much more like the "panicking" words (the narrator's description of the man's voice, same page) of a husband to his endangered wife about their equally endangered child than a teenage boy shouting to the mother he never knew to run out the door with his baby self. Also, it becomes difficult to explain how James could have died fighting Voldemort (even Voldemort acknowledges his courage, whereas in his view, Lily's sacrifice is merely "foolish") if James wasn't in the same house as Lily and Harry in Godric's Hollow. If Time-turned Harry had been there, he would have defeated Voldemort with no need for his parents' death--except that it was only his mother's sacrifice that enabled him to survive the attack in the first place, and Lily died after James. So, no. I don't see how Time-Turned Harry can have been at Godric's Hollow, or why he would be there. He can't change history. He'd have had to have been there in the first place, as Time-Turned Harry and Hermione were "always" there to save Buckbeak and Sirius Black. they just didn't know that Buckbeak was never executed and that Time-Turned!Harry, not James, saved Harry, Hemione, and Black from the Dementors. Again, I think the only way to return to Godric's Hollow as it was in October 1981 is to visit the memory in a Pensieve. As for Lupin's reaction to Harry's words about hearing his father, he's concealing a great deal from Harry (and a few choice bits of information from Dumbledore, as well). His reaction ("You heard James?") is our first clue that there's a connection between him and Harry's father, but he instantly minimizes it ("You--you didn't know my dad, did you?" "I--I did, as a matter of fact. We were friends at Hogwarts. Listen, Harry--perhaps we should leave it here for tonight. This charm is ridiculously advanced") and overreacts when Harry asks if he also knew Sirius Black ("Lupin turned very quickly. 'What gives you that idea?' he said sharply.") (All quotes from PoA Am. ed. pp. 241-42). IMO, Lupin is afraid that Harry will figure out all his secrets--he was a Marauder, the other Marauders were all Animagi (which would enable Sirius Black to get onto the Hogwarts grounds), and all four knew secret passages into the school, the same ones that show up on the map they made together (which he later confiscates from Harry without telling him that he's one of the makers of the map or turning it in to Dumbledore). All of those secrets lead to the one secret that Dumbledore knows but Harry doesn't--that Lupin is a werewolf. More important, Harry has the right to know that Black is an Animagus who could be hiding on the Hogwarts grounds, and Lupin has a very good idea how he got into the school to slash the Fat Lady's painting, yet even after Black gets in a second time and slashes Ron's bedcurtains, Lupin maintains his silence. Lupin could not have been present at Godric's Hollow. He wasn't even informed of the Secret (James and Sirius, and perhaps Lily, thought he was the spy, and Peter wanted them to continue thinking it). He thinks that Sirius was the spy (and the SK, if he even knows there was one), yet he's concealing what he knows about Black (and some of what he knows about James as Animagus and co-mapmaker) from both DD and Harry. No, I still don't think Lupin is ESE, just ESW (ever so weak, not to mention selfish, to conceal information about the man who seems dangerously close to murdering Harry). From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 18 00:04:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:04:09 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163893 Besty_HP > Thanks! I'm able to shrug it off because I refuse to accept the > idea that JKR meant for Dumbledore to actually *want* Harry to go > through the trap door in PS/SS. It's frustrating, because there's so > little canon support for that view (at least that I've found -- I'd > love for Pippin to contradict me here ), so it doesn't stand up to > reader analysis. But if you begin with that particular Dumbledore, > his character makes a lot more sense. At least, IMO. > Pippin: JKR isn't quite ready to drive a stake through manipulative Dumbledore's heart, because it's part of what makes manipulative Snape credible. Snape tells Bella and Narcissa that Dumbledore doesn't really trust him, and that possibility is meant to be nagging at us -- it goes with "Severus, please" meaning 'please don't betray me.' So we have to be able to buy a Dumbledore who would tell Harry that he trusts Snape completely, but actually thought he was taking a calculated risk, all the more credible since Dumbledore does take calculated risks. But I figure the stake is nice and sharp, and waiting. Harry was ready to go through the trapdoor no matter what, even after he realized that Snape (as he supposed) was ahead of him and he was overmatched. Short of taking Harry completely into DD's confidence and explaining exactly how safe the stone was, or chaining Harry up, what could have been done to discourage him? Harry would have gone through the door, or killed himself trying. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 00:19:07 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:19:07 -0000 Subject: Each Patronus is unique In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163894 Eggplant wrote: And I've got to say that Patronus angle really isn't bad, it's not bad at all. Carol responds: We've already had threads on this topic, some of which include possible Dumbledore-related Patronuses for Snape. The current favorites are a Phoenix (not identical to DD's former Patronus, but similar) or a "dumbledore' (bumblebee). It does seem like the best way for DDM!Snape to communicate ingognito with the Order, and as Julie said, it seems significant that JKR has refused to reveal Snape's Patronus because it would give too much away. If you're interested, you can always hunt up old threads using our search engine. Eggplant: > If Harry lives happily ever after you will smile when you close book 7 and a week later he will be completely out of your thoughts. But if Harry dies, well then things would be different. You will remember that. I want Harry to be alive in literature a century from now; and for that to happen, unfortunately, Harry must die. Carol: I can't agree with you here. Maybe what you're saying applies to the heroic quest in general (though I can think of mythological heroes, starting with Odysseus, who are still part of the Western cultural tradition despite surviving their ordeals and achieving their quest--wife and home, in Odysseus' case). But if we look at the HP books as a Bildungsroman, it's a safe bet that Harry, like David Copperfield and Jane Eyre, will not only survive but be remembered. Or if we forget about genre and simply think about unforgettable protagonists whose adventures we continue to reread despite happy endings, how about Huckleberry Finn or the heroines of Jane Austen (high on JKR's list of favorite authors). I wonder--has anyone read all the books on JKR's list of favorite books (or children's books)? If so, can you tell us how many have happy endings (meaning that the protagonist lives)? That might provide some clue as to where JKR's tastes and preferences lie. Carol, who will find a bittersweet ending in which Harry lives but suffers other losses at least as memorable and poignant as an all-too-predictable ending in which Harry dies defeating Voldemort From lmcdanl at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 18 00:46:32 2007 From: lmcdanl at sbcglobal.net (mariejgrangerpotter) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:46:32 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow - How did Dumbledore know of Lilly's sacrifice? In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701171234i72b21c3bxd7c725761a8de65d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163895 >> Allen: >> It is even possible that Lilly sent a report of James' death. It is >> not however possible for either Lilly or James to have reported >> that Harry had survived. >> This raises the issue of how then did Dumbledore know enough to >> order Hagrid to retrieve Harry from the ruins of his parent's house >> and then place him with the Dursleys? > Jeremiah: > Well, I love what JKR did with Patronus (Patroni?) but I would think > that Dumbledore went to Godric's Hollow afterwards to find out. > The other idea is since Harry's feelings are so strong about that > night, if DD took a chance and was able to read Harry's thoughts > then DD may have figured it out through occlumency. Not only that, > DD has all those nifty little spindly gadgets in his office... Marie: I would be more likely to believe in the spindly gadgets or possibly occlumency (although I'm not sure Dumbledore could have performed it on Harry from so far away) for Dumbledore's knowledge of the attack. It's certainly also possible that James and/or Lily sent a Patronus message that they were being attacked. Dumbledore can't have been at Godric's Hollow, at least not until after Hagrid left there with Harry. (If he had been, why wouldn't he have taken Harry himself?) Of course, there are many questions about what went on in the roughly 24 hours between Voldemort's attack on the Potters and Hagrid's arrival at the Dursleys'. >I'm sure DD had a ton of safety-valves put in place for the > Potters and the Longbottoms during this time. Also, he may have > suspected LV to have chosen the Potters and sent Fawkes to be there > and monitor the situation. Fawkes would have sent his magically- > apparating tailfeather... and DD would have known someting was going > down at the Potters. Fawkes is a possibility, but we saw in OotP that he can actually become involved in a fight. Whether he'd do that for anyone other than Dumbledore isn't clear. > Maybe, if DD was in on the secret of the Potter's location, he was > going to pop in for a morning cup of tea and found the nasty > destruction himself. He wasn't. Even if he knew where the Potters lived before the Fidelius Charm was cast, he didn't know about it afterward. After all, he gave testimony that Sirius was the secret keeper, which we now know was not the case. > All of this is unknown. However, from McGonagall's Q&A with DD in > the very first chapter of the very first book I would think that DD > had been by the house at some point during the day... he seems so > definite in his non-verbal answer... it just seems like he'd seen it > for himself. Maybe he did, but not until after Hagrid and Harry were long gone. > Also, was Sirius there before Hagrid? (please correct me if I'm > wrong) That leads me to believe that Sirius may have been the one to > sound the alarm to the rest of the Order... and wouldn't that look > slightly suspicious? If Sirius was thought to have been the Secret > Keeper and was the first to sound the alarm... Yes, Sirius was there before Hagrid. He'd gone to check on Peter, and when Peter wasn't where he was supposed to be, he went to check on Lily and James. (This indicates to me that Sirius *was* in on the secret.) I agree that it would seem suspicious to the rest of the Order, but it doesn't sound like he sounded the alarm. From mymusical_girls at yahoo.com Wed Jan 17 23:58:39 2007 From: mymusical_girls at yahoo.com (Raechel) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:58:39 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163896 > Carol responds: > > I've already pointed out how many turns of the Time-Turner (a > miniature hour-glass) would be required to go back sixteen years. > Technical difficulties aside, however, it would be a bit odd for > *Harry* to say, "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold > him off!" (POA Am. ed. 240). To me, those sound much more like the > "panicking" words (the narrator's description of the man's voice, same > page) of a husband to his endangered wife about their equally > endangered child than a teenage boy shouting to the mother he never > knew to run out the door with his baby self. > Raechel responds: I think we may all be forgetting something that Hermione pointed out in HBP. She specifically says that all of the time turners were destroyed by the DA in the Dept. of Mysteries at the Ministry of Magic. If I am correct in thinking that these posts are referring to speculation about DH, then it's not possible. There are no more time turners to be used in DH. From mymusical_girls at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 00:07:33 2007 From: mymusical_girls at yahoo.com (Raechel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:07:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore not dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163897 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" wrote: >Here is an idea for everyone to think about: What if, despite > > everything we have read, Dumbledore is not dead. > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "irishshedevil333" > wrote: > > > she stated, back in august 2006 at Radio City Music Hall in NYC thatio > City Music Hall in New York City, that Dumbledore is "definitely" dead. > > colebiancardi > (can't get any deader than definitely) Raechel responds: While I agree that Dumbledore is, in fact, DEAD, I don't think that necessarily means he is gone. It interests me greatly the way his portrait in the headmistresses office is described at the end of HBP. As we know the portraits are all aware of what is going on in the present as demonstrated by Phineas Nigellus and the portraits who assist DD in OoP. IMO, I believe that DD will still be around to help Harry and explain what happened to his shriveled and burnt hand by means of his portrait. Consequently, just because JKR has resolutely declared that DD is dead does not mean he won't be around. raechel (who believes that Harry will die and Snape is not evil.) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 02:01:14 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:01:14 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163898 > >>Besty_HP > > ...I refuse to accept the idea that JKR meant for > > Dumbledore to actually *want* Harry to go through the trap door > > in PS/SS. It's frustrating, because there's so little canon > > support for that view (at least that I've found -- I'd love for > > Pippin to contradict me here ), so it doesn't stand up to > > reader analysis. > > > >>Pippin: > JKR isn't quite ready to drive a stake through manipulative > Dumbledore's heart, because it's part of what makes manipulative > Snape credible. > Betsy Hp: Hmm... that's an interesting angle I've not considered before. The reader needs to have a niggling suspicion that Dumbledore is a bit of a ruthless player in order to think Snape could have played him? I think I can get that. Especially if it means there'll be a general air-clearing in DH (even with Dear-Departed!Dumbledore) that will make very clear that Dumbledore never expected Harry to go after the Stone. > >>Pippin: > Harry was ready to go through the trapdoor no matter what, even > after he realized that Snape (as he supposed) was ahead of him and > he was overmatched. Short of taking Harry completely into DD's > confidence and explaining exactly how safe the stone was, or > chaining Harry up, what could have been done to discourage him? > Harry would have gone through the door, or killed himself trying. Betsy Hp: At the time of PS/SS I think Harry would have been content with Dumbledore saying he was keeping an eagle eye on the situation with Snape and Quirrell (not a lie! ). But preventing Harry from going through the trap-door isn't my issue. My issue is with a Dumbledore who expected, planned on, and tried to prepare Harry to go through a door that would leave him alone with a highly talented Death Eater (best scenario) in the end. It's insane, full stop. And it directly contradicts Dumbledore's professed desire to keep Harry an innocent (for the most part) school boy for as long as possible. The only way I can take Dumbledore seriously is to take Hermione's view. He'd *never* planned on Harry going through the trap-door. Rushing back to Hogwarts to find an injured Ron and terrified Hermione was one of the worst moments in Dumbledore's life and he spent a great deal of the time Harry was in his coma thanking his lucky stars that Harry didn't die while trapped in a room with Voldemort. Victory by the skin of his teeth!Dumbledore: that's the guy I like. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 02:14:38 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:14:38 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow - How did Dumbledore know of Lilly's sacrifice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163899 Jeremiah asked: > > Also, was Sirius there before Hagrid? (please correct me if I'm wrong) > Marie responded: > Yes, Sirius was there before Hagrid. He'd gone to check on Peter, and when Peter wasn't where he was supposed to be, he went to check on Lily and James. (This indicates to me that Sirius *was* in on the secret.) I agree that it would seem suspicious to the rest of the Order, but it doesn't sound like he sounded the alarm. > Carol responds: Actually, Sirius Black showed up at GH after Hagrid. Hagrid himself states in PoA: "I musta bin the last ter see him before he killed all them people! It was me what rescued Harry from Lily and James's house after they was killed! Jus' got him outta the ruins, poor little thing, with a great slash across his forehead an' his parents dead . . . an' Sirius Black turns up on that flyin' motorcycle he used to ride. Never occurred to me what he was doin' there. I didn' know he'd bin Lily an' James's Secret Keeper . . . ." (PoA am. ed. 206, first ellipsis in original). I agree that Black was in on the Secret. It would be odd if he weren't, given that he was the Potters' first choice as SK and switching to Pettigrew was his idea. He was watching out for Pettigrew, who was supposed to be in hiding himself, and Pettigrew's absence was his signal that something was terribly wrong. (No doubt PP was at Godric's Hollow before him, watching the murders in rat form.) If Black had Apparated, he might have been at GH before Hagrid, but the motorcycle evidently wasn't fast enough, or he checked on PP after the Potters were already dead. In any case, if he had arrived before Hagrid, he would no doubt have taken Harry himself, considering it his right and duty to do so as Harry's guardian, but Hagrid arrived first, under orders to bring Harry to the Dursleys and not give him to anyone else. As Hagrid said himself, he didn't know that Black was the (ostensible) SK, but Dumbledore did, and he seems to have anticipated Black's arrival. When DD asks where Hagrid got the motorcycle and Hagrid says, "Young Sirius Black lent it to me," DD says, "No problems, were there?" (Evidently, DD already knows at that point about the twelve Muggles and the supposed murder of Peter Pettigrew, about which Hagrid is still ignorant. My quotes, BTW, are from the Scholastic paperback edition printed in September 1999, and more recent editions or British editions may have different wording here to fit better with Hagrid's claim in PoA that Black *gave* him the motorcycle because he wouldn't be needing it anymore.) As for Black sounding the alarm, quite the contrary. He lent/gave Hagrid his motorbike and left immediately to go after Peter Pettigrew. Black was arrested later that same day (November 1), IIRC. (I still say that he should have gone immediately to Dumbledore to explain what had happened and ask for help rather than trying to seek revenge against Pettigrew, but logic was never his strong suit.) I don't think that anyone sounded the alarm--the fight between Voldemort and James Potter and the two successful AKs would have shown up on the MoM's (figurative) radar. They probably arrived just after Sirius Black, possibly while Hagrid was still there. If Mad-Eye Moody was involved, he would have made sure that Dumbledore's plans weren't thwarted. (I have other ideas, but I don't want to go too far afield here.) Regarding the topic in the subject line, the Fidelius Charm thread contains a number of posts on how DD knew that the Potters were dead, but I'm not sure that this specific question is addressed. I think that Hagrid must have informed DD by Patronus about the cut. DD would know that an AK doesn't leave a scar and that the killing curse was deflected onto Voldemort. Possibly, Hagrid also reported bits of Voldemort, whom DD would suspect had made one or more Horcruxes based on his appearance and attitude during the DADA interview, so DD would know that Voldie wasn't dead. He would also know that *something* had acted to protect Harry and deflect the AK, causing it to (IMO) burst out of Harry's forehead, creating what was then a gash, not a scar. What could have such power? Not the Prophecy. Not Voldemort's evil magic, acting against itself. It would have to be some form of love magic. Carol, wondering if JKR gave those missing twenty-four hours nearly as much thought as we have actually From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 02:15:42 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:15:42 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40701171815m5e1218cen22cbffcd01935c95@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163900 Betsy Hp: > Thanks! I'm able to shrug it off because I refuse to accept the > idea that JKR meant for Dumbledore to actually *want* Harry to go > through the trap door in PS/SS. It's frustrating, because there's so > little canon support for that view (at least that I've found -- I'd > love for Pippin to contradict me here ), so it doesn't stand up to > reader analysis. montims: the ironic thing is that if Harry hadn't gone down there, the stone would never have materialised - he was the only one pure enough of heart to get it, and his being there in fact jeopardised the situation... If he had remained in his dorm, Quirrell would have been down there fruitlessly looking for the stone... From kjones at telus.net Thu Jan 18 02:59:30 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:59:30 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45AEE292.80702@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163901 Raechel wrote: >> Carol responds: >> >> I've already pointed out how many turns of the Time-Turner (a >> miniature hour-glass) would be required to go back sixteen years. >> Technical difficulties aside, however, it would be a bit odd for >> *Harry* to say, "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold >> him off!" (POA Am. ed. 240). To me, those sound much more like the >> "panicking" words (the narrator's description of the man's voice, same >> page) of a husband to his endangered wife about their equally >> endangered child than a teenage boy shouting to the mother he never >> knew to run out the door with his baby self. >> > > Raechel responds: > > I think we may all be forgetting something that Hermione pointed out > in HBP. She specifically says that all of the time turners were > destroyed by the DA in the Dept. of Mysteries at the Ministry of > Magic. If I am correct in thinking that these posts are referring > to speculation about DH, then it's not possible. There are no more > time turners to be used in DH. KJ writes: In one of the interviews with JKR she referred to Harry's trips through the penseive with DD as going back in time to look at Voldemorte's history. This may be what she had in mind when asked if Harry would be doing any more time travel. She responded "no comment." If there is some confusion in her mind about what constitutes time travel, it is more likely that he will find the penseive which DD left. KJ From puduhepa98 at aol.com Thu Jan 18 03:55:00 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:55:00 EST Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP28, Flight of the Prince - Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163902 > JulieL > Here I'd like to add a Question 8A. Even though we got a > scene with almost every other adult at Hogwarts accepting > that Snape cold-bloodedly murdered Dumbledore, we never get > this scene with Hagrid. Hagrid thinks Harry got hit on the > head when Harry says he witnessed Snape kill Dumbledore. > Even later, after the Order members have accepted Snape's > murderer status, even during the funeral, Hagrid never > rails against Snape (as he's wont to rail against those > who have in any way wronged someone he cares about). He > merely cries for Dumbledore. Is this simply a meaningless > ommission, or is there a reason JKR never shows Hagrid > outright condemning Snape as everyone else does? >zgirnius: >We won't know until Book 7, but I noticed this about Hagrid too. I tend to think he knows something relevant, that he hasn't yet told Harry, and this could be why. Nikkalmati I want to point out that we don't see any reaction from Flitwick either. I'm sure he knows Snape could have killed him just as easily as stunned him and he is probably grateful or at least wondering why. Maybe he also knows something about Snape or was given some knowledge by DD. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 18 05:27:19 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 05:27:19 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163903 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > My issue is with a Dumbledore who expected, planned on, and tried to > prepare Harry to go through a door that would leave him alone with a > highly talented Death Eater (best scenario) in the end. It's insane, > full stop. And it directly contradicts Dumbledore's professed desire > to keep Harry an innocent (for the most part) school boy for as long > as possible. > > The only way I can take Dumbledore seriously is to take Hermione's > view. He'd *never* planned on Harry going through the trap-door. > Rushing back to Hogwarts to find an injured Ron and terrified > Hermione was one of the worst moments in Dumbledore's life and he > spent a great deal of the time Harry was in his coma thanking his > lucky stars that Harry didn't die while trapped in a room with > Voldemort. Victory by the skin of his teeth!Dumbledore: that's the > guy I like. > > Betsy Hp Quick_Silver: But doesn't the book make it quite clear then Dumbledore was the one that gave, and then returned, the invisibility cloak to Harry? Granted Dumbledore might have felt some duty to return it as Harry had been using it in an effort to cover for Hagrid (who is quite clearly Dumbledore's man). Yet the cloak plays an important role in a number of Harry's "adventures" and Harry with a cloak seems more likely to into trouble (and thus risk his "innocence") then a cloak- less Harry. Or perhaps does Dumbledore believe that the only mischief that Harry can get into with the cloak is of Fred and George sort that's hardly a reassuring thought and that's leaving aside the whole issue of what James managed to do with the cloak. I wonder if part of the reason that JK hasn't put Harry's view of Dumbledore out to pasture is that it reflects that "evolving" view of Harry in Dumbledore's eyes. By PoA Dumbledore seems confident enough in Harry to send him back in time and by OotP he's dropped most of the pretenses and is having Harry be tutored in Occlumency by Snape. Most of Dumbledore's tasks in HBP seem designed to encourage and further train Harry and develop his skills. Having Harry wonder (and not be shot down) in PS/SS and CoS (with the whole thing in Hagrid's hut) provides a base for that Dumbledore of later books. Quick_Silver From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 06:39:20 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:39:20 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163905 --- In HPforGrownups/message/163780, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > However, if a person is made into a Horcrux, where does the soul > piece reside? Indeed, what form does a soul fragment take? Where > does our own soul reside for that matter? Can we see it, touch it? Mike: I'll try this while leaving out religious references. Realizing that many think of the soul in the context of their religion and that JKR being a Christian probably does also, this may not work, but here goes anyway. I see the soul as an ethereal, non-physical essence. Unlike an organ, like the heart, the soul does not occupy any physical location. It resides everywhere and nowhere within the physical body of the person. So, no Geoff, you can't see it or touch it, imo. But you are always in contact with it. With me so far? As hard as it is to envision a non-physical soul, I imagine it must be twice as hard to write about it in a way that conveys your meaning. For this reason, imo, JKR chose to treat the manipulation of the soul as if it was an organ while still not giving it any physical presence. So she speaks of "splitting", "tearing", and "ripping" the soul as if it were a heart, but still doesn't envision the the end result as having any physical components, only a split essence. This would mean that a Horcrux is holding an essence that resides everywhere and nowhere within the object. The Horcrux encasing spell must create a portal through which the soul piece enters the object then closes like one of Captain Kirk's doors after the soul piece passes to within. When Harry stabbed the diary he created his own portal. It is written so we can envision it physically, we can picture the diary with a hole in it. But I suspect that it was the magical quality of the Basilisk fang that *magically* created the portal by which the soul piece escapes it's confines. You see where I'm going here? Harry has a physical representation of a magical portal on his forehead. JKR had to "mark" Harry to simplify the concept for her target audience. We can see the mark so we understand that Voldemort "mark[ed] him as his equal". But the soul piece doesn't *reside* in any particular location. It isn't in the scar, it *got in* through the scar when it was still a cut. And Harry is protected from being possessed in the same way he was protected from Voldie's AK. But, I also adhere to the conviction that Harry's natural essence is more powerful than Voldie's. Therefore, the guest soul piece cannot overpower Harry's soul. As I was reminded recently, I previously referred to this guest piece as a benign tumor, it's there, it looks ominous, but it really isn't doing anything. Harry's sub-conscious has access to the soul fragment and visa-versa. Harry's special connection to Voldemort occurs via the guest soul piece and via the portal, i.e. Harry's scar. Furthermore; Harry's access to the essence of his guest is why he can speak Parseltongue and, ... what else?? We'll see I 'spose. > Geoff: > I realise that the diary and ring remain but, as I said, they are > badly damaged. Now, just suppose that Harry is a Horcrux and the > soul piece within him is removed, then one assumes that there will > be damage to the "container", ie Harry. If the Horcrux is near > Harry's forehead, that is also near to his brain and mind and > possibly his own soul so there could be a high probability of a > risk of serious injury if not death. Adding some more thoughts from Ken: > We know nothing really about how horcurxes are made or destroyed. > Of the two examples we have, the diary has a hole in it and the > ring has a cracked stone. It is true that the contents of the > diary have been rather thoroughly destroyed but then they were in a > very real sense a living part of Riddle, they would be destroyed > when the soul bit died. The physical diary itself only has a hole > in it. If Harry happened to have a soul bit embedded in that scar > then he certainly could survive a cracked skull or having a bit of > his skull removed as many modern accident victims and surgical > patients survive these types of injuries and procedures. Mike: I think I've answered the question about physical locaton. Harry's scar was the portal through which the soul fragment magically entered. It doesn't mean the soul piece is near his brain any more than its near his toes. As to how the Horcrux is removed; the same way it got in there: **magic**. Personally, I think we are going to see something with the Dementors. But predictions are not my forte. --- In HPforGrownups/message/163831, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > Could a horcrux be created accidentally? Well in some sense, no, > it is a deliberate act. But the details of that process have been > deliberately hidden from us and that in itself is suspicious. We > simply do not know if the spell can be cast in advance to take > effect once the murder has been committed or if it can only be cast > afterward. If it is the former and if Voldemort had intended to > make a horcrux of young Harry's skull then it is quite likely that > the spell would have gone off as "scheduled". Mike: I've pitched my tent in your former camp. We have seen plenty of spells that are put in place to await a second stimulus before consummating the marriage. Lily's love protection, Hermione's curse on the DA roster, LV's curse on the ring Horcrux, the Room of Requirement, to name a few. All required a second stimulus before reacting and therefore consummating the spell. Why couldn't the Horcrux encasing spell react similarly? Combine that with my and other's belief that the soul splitting can only occur with the death of an unprotected soul, that is, not in battle against one who can and is defending him/herself. The wizard *intent* upon creating a Horcrux can only do so with an undefended death, like Lily's or the Riddle's, for example. > Ken: > I don't consider the appearance of Tom Riddle during his school > years a reliable guide to whether or not he had created a horcrux > by the time of the Slughorn interview. He was a growing boy, of > course his appearance changed during this period. It did not change > in a way that made him unrecognizable or inhuman but it is > reasonable to think that whatever changes had occurred by the > creation of a single horcrux could have been masked by the changes > one expects in an adolescent. Mike: Thank you, Ken. I meant to bring up this point, but forgot in my haste. > Ken: > Neither I, nor Dumbledore apparently, think that the point of Tom's > questions to Slughorn were intended to uncover how to make a > horcrux. They were directed at getting his reaction to the notion > of multiple horcruxes. Tom either already knew how to create a > horcrux or where to get that information, in my opinion. > > The fact that Dumbledore did not mention the possibility that he > might be a horcrux to Harry is hardly conclusive. Dumbledore is > famous for withholding information from Harry because he fears that > Harry is not ready for it. This simply could be another case of > that. Dumbledore never did get around to relating the story of how > he disarmed the ring horcrux either and you would think *that* was > information Harry needed to know too. Mike: I didn't forget to bring up these points, and I concur. :-) > Ken: > > PS: Here is a really wild theory that came to me one night this > weekend when I woke for some reason. Could Dumbledore have been a > horcrux? Tom did make a wand movement in that scene in Dumbledore's > office and we were intended to believe that was when he cursed the > DADA position. What if it had a different purpose entirely? What if > Tom had become convinced that Dumbledore was the closest thing to a > Gryffindor relic that he was likely to find? Even I am distrustful > of thoughts that come in the middle of the night and yet.... Mike: Alas, here we part company. The scene you were referring to reads: "For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless warning: He was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched toward his pocket and his wand; but then the moment had passed, Voldemort had turned away, the door was closing, ..." (HBP p. 446, US) He never got to his wand. Unless he knows how to cast the Horcrux encasing spell wandlessly and without Dumbledore realizing it, I'm afraid it was just one of those disjointed dreams. Now its time for one of my silly questions. Why isn't Harry still protected by whatever Lily did in Godric's Hollow? Does it wear off? Mike, who has noticed that LV has flung three AKs at Harry and been foiled each time. Some guys are just bad shots. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 18 07:03:56 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:03:56 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163906 Inge: > Why on earth then is it, that Sirius > had to go to Azkaban with no trial, > when all they needed to do, was to > check *his* wand, to see if he indeed > *did* cast the spell that killed all the Muggles Even assuming the Ministry wanted to find the truth and not just find a scapegoat (and I see evidence of that) it would still prove precisely nothing. If I got it into my head to cast a horrendously evil spell I wouldn't use my official wand, the one that everybody has seen me use for years. I'd spend a galleon at a second hand wand shop for a junk wand, and then I'd ditch it after the dirty deed was done. Remember in book 4 there was uncontroversial proof that Harry's wand had conjured the Dark Mark, but nobody thought Harry was the one who had done it, not after a few seconds of thought anyway. But there is a far more important inconsistency, in book 1 the official stool used in the sorting ceremony had 4 legs, in book 2 it only had 3. That completely destroyed the entire series for me. NOT! Seriously though, considering all the thousands and thousand of tiny little details in 6 books that JKR must keep track of I'm amazed there aren't far more inconsistencies then there are. Perhaps she's made a flowchart or a computer database of every person animal concept or thing in the entire Potter saga. Eggplant From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 13:09:44 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:09:44 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163907 > > Ken: > > > > PS: Here is a really wild theory that came to me one night this > > weekend when I woke for some reason. Could Dumbledore have been a > > horcrux? Tom did make a wand movement in that scene in Dumbledore's > > office and we were intended to believe that was when he cursed the > > DADA position. What if it had a different purpose entirely? What if > > Tom had become convinced that Dumbledore was the closest thing to a > > Gryffindor relic that he was likely to find? Even I am distrustful > > of thoughts that come in the middle of the night and yet.... > > Mike: > Alas, here we part company. The scene you were referring to reads: > > "For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless > warning: He was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched toward his > pocket and his wand; but then the moment had passed, Voldemort had > turned away, the door was closing, ..." (HBP p. 446, US) > > He never got to his wand. Unless he knows how to cast the Horcrux > encasing spell wandlessly and without Dumbledore realizing it, I'm > afraid it was just one of those disjointed dreams. Annemehr: Hang on, though. In OoP, during the Dementor attack in Little Whinging, Harry lit his wand in order to *find* his wand, by saying "Lumos" when it was inches from his hand. That's in the book for a reason, I bet. Maybe it's something like electromagnetic induction, eh? Magical induction. I figure it's likely Voldemort's hand twitch was when he cursed the DADA position, but who knows... Speaking of the DADA curse, I wonder if LV cursed Hogwarts, or Dumbledore personally. I mean, if LV put the DADA curse on Hogwarts, it must be still in effect, right? But if he cursed Dumbledore (e.g. "No DADA professor in *your* employ will last more than one year."), then with DD's death, the curse would be over. Mike: > Now its time for one of my silly questions. Why isn't Harry still > protected by whatever Lily did in Godric's Hollow? Does it wear off? Annemehr: We may not really know exactly what that protection involved, but it did seem to be specific to Harry being touched by Voldemort. I mean, everyone else, from Dudley to Draco, has always been able to manhandle/jinx Harry with no ill effects, except LV who had an AK bounce, and Quirrell, who was part LV at the time, who couldn't touch Harry's skin. Oddly enough, though, Quirrell was able to truss Harry up with magical ropes -- why didn't they bounce like the AK? Is there something more to that AK rebound...? Anyway, the reason LV used Harry's blood in the rebirthing was to negate that protection. I wonder if it also made LV able to possess Harry, as he tried in OoP, except that he was thwarted by *another* Love-protection, i.e. Harry's love for Sirius. Er... was this even what you were asking about? :) Annemehr P.S. I wonder about the nature of that DADA curse, specifically the theory behind how it is cast. The curses we know how to cast involve uttering a very short incantation e.g. "Avada Kedavra." But the DADA curse seems to be a more spontaneous and creative thing, custom-made for the situation. We haven't really seen that done in the books, though I wonder if some of the protections on the Horcruxes may turn out to be of a similar type. Well, maybe Harry's magical education just never got that far. Don't mind me, I'm just musing... From mymusical_girls at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 11:06:54 2007 From: mymusical_girls at yahoo.com (Raechel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:06:54 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <45AEE292.80702@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163908 >Carol responds: >I've already pointed out how many turns of the Time-Turner (a >miniature hour-glass) would be required to go back sixteen years. >Technical difficulties aside, however, it would be a bit odd for >*Harry* to say, "Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll > hold him off!" (POA Am. ed. 240). KJ writes: > In one of the interviews with JKR she referred to Harry's trips > through the penseive with DD as going back in time to look at > Voldemorte's history. This may be what she had in mind when asked > if Harry would be doing any more time travel. She responded "no > comment." If there is some confusion in her mind about what > constitutes time travel, it is more likely that he will find the > penseive which DD left. > KJ Raechel responds: I was thinking something very similar this morning. Why couldn't Harry use the pensieve? It's clear that he has the memory in his brain. Someone (Snape, maybe) could be able to help him remove that memory from his mind and place it in the pensieve. Then, he would be free to observe it as a 16 year old and gleen whatever information he can from it. rc From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 15:45:35 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:45:35 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163909 > Mike: > I see the soul as an ethereal, non-physical essence. > Unlike an organ, like the heart, the soul does not occupy any > physical location. It resides everywhere and nowhere within the > physical body of the person. > This would mean that a Horcrux is holding an essence that resides > everywhere and nowhere within the object. The Horcrux encasing spell > must create a portal through which the soul piece enters the object > then closes like one of Captain Kirk's doors after the soul piece > passes to within. When Harry stabbed the diary he created his own > portal. It is written so we can envision it physically, we can > picture the diary with a hole in it. But I suspect that it was the > magical quality of the Basilisk fang that *magically* created the > portal by which the soul piece escapes it's confines. > > You see where I'm going here? Harry has a physical representation of > a magical portal on his forehead. JKR had to "mark" Harry to simplify > the concept for her target audience. We can see the mark so we > understand that Voldemort "mark[ed] him as his equal". But the soul > piece doesn't *reside* in any particular location. It isn't in the > scar, it *got in* through the scar when it was still a cut. Annemehr: First, forgive me for replying to your post in two separate posts of my own, but I wanted to ponder this part a bit more, to make sure I'm not overlooking anything. I really like your Captain Kirk's door image, but the problem here is that Harry was stabbed with the Basilisk fang just before he stabbed the diary with it -- so if he *was* a Horcrux, and your theory is accurate, he ought to have ceased to be so right then. That is partly why, in my "De-Horcruxing Harry" post earlier in this thread (#163784), I concluded that, if merely making a hole in a Hx is enough to release the soul piece, and if Harry is indeed a Hx, then the Hx would have to be restricted to his scar. Other parts of him have bled numerous times, including the arm which was stabbed by both the fang and the knife Wormtail used to resurrect LV. I do take note of your idea that is might need to be a magical object that creates the new portal, though. Mike: > And Harry is protected from being possessed in the same way he was > protected from Voldie's AK. Annemehr: Well, yes, if you mean by means of love, but by two separate instances of love, I believe. Mike: > Harry's sub-conscious has access to the soul fragment and visa- versa. > Harry's special connection to Voldemort occurs via the guest soul > piece and via the portal, i.e. Harry's scar. Furthermore; Harry's > access to the essence of his guest is why he can speak Parseltongue > and, ... what else?? We'll see I 'spose. What else? Well, I would say, the power of possession. If you're interested, I sorted through some of the canon for this idea back in message #119783, before HBP was published. Annemehr From plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 18 16:03:47 2007 From: plantladywithcfids at yahoo.ca (ANGIE) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:03:47 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163910 > Raechel responds: > > I was thinking something very similar this morning. Why couldn't > Harry use the pensieve? It's clear that he has the memory in his > brain. Someone (Snape, maybe) could be able to help him remove that > memory from his mind and place it in the pensieve. Then, he would be > free to observe it as a 16 year old and gleen whatever information he > can from it. > > rc > Angie responds: I never thought of a pensieve. This is a good idea too. Although I have to wonder if all time tuners are for only 1 hours increments? Could there not be a way to adjust them to larger increments or perhaps have some out there that the ministry does not know about, like the unknown animagus, that work for larger periods of time? Just my thoughts. Angie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 16:24:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:24:29 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163911 Mike wrote: > > "For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless > warning: He was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched toward his > pocket and his wand; but then the moment had passed, Voldemort had > turned away, the door was closing, ..." (HBP p. 446, US) > > He never got to his wand. Unless he knows how to cast the Horcrux > encasing spell wandlessly and without Dumbledore realizing it, I'm > afraid it was just one of those disjointed dreams. Carol responds: Or Voldemort *did* get to his wand but didn't utter an incantation or point the wand at Dumbledore. DD says that from that interview onward, he's been unable to keep a DADA teacher for more than a year. So I agree with you that he didn't make DD or anyone/anything else into a Horcrux with that movement, but I disagree that he didn't cast a spell. I'm quite sure that he had his hand on the wand in his pocket and cast a nonverbal spell jinxing or cursing the DADA position at that moment, with unortunate or even disastrous consequences for a number of characters we're familiar with: Quirrell, Lockhart, Lupin, real and fake Moody, Umbridge, Snape, and Dumbledore himself. Carol, who still doesn't think that Harry is a Horcrux or that one can be created accidentally or in advance, any more than a cake can be "encased" in a box before the cake is baked From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 16:32:47 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:32:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50701180832t18bbe94ak7afe0fecbd083f7c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163912 > Carol responds: > It takes one turn for the Time Turner to take the user back one hour. Says you. According to hp-lexicon (no access to primary source at the moment), at the department of mysteries, "A large glass-fronted case stands against a wall within which many Time-Turners of various sizes rest on shelves." - various sizes. I imagine there are probably time turners that count in days, maybe weeks - a year might be a bit far-fetched. Let's suppose that the amount of time a time-turner goes back corresponds to the size of the "hourglass" contained therein. A one-hour time turner is small enough to be worn around the neck conveniently. Now, to hold 24 times as much sand, an hourglass would only have to be a bit less than three times the size in all directions. 5844 turns is still a bit much, but it approaches feasibility, only taking a bit over an hour and a half at one turn per second. Now, a one-week time turner would only be a bit over 5.5 times as large in all directions as a one-hour one, and would only require 835 turns. Now - a time turner of one month would (assuming that larger time-turners still need to be based on a regular time period, rather than adhering to calendar months, the most likely would be a synodic month of 29.53 days, but even 32 days would) be a bit under nine times as large - we're pushing the bounds of plausibility here, so let's not go to a year or more. 16 calendar years would be 198 such months - taking the glass through this many turns would still perhaps be a chore, but at, say, five seconds per turn (it would be rather unwieldy), it would only take 16 minutes and 30 seconds, and it'd be easier to keep count. (and, it's better to err on the side of more turns if you do lose count - you can always sit and wait) > Even if Harry got hold of one or found one that had, say, belonged to > Lily, he would have to figure out exactly how many hours it would take > to go back to October 31, 1981. Let's say, for simplicity's sake, that > he visits Godric's Hollow just before midnight on October 31, 1997. He > needs to multiply 24 hours in a day times 365 days a year times > sixteen years, not counting an extra day for the Leap Years (1984, > 1988, 1992, 1996) that occurred in between. By my calculations, that's > exactly 140,256 turns of the Time Turner. If we calculate one turn per > second, that's approximately minutes or roughly 39 hours of standing > there turning the Time Turner, trying not to lose count or allow The bigger issue, as I see it, is that with a time turner you can't actually *change* anything. The best he could do would be to take his parents into hiding (making sure that lily's sacrifice / protection on baby!Harry still "counts" or providing an alternate mechanism for the scar and Voldie's "death") and keep them from being noticed for the duration (and I do mean the duration - so far as we know, the only way forward in time is the long way) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 17:29:51 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:29:51 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163913 Annemehr wrote: > I really like your Captain Kirk's door image, but the problem here is that Harry was stabbed with the Basilisk fang just before he stabbed the diary with it -- so if he *was* a Horcrux, and your theory is accurate, he ought to have ceased to be so right then. > > That is partly why, in my "De-Horcruxing Harry" post earlier in this > thread (#163784), I concluded that, if merely making a hole in a Hx > is enough to release the soul piece, and if Harry is indeed a Hx, > then the Hx would have to be restricted to his scar. Other parts of > him have bled numerous times, including the arm which was stabbed by > both the fang and the knife Wormtail used to resurrect LV. > > I do take note of your idea that is might need to be a magical object that creates the new portal, though. Carol responds: Good points. I don't happen to think that Harry is a Horcrux at all, but you've at least established that *if* there's a soul bit in him, it resides in his scar. (Still a big *if* in my view, but I'm trying to avoid that topic.) And clearly, the soul as envisioned by JKR isn't quite as intangible as we normally conceive of it since it can be split, encased, and sucked out. (See my "wind, breath, spirit" post upthread. I suppose the soul is envisioned as being like a gas, fluid yet containable and somehow divisible into equal sevenths even after only four murders.) Stabbing or cracking the object, whether with a Basilisk fang or a spell that breaks through the protections, releases the soul bit and de-Horcruxifies the object. In the case of the ring, doing so also released a curse that didn't so much protect the Horcrux as punish the Horcrux-breaker, no doubt to prevent him from destroying any others. No doubt the violator (DD in the case of the ring) was intended to die. To return to your post, I'm not sure that a magical object (wand, Basilisk fang, etc.) is required in all cases. The diary, as I've repeatedly pointed out, was designed to be interactive (Ginny and Harry both wrote in it and read the responses of Diary!Tom; Harry visited one of the memories in the diary). It could not be unopenable or contain a protective curse like the other objects, whose soul (sorry, *sole*) purpose is to anchor the soul bit to earth. And Harry sustained no harm from destroying it for that reason, IMO. Unprotected as the diary apparently was, would any sharp object have destroyed it, say a nonmagical or nonpoisonous fang or a twelve-inch knife? Ginny failed to destroy it by flushing it down the toilet, but maybe, like Harry trying to fight the boggart-dementor while still wanting to hear his mother's voice, she didn't *really* want to destroy it, only to get rid of it. What would have happened if she had thrown it into the Gryffindor common room's fireplace? Would fire have destroyed it? (Most of the other Horcruxes are made of virtually indestructible gold, no doubt with anti-melting spells protecting them.) > Mike: > > Harry's special connection to Voldemort occurs via the guest soul piece and via the portal, i.e. Harry's scar. Furthermore; Harry's > > access to the essence of his guest is why he can speak Parseltongue and, ... what else?? We'll see I 'spose. > Annemehr: > What else? Well, I would say, the power of possession. If you're interested, I sorted through some of the canon for this idea back in message #119783, before HBP was published. Carol: Aagh. I can't seem to keep my own resolution! Yes, Harry's scar is a "portal" and he canonically has some of Voldemort's powers. But "guest soul piece," not necessarily. We can't assume that the scar is a Horcrux. That remains a theory, and only a theory, and not one that I'm buying for reasons already stated. We know that Parseltongue is one of the powers that Harry acquired from Voldemort. I agree with Annemehr that possession is likely to be another. I made a similar suggestion in post #142385 (not pre-HBP, alas!): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142385 "But what about the one power that remained to Voldemort after he was vaporized, the one power he could wield without a wand? Suppose that Harry has acquired the power of Possession along with the ability to speak Parseltongue (and perhaps a bit of Legilimency)? "We know that Voldemort can no longer possess Harry, but what if Harry possesses Voldemort? What better way for the Love Harry supposedly represents to enter Voldemort's mind, destroying him through the "ancient magic" he despises? And how fitting for Harry to turn Voldemort's own powers against him without stooping to casting an Unforgiveable Curse. "And instead of being a passive instrument of destruction who must himself be destroyed, Harry can actively wield the power of possession as no one else in the WW can." Carol, going back to Annemehr's post to see if she agrees with it From random832 at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 16:40:40 2007 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:40:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50701180840u889f8f6udb295275a09c12b1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163914 > Mike wrote: > > > > "For a second, Harry was on the verge of shouting a pointless > > warning: He was sure that Voldemort's hand had twitched toward his > > pocket and his wand; but then the moment had passed, Voldemort had > > turned away, the door was closing, ..." (HBP p. 446, US) > > > > He never got to his wand. Unless he knows how to cast the Horcrux > > encasing spell wandlessly and without Dumbledore realizing it, I'm > > afraid it was just one of those disjointed dreams. Disjointed dream? hold the phone - what could create a "gap" in someone's memory, at which point someone viewing it later would perceive a [however slight] discontinuity? Here's my timeline - voldemort goes for his wand, stuns DD, horcruxes some object in the office (or does whatever else he intended to do), "un-stuns" (ennervate?) DD, _obliviates DD_, and slightly messes up the time period to be obliviated - so we still see him reaching for his wand, but nothing else appears to have come of it. From jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 15:54:06 2007 From: jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com (JULIA WILKES) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:54:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dumbledore not dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <964875.62575.qm@web37907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163915 > Raechel : > While I agree that Dumbledore is, in fact, DEAD, I don't > think that necessarily means he is gone. It interests me > greatly the way his portrait in the headmistresses office > is described at the end of HBP. As we know the portraits > are all aware of what is going on in the present as > demonstrated by Phineas Nigellus and the portraits who > assist DD in OoP. IMO, I believe that DD will still be > around to help Harry and explain what happened to his > shriveled and burnt hand by means of his portrait. > Consequently, just because JKR has resolutely declared > that DD is dead does not mean he won't be around. Response from jdwilkes46: I do believe Dumbledore is dead but will be able to communicate with us thru his portrait. At the end of OOTP, they talk about his "sleeping portrait". So he'll wake and will communicate with Harry and every one else just like he did when he was alive, he would talk to all the other portraits about stuff. My question is this: I know that you can move from portrait to portrait, Phineas moved from Dumbledore's office to #12 Grimmauld Place when he needed to. Could Harry, If he were to carry a portrait of Dumbledore in his knapsack could Dumbledore move from the office to the knapsack so he could go with Harry to look for the Horcruxes? As far as Harry dying in the last book or Snape being good: I have always thought Snape was truly evil... Never had a good bone in his body. And I hope Harry doesn't die, that would be a shame and would firmly close the book series. Which I have always hoped that maybe in 5 or 10 years JKR would break down and write another book. Like the aftermath of a deadly fight. I would love to have it end with the fight between LV and Harry with them both lying on the ground and just as the movie goes to black out you see Harry move his hand or something. jdwilkes46 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 20:17:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:17:12 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50701180832t18bbe94ak7afe0fecbd083f7c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163916 Carol earlier: > > It takes one turn for the Time Turner to take the user back one hour. > Jordan: > According to hp-lexicon (no access to primary source at the moment), at the department of mysteries, "A large glass-fronted case stands against a wall within which many Time-Turners of various sizes rest on shelves." - various sizes. I imagine there are probably time turners that count in days, maybe weeks - a year might be a bit far-fetched. Carol: I was going by the one Time-Turner we've seen in operation, Hermione's (now returned to the MoM and probably destroyed), which we know to be an hourglass, operating in one-hour increments. Those other Time-Turners, which may have been hourglasses or may have counted time in days, weeks, months, or years as you speculate, are all destroyed. So the only way for HRH to obtain a Time-Turner is to conveniently find one in the ruins of the house at Godric's Hollow (If Lily was an Unspeakable, as some posters think, she might have owned or borrowed a Time-Turner). And how extra-convenient if it were a dayglass or weekglass or monthglass rather than an hourglass. (It all smacks of deus ex machina to me, but I'll go along with the scenario for the fun of it). > Carol earlier: > > Even if Harry got hold of one or found one that had, say, belonged to Lily, he would have to figure out exactly how many hours it would take to go back to October 31, 1981. Let's say, for simplicity's sake, that he visits Godric's Hollow just before midnight on October 31, 1997. He needs to multiply 24 hours in a day times 365 days a year times sixteen years, not counting an extra day for the Leap Years (1984, 1988, 1992, 1996) that occurred in between. By my calculations, that's exactly 140,256 turns of the Time Turner. If we calculate one turn per second, that's approximately minutes or roughly 39 hours of standing there turning the Time Turner, trying not to lose count or allow [anything to distract him]. Jordan: > Let's suppose that the amount of time a time-turner goes back > corresponds to the size of the "hourglass" contained therein. A > one-hour time turner is small enough to be worn around the neck > conveniently. Now, to hold 24 times as much sand, an hourglass would > only have to be a bit less than three times the size in all > directions. > > 5844 turns is still a bit much, but it approaches feasibility, only > taking a bit over an hour and a half at one turn per second. Now, a > one-week time turner would only be a bit over 5.5 times as large in > all directions as a one-hour one, and would only require 835 turns. > Carol responds: Suppose that your speculations are correct and Time-Turners exist in all varieties, distinguishable by size. Suppose that the kids find a Time-Turner in the rubble at Godric's Hollow, miraculously undiscovered by the Aurors who investigated the Potters' deaths and unbroken after sixteen years. Suppose that they figure out that it must be, say, a weekglass. Hermione, the practical one, calculates that they'll need exactly 835 turns. All they need to do is stand there, making sure that nothing distracts the person turning the Time-Turner to make him or her lose count, for 835 seconds (roughly fourteen minutes). That's *if* it's a weekglass and they've identified it correctly. If it's a dayglass, they have to stand there waiting for 5,844 seconds (1.6 hours). Perseverance, luck, concentration, patience. It could be done, I suppose, even by seventeen-year-old or eighteen-year-old kids. But again, they'd have to be sure that it's a dayglass. I'll suspend my disbelief for the moment and assume that Hermione can do that. > Jordan: > The bigger issue, as I see it, is that with a time turner you can't > actually *change* anything. The best he could do would be to take his parents into hiding (making sure that lily's sacrifice / protection on baby!Harry still "counts" or providing an alternate mechanism for the scar and Voldie's "death") and keep them from being noticed for the duration (and I do mean the duration - so far as we know, the only way forward in time is the long way) > Carol: Yes. Here we almost agree. As I said in another post to this thread, "I don't see how Time-Turned Harry can have been at Godric's Hollow, or why he would be there. He can't change history. He'd have had to have been there in the first place, as Time-Turned Harry and Hermione were "always" there to save Buckbeak and Sirius Black." Later in the same post, and in the one you're responding to, I suggested a Pensieve, which would pose its own set of difficulties, but bear with me. I'll get there. To return to the Time-Turner problem. Time-Turned!Harry would have his scar because of what already happened at Godric's Hollow. He would be alive and have the power to defeat Voldemort because of his mother's sacrifice. Those things can't be undone, at least not without a serious disruption of subsequent events and even his own existence. If he attempts to alter history, his past self, and therefore his present self, could be killed. Or Voldemort could AK Time-turned!Harry. If he prevents his mother's death, he'll deprive his present self of the scar and therefore of the powers he's acquired from Voldemort. But that won't happen because it was Lily's sacrifice and not Harry-from-the-future that vaporized Voldemort and set the events relating to the Prophecy in action, unlike PoA, where Time!Turned Harry and Hermione were there all along, unknown to their past selves. If Time-Turned!Harry could change history by taking his parents into hiding as you suggest, somehow convincing them that he was Harry-from-the-future and not a DE Polyjuiced to look like James, the events at GH would be undone. James and Lily might be alive and in hiding for sixteen years, but Harry wouldn't be the Chosen One with the power to defeat Voldemort. The Prophecy wouldn't be activated, Voldemort wouldn't be vaporized, and many more people would be dead because VW! would not have ended. Lily's self-sacrifice would not have occurred and Voldemort, protected by his Horcruxes, would be unbeatable. Bad as they were, the events at Godric's Hollow resulted in something good--Harry as the Chosen One. Even if Harry could undo history by going back, it would be disastrous to do so. Lily's death and the love magic it activated brought eleven years of peace to the WW and transformed Harry into the only person who can defeat Voldemort. All a Time-Turned Harry would be able to do without devastating consequences is to watch helplessly as Voldemort killed his parents and tried to kill his younger self. It would be a whole lot safer to do so in a Pensieve, where the Potters and Voldemort are only memories and can't see him or react to his presence, than to risk being seen or altering history, even if all the difficulties I've outlined for finding and using a Time-Turner were overcome. Just for fun, to lighten up the tone of this post, here's my argument in dialogue form. SCENE: The ruins of the house at Godric's Hollow, Halloween 1997. Hermione: Harry, I'm so sorry. This must be awful for you. Harry: No, it's all right. I--I wanted to come here. I just wish--Never mind. Ron (pointing): What's that? Do you see that gleam over there? (They run to the spot he's pointing at.) Harry (digging through the rubble and holding up the object): It's an hourglass! Hermione: It's a Time-Turner, Harry. Only it's, well, a lot bigger than mine was. Ron: I thought they were all broken. Hermione (giving him a withering look): Only the ones at the Ministry, Ron. This one must have been here since-- Harry: Since my parents died. You can say it, Hermione. Maybe we could use it to go back and stop Voldemort-- Hernione: You can't do that, Harry. You might end up killing your past self or your present self. Or you'd change history. You wouldn't have your scar-- Harry: I don't want the damned scar. Hermione: It's too risky, Harry. You can't be seen. And, anyway, when we saved Buckbeak, well, we'd already saved him. Just like you'd already cast that Patronus. Ron: Huh? Hermione: So if you were going to go back and save your parents, you'd already have done it, and they wouldn't be dead. Ron: What? Hermione: So all you could do if you went back is watch them die--and not do anything about it. Because, well, as I understand it, Voldemort gave you some of his powers when he gave you that scar. I don't really understand the Prophecy, but he made you the Chosen One by attacking you after your mother died to save you, and-- Harry: All right, all right! We'll just watch, okay? Or I'll just watch. You don't have to come. Ron: We can all watch under the Invisibility Cloak. Harry: If I hadn't left it on the Astronomy Tower after Snape-- Ron: We can go back. Harry: *You* can go back and get it. I'll stay here and turn the thing while I wait for you. How many turns will it take, Hermione? Hermione: I don't know. If it's an hourglass-- Harry: What do you mean, *if* it's an hourglass? Hermione: Well, if it's an *hour*glass, it's going to take an awful lot of turns. But it could be a *day*glass, so to speak, or a *week*glass. Judging from the size, I'm guessing that it's a weekglass. Harry: Which means? Hermione: You know. The turns could take you back a day or a week at a time instead of an hour. Or a month or a year or-- Harry: But how many turns would it take? That's all I'm asking. Hermione: I don't have a calculator-- Ron: What's a calculator? Hermione (ignoring him): Harry, do you have a quill and parchment? Harry (impatiently): Do you see my bookbag? We're not at Hogwarts, Hermione. Hermione: All right, then. You don't need to be so testy. (Does some quick calculations in the dirt with her wand.) Okay, if it's an hourglass, we'd need 140,256 turns--that's one turn per second for 39 hours. I don't see how we-- Ron: We could take turns. Hermione (ignoring him): If it's a dayglass, we'd need 5,844 turns. That's a lot better, only 1.6 hours, but still, we could easily lose count. But if it's a weekglass, it would be 835 turns, only fourteen minutes. We could do it if we didn't have any distractions. But still, there's the problem of being seen. Even if only Harry went back, and if he managed to keep out of sight-- Ron: And didn't try to fight You Know who or get hit by a stray curse-- Hermione: --it would be risky. And, of course, we still don't know which kind of Time-Turner it is until we try it. What if you accidentally went back 835 years? Harry: Exactly what do you suggest, Hermione? Hermione: I don't think we should try to use it. Too many things could go wrong. I think we should turn it in to the Ministry. We destroyed all their Time-Turners, after all. Ron: And a lot of Prophecy orbs. And maybe that brain I Accio'd. Harry (ignoring Ron): I meant, how do you suggest that I get back to the night my parents died? How do I find out what happened that night? Maybe someone else was there. Maybe--I don't know. I just have some questions that I need answers to. Hermione: There's only one safe way to go back, Harry. A Pensieve. I'm sure McGonagall would let us use Dumbledore's if it's still at Hogwarts. Harry: But how would we get the memory? I mean, I was there, of course. I didn't see the whole thing, and I don't remember it, but we could probably walk around in my memory, all of us, only I don't know how to get it out of my head. I've only ever seen Dumbledore do it. Hermione: And Snape. Harry: Don't say his name! Hermione: But Slughorn must know how to do it. You got that memory from him, remember? Harry: That's it! We'll ask Slughorn to help us. And I can get my Invisibility Cloak off the Astronomy Tower while we're there. Carol, thanking Jordan for the inspiration for this little scene and hoping that one or two people found it amusing From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jan 18 21:19:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:19:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore not dead? Message-ID: <17658861.1169155190111.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163918 From: JULIA WILKES >I do believe Dumbledore is dead but will be able to communicate >with us thru his portrait. At the end of OOTP, they talk about >his "sleeping portrait". So he'll wake and will communicate >with Harry and every one else just like he did when he was >alive, he would talk to all the other portraits about stuff. >My question is this: I know that you can move from portrait >to portrait, Phineas moved from Dumbledore's office to #12 >Grimmauld Place when he needed to. Could Harry, If he were to >carry a portrait of Dumbledore in his knapsack could Dumbledore >move from the office to the knapsack so he could go with Harry >to look for the Horcruxes? Bart: Well, it ain't a horcrux, but what about a Chocolate Frog card? >As far as Harry dying in the last book or Snape being good: >I have always thought Snape was truly evil... Never had a good >bone in his body. Bart: Which doesn't mean that he wasn't completely loyal to Dumbledore and against Voldemort. >And I hope Harry doesn't die, that would be a shame and would >firmly close the book series. Which I have always hoped that >maybe in 5 or 10 years JKR would break down and write another >book. Bart: I have come to the conclusion that the reason why JKR has sworn that she will not write another book in the Potterverse is because the ending of Book 7 will ensure that it is impossible. My guess: the end of the Wizarding World in some way, shape or form. Bart From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 18 21:26:20 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:26:20 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups/message/163780, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > However, if a person is made into a Horcrux, where does the soul > > piece reside? Indeed, what form does a soul fragment take? Where > > does our own soul reside for that matter? Can we see it, touch it? > > Mike: > I'll try this while leaving out religious references. Realizing that > many think of the soul in the context of their religion and that JKR > being a Christian probably does also, this may not work, but here > goes anyway. I see the soul as an ethereal, non-physical essence. > Unlike an organ, like the heart, the soul does not occupy any > physical location. It resides everywhere and nowhere within the > physical body of the person. So, no Geoff, you can't see it or touch > it, imo. But you are always in contact with it. With me so far? Geoff: Don't leave out the religious references becasue it holds good there. Speaking as a Christian, I can quite visualise my soul as you describe it because it is an ethereal non-corporeal link to God. Mike: > As hard as it is to envision a non-physical soul, I imagine it must > be twice as hard to write about it in a way that conveys your > meaning. For this reason, imo, JKR chose to treat the manipulation of > the soul as if it was an organ while still not giving it any physical > presence. So she speaks of "splitting", "tearing", and "ripping" the > soul as if it were a heart, but still doesn't envision the the end > result as having any physical components, only a split essence. > > This would mean that a Horcrux is holding an essence that resides > everywhere and nowhere within the object. The Horcrux encasing spell > must create a portal through which the soul piece enters the object > then closes like one of Captain Kirk's doors after the soul piece > passes to within. When Harry stabbed the diary he created his own > portal. It is written so we can envision it physically, we can > picture the diary with a hole in it. But I suspect that it was the > magical quality of the Basilisk fang that *magically* created the > portal by which the soul piece escapes it's confines. > > You see where I'm going here? Harry has a physical representation of > a magical portal on his forehead. JKR had to "mark" Harry to simplify > the concept for her target audience. We can see the mark so we > understand that Voldemort "mark[ed] him as his equal". But the soul > piece doesn't *reside* in any particular location. It isn't in the > scar, it *got in* through the scar when it was still a cut. Geoff: In my reply, I was commenting on the view expressed by some contributors that the scar WAS a Horcrux, not merely a portal. This would have implied that the encased soul fragment was being held close to Harry's head, hence my concern about a potential threat to his health. I rather see the soul in this context as being rather like a volume of gas contained in a closed container. If some is removed, the amount of gas present is less but expands to fill the volume available. Geoff Still believing that Harry is really a Noncrux. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 18 22:15:46 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:15:46 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163920 > > >>Pippin: > > JKR isn't quite ready to drive a stake through manipulative > > Dumbledore's heart, because it's part of what makes manipulative > > Snape credible. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Hmm... that's an interesting angle I've not considered before. The > reader needs to have a niggling suspicion that Dumbledore is a bit of > a ruthless player in order to think Snape could have played him? I > think I can get that. Especially if it means there'll be a general > air-clearing in DH (even with Dear-Departed!Dumbledore) that will > make very clear that Dumbledore never expected Harry to go after the > Stone. > At the time of PS/SS I think Harry would have been content with > Dumbledore saying he was keeping an eagle eye on the situation with > Snape and Quirrell (not a lie! ). But preventing Harry from going > through the trap-door isn't my issue. > > My issue is with a Dumbledore who expected, planned on, and tried to > prepare Harry to go through a door that would leave him alone with a > highly talented Death Eater (best scenario) in the end. It's insane, > full stop Pippin: Yes it was insane, but the insane person wasn't Dumbledore. "If anything happens to me, don't follow. Go straight to the owlery and send Hedwig to Dumbledore, right?" -PS/SS Think about it, who in his right mind, if he saw a robbery in progress, would go after the robber himself and instruct his friends to call the police only if he didn't come back ???? That's, well, that's delusional, that is. Harry apparently already thinks he is expected to act the hero. But did Harry get that idea from anything Dumbledore ever said to him? It's more from the hype he's been hearing from everyone else about the Boy Who Lived plus a steady diet of Mega Man fantasies courtesy of Dudley, all mixed up with Harry's thirst to prove himself. What Dumbledore did, besides creating the opportunity for Harry to glimpse the package, was return Harry's invisibility cloak, which was Harry's birthright as much as his magic powers, and show him the mirror, which he warned Harry not to look for again. Harry put everything together like a jigsaw puzzle and some parts of his solution were radically off, as we know. I think from what Dumbledore says later that he did arrange for Harry to confront the mirror, because it would help him find out the sort of person Harry was. And he hinted that Harry might run across the mirror again one day. But he didn't give Harry any reason to associate the cloak, the mirror, or the wrapped package with Voldemort. He planned, or rather, anticipated, that one day Harry would have to confront Voldemort, and he did indeed plan to prepare Harry for that day, but as he says, it came much, much sooner than he expected. Firenze was the one who revealed that Voldemort was in the area and after the Stone. We don't know whether Dumbledore ever even heard about that conversation. I don't think we are going to get a clearer explanation of Dumbledore's role in these particular events. What I think we are going to get is Dumbledore's philosophy of freedom. That's the missing link, IMO. It isn't Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, who thinks he's in charge of everyone's lives, and it isn't Callous! Dumbledore who doesn't care if his charges live or die. It's FreedomLoving!Dumbledore, who thinks his students have at least as much right to choose to risk their lives fighting evil as they do playing Quidditch. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 22:30:31 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:30:31 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40701171815m5e1218cen22cbffcd01935c95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163921 > >>montims: > the ironic thing is that if Harry hadn't gone down there, the stone > would never have materialised - he was the only one pure enough of > heart to get it, and his being there in fact jeopardised the > situation... If he had remained in his dorm, Quirrell would have > been down there fruitlessly looking for the stone... Betsy Hp: Exactly. Which means Harry's Dumbledore is both ruthless and stupid. Not a good combination. > >>Quick_Silver: > But doesn't the book make it quite clear then Dumbledore was the one > that gave, and then returned, the invisibility cloak to Harry? > Granted Dumbledore might have felt some duty to return it as Harry > had been using it in an effort to cover for Hagrid (who is quite > clearly Dumbledore's man). Yet the cloak plays an important role in > a number of Harry's "adventures" and Harry with a cloak seems more > likely to into trouble (and thus risk his "innocence") then a cloak- > less Harry. Or perhaps does Dumbledore believe that the only > mischief that Harry can get into with the cloak is of Fred and > George sort that's hardly a reassuring thought and that's leaving > aside the whole issue of what James managed to do with the cloak. Betsy Hp: Actually, I do think Dumbledore expected Harry to get up to relatively "innocent" mischief. But I also agree that the invisibility cloak was involved in a sort of character test. I just don't think it had anything to do with the Stone. I think Dumbledore knew that Hagrid had an illegal baby dragon. Hagrid wasn't doing his work and I'd be shocked if Dumbledore didn't realize something was going on. Plus, we have Ron showing up in the hospital wing with a "mysterious" injury... I can't see Dumbledore missing those clues. So IMO, Dumbledore knew Hagrid had a dragon, knew Harry knew about it, and I think he deliberately sat back to see what Harry would do. That Harry came up with a plan that took into consideration the protection of both the dragon and Hagrid, that Harry was willing to face detention, point loss and the anger of his house-mates, and that Harry never thought to give Hagrid up, I think pleased Dumbledore immensely. Which is why Dumbledore returned Harry's cloak. Harry showed he was able to use the cloak for good purpose. If Draco were suddenly under constant attack from an invisible foe, if test papers went missing from the teacher's lounge, if Harry was spotted at the Three Broomsticks, then I suspect the cloak would have been confiscated and held until Harry showed himself mature enough to get it back. But in the end, there's not a lot of danger in Harry having an invisibility cloak. Dumbledore knew he had it and could keep an eye on the sort of use it was put to. Not at all like encouraging a boy to face a life and death challenge that very nearly killed him. > >>Quick_Silver: > I wonder if part of the reason that JK hasn't put Harry's view of > Dumbledore out to pasture is that it reflects that "evolving" view > of Harry in Dumbledore's eyes. Betsy Hp: The issue I have with this is there isn't much evolving going on. If Dumbledore expected Harry to go through the trap-door he was throwing Harry in amongst the sharks at the start. If Hermione hadn't come along (and Harry discouraged her) he'd have strangled to death at the very first obstacle. There wasn't any coach waiting in the wings to call off the plant. > >>Quick_Silver: > By PoA Dumbledore seems confident enough in Harry to send him back > in time... Betsy Hp: A *giant* step backwards in danger level though. He sent Harry back within a very limited time period, with an experienced time-traveler and a fairly specific gameplan. All Harry had to do was rescue Buckbeak and then pull Sirius from his locked room. No facing down desperate and dangerously skilled Death Eaters. Just a simple rescue mission. Heck, Time-traveling Harry and Hermione weren't even confronted by Dementors. (Their adventure was so boring, danger- wise, the movie version had to spice it up.) > >>Quick_Sliver: > ...and by OotP he's dropped most of the pretenses and is having > Harry be tutored in Occlumency by Snape. Betsy Hp: Oh, there are still pretenses. Dumbledore still couldn't bring himself to talk to Harry about the existence of a prophecy (and boy, wouldn't *that* have changed things!). Very odd behavior for a man so *sure* Harry needs to be the consummate solider he sent an eleven year old Harry to confront a Death Eater all by himself. And again, as per Dumbledore anyway, sending Harry for some private lessons with Snape certainly wasn't sending Harry into deathly danger. (No matter what flavor of Snape turns out to be true, *Dumbledore* trusted him completely.) IMO, the Occlumency lessons were on par with making Harry return to the Dursleys. Nothing that will give Harry pleasure, but a necessary step to keeping Harry protected (in Dumbledore's view at least). > >>Quick_Silver: > Most of Dumbledore's tasks in HBP seem designed to encourage and > further train Harry and develop his skills. Betsy Hp: Right. Harry's skills of observation, knowledge of his foe, and ability to get help or information from others. Nothing martial or deadly or really even death-defying about it. > >>Quick_Silver: > Having Harry wonder (and not be shot down) in PS/SS and CoS (with > the whole thing in Hagrid's hut) provides a base for that > Dumbledore of later books. Betsy Hp: But I'm not talking about Dumbledore turning a blind(ish) eye to Harry wandering the castle after hours, or probing the library for information. I'm talking about Dumbledore allowing, or even encouraging eleven year old Harry to trap himself in a room with, at the very least, a highly skilled and intensely loyal Death Eater. What does that set the foundation for? To my mind that version of Dumbledore is quite willing to sacrifice the life of the littlest Weasley to further test his weapon's mettle. That Dumbledore is quite willing to sacrifice an innocent man's sanity to tie his weapon to his cause. But is that really the Dubmledore JKR is wanting us to see in the end? I doubt it. But I don't think JKR has made her version of Dumbledore all that clear. That so many readers think Dumbledore *wanted* Harry to go through the trap door in PS/SS proves my point. There's no way to explain a Dumbledore willing to put a child to that sort of risk without allowing for a certain amount of monstrosity in his character. But that version of the events in PS/SS, Harry's version, still stands. JKR needs to shoot it down. IMO, anyway. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 22:30:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:30:54 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163922 > Pippin: >> What Dumbledore did, besides creating the opportunity for > Harry to glimpse the package, was return Harry's invisibility cloak, > which was Harry's birthright as much as his magic powers, and > show him the mirror, which he warned Harry not to look for again. > Harry put everything together like a jigsaw puzzle and some parts of > his solution were radically off, as we know. > > I think from what Dumbledore says later that he did arrange for > Harry to confront the mirror, because it would help him find out > the sort of person Harry was. And he hinted that Harry might > run across the mirror again one day. But he didn't give Harry > any reason to associate the cloak, the mirror, or the wrapped > package with Voldemort. He planned, or rather, anticipated, > that one day Harry would have to confront Voldemort, and he > did indeed plan to prepare Harry for that day, but as he says, > it came much, much sooner than he expected. > > Firenze was the one who revealed that Voldemort was in the area > and after the Stone. We don't know whether Dumbledore ever > even heard about that conversation. Alla: So, wait, are you arguing that Dumbledore showed Harry the mirror which is really the main trap for the stone, but did not expect Harry to go after the Stone? Woudn't it be much simpler to, I don't know NOT show Harry the mirror at all, if Dumbledore truly did not expect Harry to do it? I mean, you seem to be saying that Dumbledore anticipated that Harry would have to confront Voldemort, but later on. Are you saying that Dumbledore theoretically did not mean for Harry to do it in this book, so to speak? The problem I have for this argument is of course that the tools that Dumbledore is showing Harry are **precisely** for going after Stone, as I said above Mirror being the main one, no? Or are you saying that Dumbledore did expect Harry to go after stone, but when he is older? Are you saying that DD was hoping that Stone will be in Hogwarts for the more indefinite period of time and then when Harry is older, he can flex the muscles so to speak? Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 18 22:40:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:40:20 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163923 Betsy Hp: > But I don't think JKR has made her version of Dumbledore all that > clear. That so many readers think Dumbledore *wanted* Harry to go > through the trap door in PS/SS proves my point. There's no way to > explain a Dumbledore willing to put a child to that sort of risk > without allowing for a certain amount of monstrosity in his > character. But that version of the events in PS/SS, Harry's version, > still stands. JKR needs to shoot it down. IMO, anyway. Alla: Yes, precisely. I am pretty sure I reposted this post by Dicentra maybe even more than once. It is called "Dumbledore wrote book 1" Personally I found her points to be spot on and see no way around them. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/33289 Actually, no that is not true. One of my best buddies on list yesterday showed me a possible way around point number 9, but that is about it for me so far :( Take a shot if you wish. From kaleeyj at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 23:16:43 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:16:43 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163924 > Alla: > > So, wait, are you arguing that Dumbledore showed Harry the mirror > which is really the main trap for the stone, but did not expect Harry > to go after the Stone? > > The problem I have for this argument is of course that the tools that > Dumbledore is showing Harry are **precisely** for going after Stone, > as I said above Mirror being the main one, no? > > Or are you saying that Dumbledore did expect Harry to go after stone, > but when he is older? > blitz now: Could I be of some help here? I read this theory loooooong time ago - I can't recall if it was on Mugglenet, or the Red Hen. The point of Dumbledore leaving traps in the dungeon that an eleven year old can get through is that it would challenge an adult wizard a bit, but also give him a false sense of security. The mirror was the stopper. No one working for Voldemort could get the stone out of the mirror. They would be a sitting duck there when the teachers lowered the boom. That's why Dumbledore chanced leaving the school - give him a chance to make his move. After the thief was apprehended, the mirror would be taken out of its hiding place, and someone would get the stone out of it. A sweet, honest little student who just wants to find the precious item in the mirror would be just the person. And Dumbledore let Harry be that student. Perhaps he didn't expect Harry to come strolling along that first night and discover the mirror, but Dumbledore decided after a few times that Harry would be an excellent pick for that student to retrieve the stone - favoritism is what it boiled down to. So Dumbledore shows Harry how to work the mirror. (I like the thought of Harry seeing *what he wants to see* in the mirror - a large family with traits like him, and no Dursleys). And then Dumbledore puts the mirror away. And he says, "Now don't you forget this, Harry." The thief isn't making his move by the end of term. All the students will be gone soon. Dumbles is nervous. So he takes off, making sure that the staff know about his absence. "Urgent letter from London - Fudge is up to his ears in something. Must take off, be back late tonight. The weather's so nice, I do believe I will fly there..." The thief makes his move with Dumbles away - the old geezer flew there instead of Apparating from Hogsmeade, so he'll be gone for a while. Dumbledore planned to keep the thief busy - even if he gets the stone, he's still only got one way out of that obstacle course - everyone will be waiting for him. But Harry Potter comes along and forks it all up. He wasn't going to do anything in this at all. He would be the one that would get the stone out of the mirror a day or two later. He wasn't supposed to go down there. Hermione was right, and HArry, as iusual was wrong in his little speech. Dumbledore didn't want him down there. The invisibility cloak was his - it belonged to his father. And HArry has so few items connecting him to his parents - let the baby have a toy. ~Yblitzka, who found the link: http://www.redhen-publications.com/QuirrellDebacle.html And it's a very good essay. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 23:28:05 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:28:05 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore not dead? In-Reply-To: <17658861.1169155190111.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <17658861.1169155190111.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <948bbb470701181528j335f19f3ud0ccfeb0987167c0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163925 JULIA WILKES Could Harry, If he were to >carry a portrait of Dumbledore in his knapsack could Dumbledore >move from the office to the knapsack so he could go with Harry >to look for the Horcruxes? Bart: Well, it ain't a horcrux, but what about a Chocolate Frog card? >As far as Harry dying in the last book or Snape being good: >I have always thought Snape was truly evil... Never had a good >bone in his body. Bart: Which doesn't mean that he wasn't completely loyal to Dumbledore and against Voldemort. >And I hope Harry doesn't die, that would be a shame and would >firmly close the book series. Which I have always hoped that >maybe in 5 or 10 years JKR would break down and write another >book. Bart: I have come to the conclusion that the reason why JKR has sworn that she will not write another book in the Potterverse is because the ending of Book 7 will ensure that it is impossible. My guess: the end of the Wizarding World in some way, shape or form. Bart ======================================= Jeremiah: Ok, Julia. How are you going to get a portrait into a knapsack? IMO the portraits are HUGE and dragging one along doesn't make sense to me. Now, Bart, from what I've read from JKR's site, the portraits are very different from other pictures in the WW. These portraits are more intuitive and can follow commands where as something like a Chocolate Frog Card just smiles and waves. So, IMO I would rule out the Card. Ok, Snape being good or evil: Yikes. I've wanted to breech this subject for ages on this site. Ummm... here goes my stuff. I believe Snape and DD are on the same side: that side being the "Voldemort must be destroyed" side. And why? well, JKR has set up 2 binaries for us. First: DD & Snape. They are polar opposites as far as Dark Arts and non-Dark Arts. Snape would never go as far as to breech the laws of nature (killing someone is within the laws of nature... it's just not a very nice thing to do). This brings me to the other binary: Voldemort and Harry. LV and Harry are outside the laws of nature. LV should be able to die. By creating Horcuxes and splitting his soul Voldemort has taken himself out of the realms of nature and moved into the supernatural. When LV tried to kill Harry he created in Harry a supernatural being: One who should have died but didn't. This is tricky, though, seeing as his mother offered protection but since it has been mentioned that Harry is the only person to survive the AK curse I would say he has moved outside the laws of nature. He should have died that night but something supernatural happened to him. Therefore: Snape is not "evil" just dark. Just as DD isn't' "good" but enlightened (not that one cannot overlap with the other... that's why they are such interesting binaries to me). So, LV and Harry are joined together as binaries outside the laws of nature, and the prophesy says "one cannot live while the other survives" and IMO this can be applied to either of them even though Harry is labeled as "the boy who lived" he has been referred to as having survived the attack. I think both Harry and LV will die in the end. They cannot exist and this is DD's and Snape's main motivation: Restore the balance of nature. (Snape was going along with DD because DD was the most influential in the WW,,, I think Snape disagreed with DD's plans but probably feels they were betther than doing nothing? and DD has had experience with Dark Wizards before? Grindlewald). Now, Bart, to destroy the WW is a HUGE step. Also, I think it's not possible because JKR has said that one of the three (Ron, Hermione and Harry) will teach at Hogwarts later in life. So, I would assume the WW remains in existence (though I would hesitate to use the term "in tact") and continues on. And, I know... I know... Harry dying would suck-big-time but she has said that 7 books is all there is and Harry's death would definitely make that a true statement. So would many other scenarios, but I'm in the "Harry's Gonna Die" camp- but not with any enthusiasm. I'd be happy if I am wrong. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 00:28:11 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:28:11 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163926 > >>Alla: [throwing down a gauntlet; chuckling evilly] > ...I am pretty sure I reposted this post by Dicentra maybe > even more than once. It is called "Dumbledore wrote book 1" > Personally I found her points to be spot on and see no way around > them. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/33289 > Actually, no that is not true. One of my best buddies on list > yesterday showed me a possible way around point number 9, but that > is about it for me so far :( > Take a shot if you wish. Betsy Hp: [never met a gauntlet she *didn't* want to pick up. "Because they're so sparkly!"] Okay, I actually agree with Dicentra that Dumbledore wrote PS much as Lucius wrote CoS. And PS turned out about as well for Dumbledore as CoS did for Lucius. Things go pear-shaped, the wrong stuff gets threatened, and both men loose a servant in the end. (Though Dumbledore is probably used to loosing DADA instructors by this point.) I'll follow Dicentra's lead and go point by point. > >>Dicentra: > 1. It cannot be a coincidence that Harry was with Hagrid when he > recovered the stone. Dumbledore sent Hagrid to collect Harry and get > the stone at the same time. Betsy Hp: Agreed. But why? So that Harry develops an insatiable curiosity about Hagrid's mysterious package, takes out a newspaper subscription (very normal eleven year old boy behavior ), and ignoring all the fantastic magic around him fixates on the package Hagrid picked up a month or so ago? Hardly. Dumbledore sent Hagrid to get the Stone on the same day he was set to wander about Diagon Alley with the attention grabbing "Harry Potter! Boy Who Lived!!" so that anyone with the wrong sort of curiosity would take note of Hagrid's second errand. Dumbledore was drawing the attention of the would-be thief *away* from the Flamels and towards one of the most powerful wizards in the WW. Himself. > >>Dicentra: > 2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was retrieved the day > Quirrell broke into Gringotts. Dumbledore must have known what had > happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort was up to. He > brought the stone to Hogwarts to protect it, yes, but he also knew > Voldemort would follow it. Perfect opportunity to let Harry > confront him. Betsy Hp: Ooh, *major* leap here. Suddenly we're supposed to believe that Dumbledore *knew* Voldemort was residing in the back of Quirrell's head? Some canon would be nice. Something to explain why Dumbledore threw away his best under-cover spy, Snape (again, as per Dumbledore's view, "complete trust" and all that) yet somehow without feeling that he'd thrown Snape away. (How stupid is Dumbledore supposed to be again?) There are two ways to explain the coincidence: (1) JKR needed to drop a clue for the reader here. (2)Hagrid picked up the Stone as soon as Dumbledore got word that the defenses of Gringotts were being tested: a race that Dumbledore won. Frankly, especially considering that this was also Harry's birthday, I'm going with author-convenient coincidence. (With the author being JKR at this point.) Just as Draco conveniently skulked by the very window the Trio were looking out of in the beginning of HBP. Sometimes stories demand a coincidence. > >>Dicentra: > 3. As has been mentioned, the Mirror of Erised was the only real > protection the stone had. Quirrell and Voldemort would have no > problem getting through the other kinds of "protection" surrounding > the stone (though it did slow them down some). The mirror was kind > of a monkey trap--you can't pull your hand out until you let go of > the fruit--that Voldemort could never foil. Betsy Hp: Or any Death Eater for that matter. I absolutely agree that the mirror was a monkey trap. All of the other "obstacles" were there to whet the appetite. Oh, and cunningly give the entire Hogwarts staff a big pointy, flashy sign showing where exactly the Stone was hidden. (Wouldn't want a dangerous Death Eater wandering around Hogwarts looking for the hiding place, would we? ) And just to be sure, Dumbledore gave his big "avoid the third floor! That's right, the *third* *floor*!!" announcement. I still don't see any reason to think Dumbledore was expecting *Voldemort* himself to get trapped. But I do think he was preparing for an intelligent, powerful, and at this point unknown Death Eater to enter the scene. Hence the desire to capture, not kill nor deter. > >>Dicentra: > 4. Dumbledore gave Harry the Cloak of Invisibility for Christmas, > telling him to "use it wisely." What could that mean except "go > roaming about the school after hours to figure out this mystery"? Betsy Hp: Why not just, "use it wisely"? I'm quite sure Dumbledore is a big supporter of letting children explore and learn things on their own as much as possible. And I'm sure he knew Harry would sneak about the castle after hours. But it doesn't mean he meant for Harry to go through the trap-door. The cloak wouldn't get Harry past Hagrid's dog. And the one time we *know* Dumbledore was aware of Harry using his cloak for less than legal purposes, Harry was protecting Hagrid. I'm sure Dumbledore would label that a wise use. But it had nothing to do with the Stone. > >>Dicentra: > 5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found the Mirror of > Erised. After Dumbledore tells Harry how the mirror works, he says > "The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow, Harry, and I ask > you not to go looking for it again. If you ever do run across it, > you will now be prepared." At the time, Harry probably thought the > last sentence meant that he wouldn't waste away in front of it, but > I think he was referring to the confrontation with Voldemort. (And, > by the way, the stone was probably in the mirror the whole time > (even before Christmas?), "unprotected" by the other spells.) Betsy Hp: Again, this is a leap. For one thing, Harry didn't need to learn how to "work" the mirror to get the Stone at the end of PS. The mirror just did its thing. The only good that came out of Dumbledore's little talk with Harry is that Harry knew *why* he was the one to find the Stone. But it didn't do anything to *help* Harry find the Stone. So in that sense, it was a waste of an effort on Dumbledore's part. But for another, JKR puts in a scene where Harry and Ron sit at a fairly small table with Dumbledore and discuss the mirror. Harry is even showing signs of someone in the mirror's thrall. So she gives us a reason for Dumbledore to confront Harry later that night. If she wanted Dumbledore's talk to be linked to a plot to ready Harry to go through the trap-door, there was no need to give Dumbledore a reason for showing up. It'd have been a part of the mystery. So, Dumbledore talking to Harry about resisting the mirror's pull isn't written as mysterious, and it isn't necessary. So I don't think there's a hidden purpose behind it. It is what it is. > >>Dicentra: > 6. Some have suggested, with reason, that the tests required the > cooperation of all three to pass and were deliberately set up this > way. The only test that didn't have this quality was the troll, > which Dumbledore knew would have been defeated by Quirrell before > Harry met up with it. Betsy Hp: The big problem with this idea is that if Harry hadn't brought Ron and Hermione along (or if they hadn't insisted on going with him) Harry wouldn't have been stopped, he'd have been killed. Odd sort of test isn't it? It's not looking for Hermione's and Ron's flaws so that Dumbledore can break Harry away from unworthy friends if need be. If Hermione and Ron aren't worthy, Harry *dies*. How is that sane? Instead, I think Dumbledore sets up a guantlet that is *just* challenging enough (especially because of the various skills needed) to encourage the thief to go deeper and deeper into the trap. It *looks* like Dumbledore has set up a series of protections, so when the thief finally hits the mirror, he's going to stick around for a while and try and solve the puzzle. He cannot realize immediately that it's a trap, or he might flee. That the Trio are able to solve the puzzles themselves is a tribute to their combined skills, but it's also a necessity on JKR's part. She's not going to kill any of them off. It's why none of the Death Eaters managed to kill the children at the DoM battle in OotP. > >>Dicentra: > 7. That the test was ultimately meant for Harry alone is shown in > Snape's potions test. Only one person can make it through to the > mirror. Dumbledore counted on that one person being Harry. (If no > one was meant to get to the stone, ALL the vials would contain > poison.) Betsy Hp: First off, the mirror wasn't really a *test* for Harry. Certainly not one Dumbledore needs Harry to go through. He's already seen Harry in front of the mirror. Why would he need for Harry to go in front of it again? While standing next to a Death Eater or Voldemort? Second, that only one person can go through Snape's puzzle makes more sense if you think of the mirror as a Death Eater trap. Quirrell is too young to have been recruited by Voldemort, so he must have *someone* running him. Who is it? Quirrell refused to tell Snape who it was (their conversation about Quirrell's loyalties), but surely the Death Eater behind Quirrell would go through the fire himself to fetch the Stone. Death Eaters' love of glory being what it is. And that's the person Dumbledore wanted to expose and catch. I don't think anyone realized Quirrell's master was Voldemort himself, riding on the back of Quirrell's head. > >>Dicentra: > 8. Dumbledore was counting on Harry to figure out where the stone > was and who was after it. When Harry asks him later about the fate > of Nicolas Flamel, he brightens up: "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" > said Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You *did* do the thing > properly, didn't you?" The "thing" was the mystery Dumbledore had > set up for Harry. Betsy Hp: Or the mystery that Harry involved himself in. That Dumbledore is pleased that Harry did it so well is hardly surprising. But it doesn't show that Dumbledore *meant* for Harry to get involved. "I'd hoped you'd learn about him!" or "How wonderful that you picked up on all of the clues!" would do more to point to Harry falling into Dumbledore's plans. Instead Dumbledore is only showing pleasure in Harry having done a good job, not saying he'd sneakily pushed Harry into the job in the first place. > >>Dicentra: > 9. It's possible that Dumbledore was not fooled in the least by the > fake MoM message, instead understanding that Quirrell was making his > move. He "leaves" Hogwarts, but he probably doesn't go far. (He > tells Harry that he makes it as far as London, but I wonder...) As > Hermione later recounts "we were dashing up to the owlery to > contact Dumbledore when we met him in the entrance hall--he already > knew--he just said, 'Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?' and > hurtled off to the third floor." Betsy Hp: If the mirror was a trap, it stands to reason that some sort of alarm would sound to alert Dumbledore that the trap had been sprung. Whether the message was fake or not, Dumbledore would have realized that he was (paraphrasing) "needed back at Hogwarts". If the mirror was a test for Harry, it was very silly of Dumbledore to not be around to *observe* Harry's reactions to the test. (Really, if it were a test, there should have been a one-way-mirror somewhere, with Dumbledore and Snape and McGonagall in white lab- coats and clip boards watching the Trio's progress.) That Dumbledore was able to leap to the conclusion that Harry had gone after the Stone himself isn't a big stretch of the imagination. Especially now that we know about Patronus as communication device (McGonagall sends a little message regarding Harry's knowledge about the Stone), and after we've seen Dumbledore react pretty quickly to just learned information. (Marietta and the DA club in OotP.) Dumbledore is very good at making rather clever leaps. > >>Dicentra: > 10. Ron then asks, "D'you think he meant you to do it? Sending you > your father's cloak and everything?" Harry responds (after > Hermione's obligatory horrified reaction), "I think he sort of > wanted to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less > everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty > good idea we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just > taught us enough to help. I don't think it was an accident he let > me find out how the mirror worked. It's almost like he thought I > had the right to face Voldemort if I could...." I don't think this > is Harry?s personal interpretation. I think this is JKR's message > to the reader. Betsy Hp: But Harry is already wrong in at least one point. There was no purpose to him knowing how the mirror worked. The mirror worked with or without Harry knowing about it. Harry's knowledge changed nothing. Still, many people do take Harry's version of Dumbledore as JKR's version. But if that is so, then she's writing an ESE!Dumbledore and I just can't get behind that idea. I can see why JKR might play coy with our take on Dumbledore in the beginning. But if she seriously wants us to fully understand Dumbledore, and to like him, then she has to be clear that Hermione's reaction was the correct one. I do think Dumbledore set the entire plot of PS in motion. But I think that, like OotP, Dumbledore was up to something on one level (the adult level, if you will) and had no idea Harry would get involved. He (as usual) underestimated Harry's curiosity and tenacity. Dumbledore did not expect Harry to go through the trap- door. Betsy Hp (whew!) From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 02:13:08 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:13:08 -0000 Subject: The HP Fandom/Lexicon (was annoying inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163927 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > But there is a far more important inconsistency, in book 1 the > official stool used in the sorting ceremony had 4 legs, in book 2 it > only had 3. That completely destroyed the entire series for me. NOT! > Seriously though, considering all the thousands and thousand of tiny > little details in 6 books that JKR must keep track of I'm amazed there > aren't far more inconsistencies then there are. Perhaps she's made a > flowchart or a computer database of every person animal concept or > thing in the entire Potter saga. > > Eggplant > Actually there's a answer to that. They've retired the original stool. See, it's a relic. A heirloom. It's been placed in the Hogwart's museumor alternatively Voldemort stole it for a Horcrux! After all, Harry Potter sat on it! Seriously, I'm sure JKR did make flowcharts and all these things. In fact, we know she did. She's shown us. But sometimes when she's away from home or just lazy she says she checks the HP Lexicon. And that brings up a point I've often thought about. I'm almost a bigger fan of the Lexicon then I'm of the books, and I've often wondered just how much Steven and the Lexicon, Mugglenet and even this group list have to do with both JKR's accuracy and the popularity itself of HP. Just how popular would HP be without the Lexicon or other fan-sites like Mugglenet? The Lexicon's is tailor made to help fulfill every HP fans obsession with obscure facts, and these facts become lures that help pull in fans for JKR. For instance Dr. Strange and Mr. Norell was an interesting read and very detailed, but it doesn't have a Lexicon. Neither does Eragon. Both have fandom a fraction of the HP fandon. The fact that Star Trek has things close to the Lexicon helps explains some it popularity. (Steve's first Lexicon type thing was for Star Trek.) It seems that within fandom one or two fans that make themselves almost as popular, knowledgeable and useful as the author can act as a multiplyer for the popularity of work, especially in the internet age. If Steve or someone like him were to set up an Eragon Lexicon I wonder how much the popularity of that fandom would sore? Even if someone just set up an Eragon for adults yahoo group, I bet the popularity of that fandom would grow tremendously. It is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? Steven and the Lexicon staff and others such as Mugglenet (which is really sort of an online magazine as well as a community)have really helped Jo become very rich. What's also helped of course, is that Jo is smart enough to play a strong part in the culture and fandom she has developed. She has even allowed it to a limited extent to become an alternative shared universe. If she had ignored it, questioned it or denied fan-fiction. If she'd had refused to have fun with the fans of her own creation. Well we wouldn't have what we have now would we? BTW how is JKR going to write this encyclopedia she talks about? Because IHO the Lexicon already is the HP Encyclopedia? What do you think? DA Jones From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 19 02:21:59 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:21:59 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163928 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Quick_Silver: I've snipped everything before because you make such good points that I find myself in totally agreement with you. > > >>Quick_Silver: > > Having Harry wonder (and not be shot down) in PS/SS and CoS (with > > the whole thing in Hagrid's hut) provides a base for that > > Dumbledore of later books. > > Betsy Hp: > But I'm not talking about Dumbledore turning a blind(ish) eye to > Harry wandering the castle after hours, or probing the library for > information. I'm talking about Dumbledore allowing, or even > encouraging eleven year old Harry to trap himself in a room with, at > the very least, a highly skilled and intensely loyal Death Eater. > What does that set the foundation for? > > To my mind that version of Dumbledore is quite willing to sacrifice > the life of the littlest Weasley to further test his weapon's > mettle. That Dumbledore is quite willing to sacrifice an innocent > man's sanity to tie his weapon to his cause. But is that really the > Dubmledore JKR is wanting us to see in the end? I doubt it. > > But I don't think JKR has made her version of Dumbledore all that > clear. That so many readers think Dumbledore *wanted* Harry to go > through the trap door in PS/SS proves my point. There's no way to > explain a Dumbledore willing to put a child to that sort of risk > without allowing for a certain amount of monstrosity in his > character. But that version of the events in PS/SS, Harry's version, > still stands. JKR needs to shoot it down. IMO, anyway. > > Betsy Hp Quick_Silver: Ok I think I see why you want JK to shoot down that version of Dumbledore. My one point (since aside from that I agree with you) is that I think the version of Dumbledore you mention above (manipulative!Dumbledore or whatever he goes by) is, IMO, tied inherently with Dumbledore's supposed omniscience. So it could be that the whole shooting down of Dumbledore might not happen with a bang but a whimper in following with the pattern of Harry seeing a more human Dumbledore with each book (or that the series has built to this point perhaps?). Quick_Silver From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jan 19 02:30:22 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:30:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The HP Fandom/Lexicon (was annoying inconsistencies) References: Message-ID: <006c01c73b71$c5fec5a0$df72400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163929 aceworker: > And that brings up a point I've often thought about. I'm almost a > bigger fan of the Lexicon then I'm of the books, and I've often > wondered just how much Steven and the Lexicon, Mugglenet and even this > group list have to do with both JKR's accuracy and the popularity > itself of HP. Just how popular would HP be without the Lexicon or > other fan-sites like Mugglenet? > > The Lexicon's is tailor made to help fulfill every HP > fans obsession with obscure facts, and these facts become lures that > help pull in fans for JKR. > > For instance Dr. Strange and Mr. Norell was an interesting read and > very detailed, but it doesn't have a Lexicon. Neither does Eragon. > > Both have fandom a fraction of the HP fandon. The fact that Star Trek > has things close to the Lexicon helps explains some it popularity. > (Steve's first Lexicon type thing was for Star Trek.) > > It seems that within fandom one or two fans that make themselves > almost as popular, knowledgeable and useful as the author can act as a > multiplyer for the popularity of work, especially in the internet age. > > If Steve or someone like him were to set up an Eragon Lexicon I wonder > how much the popularity of that fandom would sore? Even if someone > just set up an Eragon for adults yahoo group, I bet the popularity of > that fandom would grow tremendously. > > It is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? Steven and the > Lexicon staff and others such as Mugglenet (which is really sort of an > online magazine as well as a community)have really helped Jo become > very rich. Magpie: I honestly don't think so, no. I think the popularity of the fandom inspires the lexicons, not vice versa. Turning Eragon into Harry Potter or Star Trek could not possibly be so easy as making lists and things from the books. That stuff's only interesting because the books/shows have pulled people in first. I don't think those fan sites account for much more than a fraction of JKR's wealth from the books. I wouldn't be surprised if there were sites devoted to things like Eragon. People put up stuf about just about everything. aceworker: > What's also helped of course, is that Jo is smart enough to play a > strong part in the culture and fandom she has developed. She has even > allowed it to a limited extent to become an alternative shared universe. > > If she had ignored it, questioned it or denied fan-fiction. If she'd > had refused to have fun with the fans of her own creation. Well we > wouldn't have what we have now would we? Magpie: JMO, but I think we pretty much would. Her not publically condemning fanfic or going after it is good, but I don't see what involvement she has with the fans as creating the fandom or making it significantly larger. We're living in a time when creators of shows, movies and books are all beginning to see the value of fandom because of the Internet. Interacting with it has I think become more and more standard. But I think that happened because the Internet gave fans more of a voice creators could hear-the fans, as ever, create themselves. -m From jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 00:56:18 2007 From: jdwilkes45 at yahoo.com (JULIA WILKES) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:56:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <498112.93789.qm@web37903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163930 Geoff: > In my reply, I was commenting on the view expressed by some > contributors that the scar WAS a Horcrux, not merely a portal. > This would have implied that the encased soul fragment was being > held close to Harry's head, hence my concern about a potential > threat to his health. > I rather see the soul in this context as being rather like a volume > of gas contained in a closed container. If some is removed, the > amount of gas present is less but expands to fill the volume > available. > Geoff > Still believing that Harry is really a Noncrux. Geoff, I do not believe Harry is a Horcrux either. I think LV is a little smarter than that. Though it is believed that LV may have made the snake, Nagini, a Horcrux, I think LV knows that to make a human/wizard a Horcrux, someone who can think for him self and act for himself would be a major mistake but with Nagini he does have control of her. Do you think Harry will truly kill LV... is capable of killing of LV. I am not convinced he is capable at this age nor skilled enough so I wonder if in the last book if the "BIG FIGHT" will not take place 5 maybe even 10 yrs down the road. Or will he have a change of heart, as with Wormtail, and want something else for him. What do you think of him erasing his memory, as with Professor Lockhart? Julie W. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 03:34:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:34:18 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163931 > Betsy Hp: [never met a gauntlet she *didn't* want to pick > up. "Because they're so sparkly!"] Alla: Tee hee, I live to please :) > Betsy Hp: > Dumbledore sent Hagrid to get the Stone on the same day he was set to > wander about Diagon Alley with the attention grabbing "Harry Potter! > Boy Who Lived!!" so that anyone with the wrong sort of curiosity > would take note of Hagrid's second errand. Dumbledore was drawing > the attention of the would-be thief *away* from the Flamels and > towards one of the most powerful wizards in the WW. Himself. Alla: Oh, I actually love it, LOTS. I would love for that to be true. > > >>Dicentra: > > 2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was retrieved the day > > Quirrell broke into Gringotts. Dumbledore must have known what had > > happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort was up to. He > > brought the stone to Hogwarts to protect it, yes, but he also knew > > Voldemort would follow it. Perfect opportunity to let Harry > > confront him. > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, *major* leap here. Suddenly we're supposed to believe that > Dumbledore *knew* Voldemort was residing in the back of Quirrell's > head? Some canon would be nice. There are two ways to explain the coincidence: (1) JKR needed to drop > a clue for the reader here. (2)Hagrid picked up the Stone as soon as > Dumbledore got word that the defenses of Gringotts were being tested: > a race that Dumbledore won. > > Frankly, especially considering that this was also Harry's birthday, > I'm going with author-convenient coincidence. Alla: Okay, I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. I mean, the reason why Dicentra argues that DD knew is because he retrieved Stone on that very day that Quirrell did. Are you saying that it happened just because it happened? Just for plot related reasons? I mean, that is possible of course and I myself argued plot based reasons often enough, but if we have two possibilities and one of them has another canon to support it, isn't the plot needs reason gets weaker automatically? I mean, sure we do not know for sure that DD knew about Quirrel being Quirrelmort, what I am trying to say is that isn't this coincidence at least makes the implication valid, if it makes sense to you :) > > >>Dicentra: > > 3. As has been mentioned, the Mirror of Erised was the only real > > protection the stone had. > Betsy Hp: > Or any Death Eater for that matter. I absolutely agree that the > mirror was a monkey trap. And just to be > sure, Dumbledore gave his big "avoid the third floor! That's right, > the *third* *floor*!!" announcement. > Alla: Oh, Heeee. Betsy do you know how much trouble I am having snipping your post. I am laughing again when I am rereading the third floor announcement, LOL. Sure, agreed, DD was attracting attention but see below. > I still don't see any reason to think Dumbledore was expecting > *Voldemort* himself to get trapped. But I do think he was preparing > for an intelligent, powerful, and at this point unknown Death Eater > to enter the scene. Hence the desire to capture, not kill nor deter. Alla: The problem with this argument as I see it, or maybe I missed your point is that if you are saying that DD did not expect Voldemort in the back of Quirrel's head, why would he expect a DE to appear? If he knows that somebody is after Stone, would he not know who is that person, who is the only person who would want to be after the stone? Or at least that this DE would be heavily coached by LV. > > >>Dicentra: > > 4. Dumbledore gave Harry the Cloak of Invisibility for Christmas, > > telling him to "use it wisely." What could that mean except "go > > roaming about the school after hours to figure out this mystery"? > > Betsy Hp: > Why not just, "use it wisely"? Alla: Actually I will buy this one. Thanks :) > > >>Dicentra: > > 5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found the Mirror of > > Erised. Betsy Hp: > Again, this is a leap. For one thing, Harry didn't need to learn how > to "work" the mirror to get the Stone at the end of PS. So, Dumbledore talking to Harry about resisting the mirror's pull > isn't written as mysterious, and it isn't necessary. So I don't > think there's a hidden purpose behind it. It is what it is. Alla: Ok, I snipped rather arbitrarily, but I lost the argument. Could you tell me again why Dumbledore felt a need to tell Harry about Mirror at all? I mean, see to me any talk about the mirror and NOT go looking for it would encourage eleven year old boy to do **precisely** that - go looking for it. Why would DD bother? I am not sure I followed your would give DD a reason to confront Harry later on. > Betsy Hp: > If the mirror was a test for Harry, it was very silly of Dumbledore > to not be around to *observe* Harry's reactions to the test. > (Really, if it were a test, there should have been a one-way- mirror > somewhere, with Dumbledore and Snape and McGonagall in white lab- > coats and clip boards watching the Trio's progress.) > Alla: Hehe, true, true. ( I have to think about your explanations for 6 and 7, so I just cut them) >> Betsy Hp: > But Harry is already wrong in at least one point. There was no > purpose to him knowing how the mirror worked. The mirror worked with > or without Harry knowing about it. Harry's knowledge changed nothing. > Alla: Is he though? As I said above to me the purpose of conversation was to encourage Harry go looking for it. Betsy: > Still, many people do take Harry's version of Dumbledore as JKR's > version. But if that is so, then she's writing an ESE!Dumbledore and > I just can't get behind that idea. I can see why JKR might play coy > with our take on Dumbledore in the beginning. But if she seriously > wants us to fully understand Dumbledore, and to like him, then she > has to be clear that Hermione's reaction was the correct one. > Alla: That **is** a biggie for me and the one that I cannot pass. The main reason why I buy this version as JKR version is because as I mentioned upthread I just do not **hear** Harry in this speech, it does not sound to me as his way of talking at all, but pretty much as JKR talking. Another reason why I think Hermione is wrong here ( although I hope not), because earlier she pretty much sets herself as being inferiour to Harry in this challenge if it makes sense with her books and cleverness remark. Ugh, wrong words, she is not inferior of course, she solved the puzzle, helped a plenty, but **Harry** was the one who got the stone. So, that would make sense to me if he would also be the one who gives us the reasons of why he went there, if that makes any sense. Betsy, let's do it more often, I loved your explanation on lots of points. JMO, Alla From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 19 04:31:01 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 04:31:01 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163932 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > Suppose that your speculations are correct and Time-Turners exist in > all varieties, distinguishable by size. Suppose that the kids find a > Time-Turner in the rubble at Godric's Hollow, miraculously > undiscovered by the Aurors who investigated the Potters' deaths and > unbroken after sixteen years. Suppose that they figure out that it > must be, say, a weekglass. Hermione, the practical one, calculates > that they'll need exactly 835 turns. All they need to do is stand > there, making sure that nothing distracts the person turning the > Time-Turner to make him or her lose count, for 835 seconds (roughly > fourteen minutes). That's *if* it's a weekglass and they've identified > it correctly. If it's a dayglass, they have to stand there waiting for > 5,844 seconds (1.6 hours). Perseverance, luck, concentration, > patience. It could be done, I suppose, even by seventeen-year-old or > eighteen-year-old kids. But again, they'd have to be sure that it's a > dayglass. I'll suspend my disbelief for the moment and assume that > Hermione can do that. > > Carol I buy your other arguments for why the kids shouldn't and won't go back in time but the practical aspects you outline in this paragraph are simply no barrier at all. Hermione's hour glass time turner was a little hour glass with a ring at the top and a chain that ran through the ring so she could wear it around her neck and to define who the time turner acted on by cramming them inside the loop of the chain when it was used. Is it an hour glass, week glass, year glass, etc? Turn it back one turn and see. Problem solved, well unless it happens to be a millenium glass!!! Hold the chain for the time turner in both hands with the time turner itself between them and twirl the chain, you can get several turns, perhaps many turns, per second this way. It won't take terribly long to go back even with an hour turner. You don't have to count. Once you know the calibration of the time turner twirl it for a time you guesstimate is much less than needed check how far back you've gone and plan the next twirling session from that information. Approach your goal slowly as you get close and if you overshoot, so what? All you have to do is kill time while you wait for your target day and hour to come up. Hermione can spend it studying. That is how muggles would do it though. These kids are wizards. Just charm the calibrated turner to spin the required number of times at a spin rate that produces the total trip through time in a minute of your subjective time. Magic makes life easy! Magic makes life too easy though. Hermione convinces you to not save your parents but now you have over a decade to quietly find all the horcruxes (perhaps you leave Nagini if she is one and the diary) and disarm them or prepare them for disarming. When the night of the rebirth comes up you zap the horcruxes, apparate to the Riddle house, disable Peter, kill Nagini, and then give babyMort a long lecture before you zap him too. Then you tie Peter up for Cedric and your "other" self to find with a note pinned to his chest that reads "Harry, I believe you were looking for this. BTW, Voldemort is dead forever, his horcruxes (ask Dumbledore) are toast, and I've gotta dash. Signed, a close friend." That still gives you a few years to kill until it is time to rejoin your time line at Godrics Hollow. Perhaps the three of you decide they can most profitably be spent partying on the road with the Grateful Dead. Hermione will be a hard sell on that one.... No, I don't think we will ever see a time turner again and if we do I will lose all respect for the author. She never should have introduced them but I will give her a pass because she *seems* to have realized that, if belatedly. The only time travel stories I have ever liked are those that are played for laughs and in the hands of a talented author they can be wickedly funny. Ken From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 19 14:17:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:17:29 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163933 > > Alla: > > So, wait, are you arguing that Dumbledore showed Harry the mirror > which is really the main trap for the stone, but did not expect Harry > to go after the Stone? > > Woudn't it be much simpler to, I don't know NOT show Harry the mirror > at all, if Dumbledore truly did not expect Harry to do it? Pippin: Um, Harry doesn't know the mirror is guarding the stone until he actually gets to the final chamber. Can you explain how Harry's knowing about the mirror encouraged Harry in any way to go through the trapdoor? Are you saying that if he hadn't known about the mirror he wouldn't have gone through the trap door? Knowing how the mirror works didn't change anything. At most, it meant Harry was willing to look in the mirror without putting up a fight. In so far as that delayed the fight between him and Quirrell till Dumbledore got there, it probably saved his life. But that's just serendipity (or author contrivance) -- Dumbledore couldn't have planned that. Dumbledore knew he couldn't prevent Voldemort and Harry from confronting one another again because once Voldemort has tried to kill someone he always keeps trying until that person is dead. He knew that if Harry took after his parents, he would want to confront Voldemort some day. But Dumbledore could and did try to delay the confrontation. Dumbledore asked Harry not to go looking for the mirror again, and Harry honored his request. He certainly wasn't looking for the mirror when he went through the trapdoor. I think Dumbledore was very curious to know what Harry would see in the mirror -- and JKR wanted us to know. In fact, it, like the boggart, the dementor and the patronus, is a joke about the character development exercises writers use: What is your character's greatest desire? What is his greatest fear? His worst memory? What animal would you compare him to? But back to our story.... I think Dumbledore would have much preferred to destroy the stone immediately rather than attempt to guard it at Hogwarts, but that wasn't his decision to make. The stone was Nicholas Flammel's property, not Dumbledore's. Given that Flammel didn't yet see the need to destroy the stone, Hogwarts was the safest place for it. No doubt Flammel was hoping the stone could remain there until Voldemort was no longer a threat (Nicholas would be used to taking the long view, don't you think?) I suppose you'll tell me that Dumbledore had no right to endanger his students by agreeing to guard the stone at all, but Dumbledore thinks globally. The students will not be safer if the stone is guarded less securely somewhere else and Voldemort gets hold of it, nor will they be safer if Dumbledore takes to destroying things that don't belong to him. I think Dumbledore is very aware that there is no real check on him except his own conscience, so he's very wary of doing anything that would weaken it. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jan 19 14:34:25 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:34:25 EST Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163934 Nikkalmati One thing that bothers me is that in POA (Scholastic paperback at 133) Lupin says to the class "Nobody knows what a boggart looks like when he is alone, . ." but in OOP (Scholastic hardback at 169 - I finally started buying the hardbacks) Moody casts his eye up through the kitchen ceiling to the desk in the drawing room above and declares "yeah, I see it . . . Yeah, it's a boggart . . .Want me to go up and get rid of it, Molly?" So, how did he know it was a boggart if no one knows what one looks like when it is alone? I kind of wonder what Moody's boggart would be? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 15:19:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:19:16 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163935 Carol earlier: > > Suppose that your speculations are correct and Time-Turners exist in all varieties, distinguishable by size. Suppose that the kids find a Time-Turner in the rubble at Godric's Hollow, miraculously undiscovered by the Aurors who investigated the Potters' deaths and unbroken after sixteen years. Suppose that they figure out that it must be, say, a weekglass. Hermione, the practical one, calculates that they'll need exactly 835 turns. All they need to do is stand there, making sure that nothing distracts the person turning the Time-Turner to make him or her lose count, for 835 seconds (roughly fourteen minutes). That's *if* it's a weekglass and they've identified > > it correctly. If it's a dayglass, they have to stand there waiting for > > 5,844 seconds (1.6 hours). Perseverance, luck, concentration, > > patience. It could be done, I suppose, even by seventeen-year-old or > > eighteen-year-old kids. But again, they'd have to be sure that it's a > > dayglass. I'll suspend my disbelief for the moment and assume that > > Hermione can do that. > > > > > Carol I buy your other arguments for why the kids shouldn't and won't go back in time but the practical aspects you outline in this paragraph are simply no barrier at all. Hermione's hour glass time turner was a little hour glass with a ring at the top and a chain that ran through the ring so she could wear it around her neck and to define who the time turner acted on by cramming them inside the loop of the chain when it was used. > > Is it an hour glass, week glass, year glass, etc? Turn it back one turn and see. Problem solved, well unless it happens to be a millenium > glass!!! > > Hold the chain for the time turner in both hands with the time turner itself between them and twirl the chain, you can get several turns, perhaps many turns, per second this way. It won't take terribly long to go back even with an hour turner. > > You don't have to count. Once you know the calibration of the time > turner twirl it for a time you guesstimate is much less than needed > check how far back you've gone and plan the next twirling session > from that information. Approach your goal slowly as you get close > and if you overshoot, so what? All you have to do is kill time while > you wait for your target day and hour to come up. Hermione can > spend it studying. Carol responds: I don't think so. First, I think you have the movie version of the Time-Turner in mind. Book!Hermione's Time_turner is an hourglass on a chain, not a little glass lens with an hourglass inside. There's no indication in the books that you can just spin it ("Three turns should do it" indicates that it's turned precisely and manually, not spun), and it would be difficult to just try a hit-and-miss method of getting to the right time. How would they know if they were in 1955 or 1892 without exploring the nearby village to check out the technology and the clothing? You don't just collar the nearest Muggle and ask what year it is. Knowing Hermione, she'd want to be precise and get the time and date exactly right if they went back at all (and without a neck chain, it would be harder to send all three of them back). But it's all moot, anyway. I was just responding to Jordan's point that Time-Turners aren't necessarily calibrated in one-hour increments (though Hermione's obviously was). I seriously doubt that they'll find a Time-Turner of any kind at Godric's Hollow or elsewhere, and, as you say, the other arguments still hold. And as Raechel pointed out to me offlist, there may not even be any rubble left at the site of the house (and if there is, the Aurors would no doubt have combed it thoroughly for clues). BTW, I have a tangentially related question for anyone who wants to respond. Do you think that Voldemort's body disintegrated completely or were there Voldiebits lying around that could be identified? And, if so, why would anyone other than Dumbledore and those close to him (Snape and Hagrid, for example) believe that Voldemort wasn't dead? And if there weren't any Voldiebits, how did they know who the murderer was? Why would the MoM take Dumbledore's word for what happened? The Fidelius Charm could not have been common knowledge. Just wondering what people think on this point. Carol, still expecting them to use Harry's memory in DD's Pensieve helped by Slughorn (who has to have some sort of role in DH though Probably a small one) From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jan 19 15:46:47 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:46:47 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163936 > Nikkalmati > Agreed, that Snape is making a deliberate move here, but I don't think the > motive is hidden from us by JKR. I think she intends for us to be able to > figure it out. She is not holding back here. >Magpie: >I don't think she's holding back either. I think she means the reason for Snape's taking the Vow to be a big question mark. We can't know it without knowing his true allegiance. So she's intentionally hiding it from us. Nikkalmati Yes, but she does want to play fair and make it possible for us to figure it out or at least to understand once it is revealed. She doesn't want the reader to say to her/himself after DH "well, if I had only known that . . . " Nikkalmati Nikkalmati: > This is my story and I'm sticking to it. (For now at least). I don't think > it is a comedy, if Snape doesn't know what he has promised with the UV. It > is even more of a tragedy. When he promises to do the deed if Draco cannot, > he steps off a cliff with no bottom visible. I find that plenty distressing > for Snape, especially as he didn't see it coming. Yes, that is exactly what > Snape ends up doing - chasing Draco around. How many times did he request > the little snake to come to his office and Draco defied him? Doesn't Snape > look pretty ineffective in his interview with Draco during Slughorn's party? > There is some real tragic irony here. >Magpie: . There's tragic irony to the scene >regardless of whether Snape knows the task. What makes it comical to me if he doesn't is that every line of Snape's in the scene is really saying, "Um, what are we talking about, exactly? Could somebody give me a hint?" The tragic irony is lost on Snape himself, because he as yet has no idea what it is he's agreed to do. He's got to wait a while before that dramatic moment comes--and when it does we never see it. I find it hard to believe Rowling would write a tragic story all about somebody agreeing to do something terrible without realizing it and then forget to write the moment where the person has that terrible realization. Nikkalmati If we saw that moment, we would know his true loyalties wouldn't we? >Magpie >Yes, Snape looks ineffective in trying to chase after Draco--but that can't be blamed on Draco being a little snake and does not require Snape to have taken the Vow to find out the truth. In fact, once again imo, we're given a scene where Snape's trying to find out what the task is where he's given lines that don't match up to that in a way that Rowling really doesn't usually do. Snape's lines to Draco in the Xmas party scene, imo, make far more sense if he's trying to find out what Draco is specifically doing to fulfill his task than if he's trying to figure out what the task is. Nikkallmati Yes, I agree, because by the Christmas party, Katie has been injured and DD and Snape have figured out the target is DD. They may have figured it out the first time they put their heads together in the summer, but of course, we can't see that or we would know SS is loyal to DD. Nikkalmati Nikki: > Yes, "he means me to do it in the end, I think" is a bluff and a lie. We > know that isn't true, because LV intends for Draco to fail and the instructions > the DEs on the Tower have is to stand back and let Draco do it. Snape > doesn't even pay lip service to those instructions. He runs in, blows DD away and > drags Draco out by the scruff of his neck. Those were not LV's orders. If > LV talked to Snape before Spinners End, his orders would have been to stand > back and let Draco hang himself. If he had planned for Snape to kill DD, he > could have ordered Snape to do it at any time. No, LV doesn't think DD can be > taken out that easily by Draco or by Snape and as long as DD is at Hogwarts > he wants Snape there too. LV is not going to order Snape to reveal himself > by making a potentially useless murder attempt. Draco doesn't matter. He, > unlike Snape, is expendable. >Magpie: >You're answering a lot of questions here, but none of them seem to back up the idea that Snape took the Vow to find out the task. Snape's line here does not have to be a complete lie just because of LV's orders as shown on the Tower. Snape's full line is to say that "He" means Snape to do "it" in "the end," but that he means for Draco to "try first." In the unlikely event Draco succeeds, Snape can stay at Hogwarts a while longer, Snape says. It would be totally in character for LV to like the idea of Dumbledore being killed by Snape to drive home the betrayal and Dumbledore's mistake at trusting Snape. Only Snape and Voldemort are privvy to Voldemort's feelings about Snape as a double agent. Snape could very well understand correctly that killing Dumbledore is something he wants Snape to do *in the end*. Nikkalmati If LV thought SS could kill DD, he would have him do it immediately. In fact, SS's excuse for not killing Harry is that DD stands in the way. DD is LV's greatest stumbling block. With DD out of the way, there is little need for a spy at Hogwarts. If SS stood in the Great Hall and AK'd DD, or even leaned over and poisoned his mead, Hogwarts would probably be closed. Snape here is making up a reason to Narcissa's why he can't do the task for Draco. >Magpie > That, in any event, is what he is saying to Bellatrix and Narcissa, who do know what the task is. He's telling them that Voldemort intends for Snape to eventually be the person who kills Dumbledore, but that he is still demanding that Draco try to kill him first. He understands that his killing Dumbledore will spell the end of his time at Hogwarts. If he's truly working blindfolded here, he's pinned the tail right on the donkey. It's a good thing Draco's task really did fit all that. That's part of the oddness of Snape in the scene if he's gathering information-scene if he's gathering informa instead of letting anyone else fill things in. Nikkalmati Whatever Draco's task is, if Snape does it first, he can anticipate it will reveal his loyal to LV and require him to leave Hogwarts. If DD is dead, he isn't really needed at Hogwarts anyway. Snape is not gathering information here, how can he when he has told the witches he knows everything? He has reassured Bella, first, that he is trusted by the Dark Lord enough to know the plan. He is now trying to comfort Narcissa and assure her he will "help" Draco. He intends to place himself in a position to get the information from Draco later. > Nikkalmati: > It is not in character IMHO for Snape to take foolish risks. He is putting > his life on the line and I think there has to be a corresponding payoff. He > doesn't risk himself unnecessarily. He knows he has a valuable part to play > to bring down LV and he is not going to waste himself. It is in Snape's > character to risk himself to find out vital information about what Draco plans > to do and to position himself to stop it. >Magpie: >If Snape's goal is to find out what Draco's task is, his behavior should show that in Spinner's End. Yet his behavior in Spinner's End doesn't show getting information as a priority. At one point he even literally stops someone from giving him the information he so desperately wants! If he's bluffing he's completely forgotten to do so in a way that draws out information from the other people. The only place in the scene where he's allegedly actively doing something to find out the secret is where he takes the Vow...an action that isn't related to getting a secret at all. Why would agreeing to do some undisclosed thing on pain of death reveal to you what the undisclosed thing is? It doesn't. It's only after he takes the Vow that Snape has to start frantically trying to get Draco to tell him what he's been told to do--he apparently didn't manage to get it out of Narcissa and Bellatrix even after he took the Vow. The Vow as an attempt to find out information is never referenced again. Nikkalmati See above. He is not trying to get information at Spinners End, it would look really suspicious if he were to try to pump the sisters at this point. He stops Narcissa from telling at the very beginning to keep her from being reported to LV by Bella. Then, he realizes this is a big opportunity (turns to look out the window, turns back with his plan in place). If he already knows and he can convince Bella he knows, Bella will not report Narcissa and he can get the information out of Draco later without endangering Narcissa. (I don't think Bella is in the position to go to LV and say "I can't believe you told Snape". That would be a serious breach of Evil Overlord etiquette). Nikkalmati >Magpie >And why doesn't Dumbledore just tell Snape what the task is, btw, since he seems to know perfectly well for most of the year? Why is he making Snape chase after Draco to get him to tell him when he's got no trouble figuring it out himself that I can see? In fact, why hasn't Snape figured it out by the time of the Xmas party when he's seen the first murder attempt? By that point a big portion of the audience has figured it out (if they hadn't already in Spinner's End), and it's not often we're ahead of Snape. Nikkalmati See above. They bot figured it out pretty quickly. >Magpie >Then there's the question of why Snape kills Dumbledore, which it leaves open (Snape didn't stop Draco). If he only took the Vow to find out the task, why does he go through with it himself? To save his own life at the expense of Dumbledore's? That's fine, but it makes Snape's motivations all about Snape himself rather than anything he's trying to do for anyone else, and so far we haven't seen anything about the dramatic fallout of that between Snape and Dumbledore. It makes Dumbledore's death essentially a sacrifice to protect Snape all due to this mistake of Snape's that isn't really referenced. Nikkalmati I don't see how my theory changes anything about why Snape killed DD. If anything, taking the UV without knowing he was promising to kill DD makes it less about Snape. Knowing the UV was to kill DD, requires a lot of explaining . Nikkalmati >Magpie >If Snape knows what Draco's supposed to do I think it makes far more sense at every level. Snape is chasing Draco not to find out what his task is, but to find out how Draco is trying to carry it out so that he can run interference. He took the Vow for some reason that had to do with killing Dumbledore or agreeing to kill Dumbledore upon the pain of death--not for a reason that doesn't really follow from what he's doing and is never linked to his actions in the book. That seems far more in keeping with the book's climax where the two boys (Draco and Harry) learn that Draco has been being watched as he tried to become a murderer. The only person for whom Draco's task seems an important surprise seems to me to be Harry. (The surprise for Snape and Dumbledore seems to me to be Draco's method of killing Dumbledore--Dumbledore--the Cabinets.) Plus, if we were really su figured out that Snape took the Vow in order to find out "vital information about what Draco plans to do so that he can position himself to stop it", wouldn't we all know he was really DDM? Nikkalmati Yes, DD and Snape figure out the task early on and Snape is trying to find out the details from Draco or by following him. (BTW I still wonder why Draco thought a necklace was a suitable gift for DD.) Clearly, JKR doesn't want every one of her readers to understand that Snape is DDM. She appears in interviews to be disappointed that anyone believes in Snape. Her story depends on ambiguity in the character, but she also has to play fair and leave us clues. Nikkalmati (who really believed DD was not truly, completely dead until JKR told us this summer and so must admit she can be wrong - sometimes). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Jan 19 16:04:38 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:04:38 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163937 Carol: > So the only way for HRH to obtain a Time-Turner is to conveniently > find one in the ruins of the house at Godric's Hollow (If Lily was > an Unspeakable, as some posters think, she might have owned or > borrowed a Time-Turner). And how extra-convenient if it were a > dayglass or weekglass or monthglass rather than an hourglass. (It > all smacks of deus ex machina to me, but I'll go along with the > scenario for the fun of it). would figure out how to use such a convenient time-turner> Ken: > That is how muggles would do it though. These kids are wizards. > Just charm the calibrated turner to spin the required number of > times at a spin rate that produces the total trip through time in > a minute of your subjective time. Magic makes life easy! > No, I don't think we will ever see a time turner again and if we do > I will lose all respect for the author. She never should have > introduced them but I will give her a pass because she *seems* to > have realized that, if belatedly. The only time travel stories I > have ever liked are those that are played for laughs and in the > hands of a talented author they can be wickedly funny. Jen: Hold on, we're talking about the queen of magical objects and plots bordering on deus ex machina here! We have two watches out there now, one unnaccounted for and neither explained, and one of them appeared in chapter 1, book one, *right* after one of the biggest event in WW history. On the wrist of the Man with the Plan no less, the same guy who used time travel extensively in his quest to defeat Voldemort. If Dumbledore used a MOM-approved time tuner for all that travel, I might have to rethink how clever he is. ;) And Ron got what looked to be an interesting watch for his birthday, he didn't seem too upset there were stars instead of hands and odd symbols on the edges, he even seemed to know *why* the watch didn't look like a regular watch, but.....oh, Harry wasn't really paying attention to Ron or the watch so we didn't get to hear Harry ask, 'what's wrong with your watch?' and Ron be perplexed yet again at how little Harry knows about the magical world. Then you have all the time-turners conveniently smashed and pointed out by Hermione so everyone will know beyond a doubt there will be No More Time Travel? I'd bet quite a few galleons we're going to see something happen with time in DH even if it doesn't look or act exactly like the time- turners. JKR has too many interesting clocks and watches in her world for those objects to have no purpose and I don't understand why she (of all authors) would sneak that watch to Ron, unexplained and almost unnoticed, for nothing. Jen, buckling up her seat belt for a wild ride on the time-space contiuum in DH. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jan 19 16:06:42 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:06:42 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163938 Nikkalmati wrote: > Agreed, that Snape is making a deliberate move here, but I don't think the motive is hidden from us by JKR. I think she intends for us to be able to figure it out. She is not holding back here. If Snape is taking the UV to placate or to please Narcissa, it seems grossly insufficient as a motive to me. The UV is a terrifying piece of magic. Unless you propose Snape is in love with Narcissa (for which we have no evidence), he cannot gain anything by swearing his life away to comfort her. I also cannot see that he need to impress Bella. In fact, he is swearing to do something LV wants Draco to do or to die attempting. He is going against LV's wishes and that is no way to impress Bella. I also don't think Snape would say to himself - well I plan to kill DD anyway so I might as well have this sword of Damocles hanging over me to give me a little extra motivation. >Carol responds: >And yet Bellatrix expects him to "slither out of action." the last thing she expects is for Snape to agree to "do the deed" if it appears that Draco can't. He's spent the first half of the interview convincing her or his loyalty, and that work would be undone if he backed out of the UV, as would Narcissa's trust in him. I think he does respond to her with pity and agree to the first two provisions of the vow partly for that reason. But his primary motivation is almost certainly to help and protect Draco, which is what he agrees to do before Narcissa states the provisions of the vow. That's why he doesn't flinch or react during the first two provisions, which require him to watch over and protect Draco, whom he knows to be in grave danger of either being killed or commiting a terrible crime. He would have done so anyway as a friend of the Malfoys and as head of slytherin House. It's also what Dumbledore would expect him to do. He's used to risking his life for DD. He's doing so yet again. As for the third provision, I don't see how he could have escaped from it, bound as he was by ropes of fire. Certainly, he would have destroyed all he had accomplished with both women. Bellatrix would merely think that he was willing to kill Dumbledore if Draco failed, which would certainly clear away any suspicions that he was Dumbledore's man, or even disloyal to Voldemort in the end. "I think he means for me to do it in the end" would be sufficient explanation for the action. It wouldn't seem disloyal; it would seem quite the opposite, willingnes to rid Voldemort of the only one he ever feared. (Bella's objection is not that he's defying Voldemort; it's that he's robbing Draco of his chance for "glory" (which is why she later thwarts him by teaching Draco rudimentary Occlumency). But I also think that Snape hoped that he and DD could work together to keep Draco from confronting Dumbledore. I'm sure he thought that he was more likely to die from breaking the vow than he was to kill a wizard as powerful as DD, especially after he told DD about the vow. It was a calculated risk, and the primary goal was to keep Draco from killing DD--at all costs to Snape himself. Nikkalmati I don't think we are in disagreement here. I certainly don't think SS anticipated part 3 of the vow and I don't think that he could withdraw at that point - magically that is. I think he would have been less concerned about Narcissa or Bella's opinion and would have risked any other problem before swearing to kill DD. I can agree that Bella is perhaps more concerned with SS stealing Draco's glory than any disloyalty to LV, but when the ladies first entered, I think SS was concerned that Bella would report Narcissa. It is quite clear that the three of them are going behind LV's back and that is quite risky for all of them. After the UV was taken there was little for DD and SS to do but try to prevent it coming to fruition by all means at their disposal. BTW, would SS ever have forced DD to kill him? Not a pleasant thought. Nikkalmati Nikkalmati: Doesn't Snape look pretty ineffective in his interview with Draco during Slughorn's party? >Carol responds: >I disagree. Snape finds out that Draco has "backup" other than Crabbe and Goyle (whom he has already placed in detention and presumably Legilimensed)Legilimensed). That has to mean that he's working He also informs Draco that he's suspected of being connected with the cursed necklace incident and warns him against using amateurish tactics that can easily be traced to him. It's too late to stop the poisoned mead from being sent to Slughorn, but Draco ceases such dangerous tactics and focuses on the cabinet from that point on. He learns that Draco has a "plan" that's taking him longer than he expected (though Draco refuses to tell him what the plan is). He also deduces that Aunt Bellatrix is involved (teaching Draco Occlumency). I suspect that he saw something in Draco's eyes while Draco was wasting time talking ("I know what you're doing. I can block you.") I also suspect that he knew or guessed where Draco was when Filch found him upstairs (note that he looks both angry and a little bit afraid). If Snape doesn't suspect that Draco is using the RoR and that the girls who occasionally accompany him are the Polyjuiced Crabbe and Goyle, I'll be very surprised. All he needs to do is to question the real girls, using Legilimency if necessary, to discover that they have no knowledge of Draco's plans and no connection with him. Nikkalmati Yes, he does probably learn that Draco has backup and warns him off any silly attempts in the future, but he doesn't accomplish all that much. (It is listees who have figured out that Bella is involved, we are never told SS has that idea, but I would not be surprised if it were true). We do find out that Draco has refused to come see SS when told to and we see Draco walk out on SS in a fit of anger. Furthermore, SS and DD don't seem to learn anything more about Draco's task during the rest of the year than they knew at Christmas! Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Jan 19 16:15:09 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:15:09 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163939 >Lilygale So for Snape to tell Bella in advance that 'he expects me to do it in the end', he is setting up the expectation that he will do the deed for Draco, and also setting up the expectaton among Death Eaters that Snape's actions are with LV's tacit blessing. Regardless of whether or not this is the truth, it would make it easier for Snape to maneouver in a crisis in future. Nikkalmati You have pointed out another factor behind SS's actions here. I see the underlings constantly engaged in backbiting, competition and secrecy in maintaining their positions with LV. Snape does manipulate the scene to make himself seem to be LV's right hand man and to cover his tracks that way. He is obviously feared by the DE's on the Tower and he can use that fear to advance his cause (agenda if you want ESE or OFH!Snape). Maybe Bella taught Draco Occumancy as much to protect her part in his plan as to keep SS from taking over from Draco (which is what Carol thinks she fears). Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 16:40:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:40:28 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore "wrote" Book 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163940 Carol: I'm going to take a shot at Dicentra's post because, like BetsyHP and Pippin, I don't believe that Harry was right about Dumbledore wanting Harry to go after the Stone, nor would he have wanted him to suspect Snape if he knew about it. Docentra: > 1. It cannot be a coincidence that Harry was with Hagrid when he recovered the stone. Dumbledore sent Hagrid to collect Harry and get the stone at the same time. Carol: Of course he did. He (DD) wanted to kill two birds with one stone (sorry--unavoidable pun). He trusted Hagrid, and he had two important pieces of business that required a visit to a Gringotts vault. It makes perfect sense that he would ask Hagrid to take care of both of them at the same time. Harry would probably have forgotten all about the small package in the second vault if he hadn't read in the Daily Prophet the next day that the very same vault had been broken into. (Now I wonder how Voldemort knew where the stone was and how Quirrell got into such a heavily guarded vault. Maybe he kidnapped a goblin and forced him to open it, but how did he get away? I doubt that you can Apparate into or Disapparate from any part of Gringotts. But that's something we'll never know. We just have to suspend our disbelief.) Dicentra: > 2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was retrieved the day Quirrell broke into Gringotts. Dumbledore must have known what had happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort was up to. He brought the stone to Hogwarts to protect it, yes, but he also knew Voldemort would follow it. Perfect opportunity to let Harry confront him. Carol: It's hard to say how he knew that the Stone was in danger, but I agree that he suspected Quirrell. (Voldemort was not yet inside Quirrell's head when Harry encountered Quirrell earlier that same day, but DD's spies must have told him that both Quirrell and Voldie were in Albania.) But what better way to keep an eye on Quirrell, via Snape, than to have him at Hogwarts? DD could set up protections and keep an eye out for Quirrell or anyone else who came near the third-floor corridor (not the whole third floor, Betsy!). Anyone who got past Snape and Filch, not to mention all the protections (and I don't think that just any wizard could have figured out Snape's riddle) would be thwarted because the Stone, if it was already in the mirror, was not even in the corridor at first and, later, the Stone was protected by an enchantment that only an innocent person could break. There was no reason for Harry or any other student to enter that corridor just to find out what was in the package even if they suspected it was there. The three-headed dog was enough to deter HRH and Neville until they began to suspect Snape. And meanwhile, Snape was watching Quirrell, whose intentions he suspected from the beginning. > > 3. As has been mentioned, the Mirror of Erised was the only real protection the stone had. Quirrell and Voldemort would have no problem getting through the other kinds of "protection" surrounding the stone (though it did slow them down some). The mirror was kind of a monkey trap--you can't pull your hand out until you let go of the fruit--that Voldemort could never foil. Carol: True. but that's not a reason why Harry would go after the Stone. It's a reason why Voldemort wasn't worried that it would be stolen even if Quirrell (whom he surely realized was being controlled by Voldemort once he put on that ridiculous turban) would fail to get it. I don't see any argument here. The protections aren't "tests" for Harry, who would have failed all but the flying keys and the mirror if it weren't for Hermione, ron, and Hagrid. > > 4. Dumbledore gave Harry the Cloak of Invisibility for Christmas, > telling him to "use it wisely." What could that mean except "go > roaming about the school after hours to figure out this mystery"? Carol: As Betsy has said, he meant exactly what he said: "Use it wisely." Which does *not* mean entering forbidden corridors guarded by three-headed dogs to catch a teacher (Snape, Quirrell, or anyone else) who's in league with Voldemort. Harry could very easily have died or been forced to give Quirrell the Stone. The trap works much better if no child is present. > > 5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found the Mirror of Erised. After Dumbledore tells Harry how the mirror works, he says "The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow, Harry, and I ask you not to go looking for it again. If you ever do run across it, you will now be prepared." At the time, Harry probably thought the last sentence meant that he wouldn't waste away in front of it, but I think he was referring to the confrontation with Voldemort. Carol: I disagree. DD knew that Harry was wandering around at night in his Invisibility Cloak and likely to encounter the mirror. He also knew that the mirror was dangerous in itself. ("Men have wasted away in front of it.") He allowed Harry a glimpse of his parents, but he made sure that he didn't go looking for it. Harry never expected to find the mirror in the corridor along with the Stone, and he would have seen the Stone in the mirror whether he knew how the mirror worked or not. He had to "be prepared" to avoid being lured by the mirror, confusing reality with desire, an important lesson that had nothing to do with the Stone. Dicentra: > 6. Some have suggested, with reason, that the tests required the cooperation of all three to pass and were deliberately set up this way. The only test that didn't have this quality was the troll, which Dumbledore knew would have been defeated by Quirrell before Harry met up with it. and > 7. That the test was ultimately meant for Harry alone is shown in > Snape's potions test. Only one person can make it through to the > mirror. Dumbledore counted on that one person being Harry. (If no one was meant to get to the stone, ALL the vials would contain poison.) Carol: *If* they were tests, they certainly required the help of what Snape later calls "more talented friends." Harry didn't even know the Alohomora spell, much less how to get past Fluffy, how to escape the Devil's snare, how to win the chess game, or how to solve Snape's riddle (which was designed to lure a clever wizard on but thwart a less logical one). Even the flying keys required Ron's help (he spotted the one with the broken wing). Harry would have died if it weren't for HRH. A clever and powerful adult wizard, especially one with Voldemort inside his head, would have been able to make it through most if not all the "tests" (protections) once he learned how to get past Fluffy. That was the point. Hold him off as long as possible, deter him along the way, and trap him at the end. 8. Dumbledore was counting on Harry to figure out where the stone was > and who was after it. When Harry asks him later about the fate of > Nicolas Flamel, he brightens up: "Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said > Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You *did* do the thing > properly, didn't you?" The "thing" was the mystery Dumbledore had set up for Harry. Carol: This point has already been well answered by Betsy, IIRC. Just because Dumbledore is proud of HRH's thoroughness (it wasn't Harry who figured out who Flamel was) doesn't mean that he intended for Harry to solve the mystery and endanger his life and those of his friends. > Dicentra: > 9. It's possible that Dumbledore was not fooled in the least by the fake MoM message, instead understanding that Quirrell was making his move. He "leaves" Hogwarts, but he probably doesn't go far. (He tells Harry that he makes it as far as London, but I wonder...) As Hermione later recounts "we were dashing up to the owlery to contact Dumbledore when we met him in the entrance hall--he already knew--he just said, 'Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?' and hurtled off to the third floor." Carol: I'm not sure what brought DD back (a hunch that the message was fake?), but he would never actually lie to Harry (withholding information is one thing; speaking falsehoods is another). "Harry's gone after him, hasn't he?" sounds like a deduction to me, and his hurtling off (Snape-style) makes it sound as if he knows that Harry is in terrible danger, unplanned on his part. (If Harry's alone, as it appears, he could be mangled by Fluffy or strangled by the devil's snare or lying poisoned or burned by a curtain of magical fire. There's no guarantee or even a likelihood that he got past all those barriers on his own (and we readers know that he couldn't have). Dicentra: > 10. Ron then asks, "D'you think he meant you to do it? Sending you your father's cloak and everything?" Harry responds (after Hermione's obligatory horrified reaction), "I think he sort of wanted to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to help. I don't think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked. It's almost like he thought I had the right to face Voldemort if I could...." I don't think this is Harry?s personal interpretation. I think this is JKR's message to the reader. Carol: How often has Harry been right about such things, especially so early in the series? He was certainly wrong about Snape. And what did DD teach them, exactly? The cloak was rightfully Harry's and he was warned to use it wisely. He was taught the dangers of the mirror, not how to use it. DD didn't teach Ron to play chess or Hermione to pay attention in Herbology or solve a riddle or Harry to fly. Nor did he, as he says himself, expect Harry to face Voldemort so soon. I do wish that JKR would show Harry to be wrong here, but since she doesn't, we have to figure it out for ourselves. Carol, believing that Dumbledore was trying to protect the Stone and the students (and possibly catch Quirrell in the act), not to tempt Harry to test his luck and skill prematurely From happydogue at aol.com Fri Jan 19 16:44:47 2007 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:44:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C90A00437DAD1A-4F0-82EF@MBLK-M23.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163941 As long as we are speculating on things...whats stopping the making of new time turners. It has been two years, someone must make them. j ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 19 17:10:38 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:10:38 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163942 > Nikkalmati > Yes, he does probably learn that Draco has backup and warns him off any > silly attempts in the future, but he doesn't accomplish all that much. (It is > listees who have figured out that Bella is involved, we are never told SS has > that idea, but I would not be surprised if it were true). Pippin: Listees who read carefully know that Bella is involved because Snape says so: "Ah....Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching you Occlumency, I see." --HBP ch 15 Really, your theory has Snape figuring out what he agreed to so early that it scarcely makes any difference, unless what you're saying is that he wouldn't have agreed at all if he'd known. But then we should not only see something which we could later recognize as the moment when he realizes what he's agreed to do, we should see Snape trying desperately to undo his mistake. That doesn't happen. Nikklamati: We do find out that Draco has refused to come see SS when told to and we see Draco walk out on SS in a fit of anger. Furthermore, SS and DD don't seem to learn anything more about Draco's task during the rest of the year than they knew at Christmas! Pippin: But that's what the argument in the forest is about, seemingly. Dumbledore thinks Draco's plans can never come to fruition because there's no way to get DE's into the castle. Snape thinks that Dumbledore takes too much for granted. Dumbledore wins the argument, and Snape is told to continue his investigations in Slytherin -- not, one assumes, continue them with Bella or in Hogsmeade or do anything which would make Voldemort aware that Dumbledore knows that Draco is plotting against him. Pippin From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 17:47:48 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:47:48 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163943 > Pippin: > Listees who read carefully know that Bella is involved because > Snape says so: "Ah....Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching you > Occlumency, > I see." --HBP ch 15 > > Really, your theory has Snape figuring out what he agreed to so > early > that it scarcely makes any difference, unless what you're saying is > that > he wouldn't have agreed at all if he'd known. > > But then we should not only see something which we could later > recognize as the moment when he realizes what he's agreed to do, > we should see Snape trying desperately to undo his mistake. That > doesn't happen. > > I have a slightly different view of the whole scene. When Snape says "..he means for me to do it," "he" could be Dumbledore, not Voldemort. Dumbledore has already been injured by the ring and has been treated by Snape, for a curse that is no doubt deadly. Snape has probably succeeded in putting a stopper in death, but death may still be inevitable, only waiting for that cork to pop. Previous to the events at Spinner's End, Snape and Dumbledore may have already discussed Dumbledore's eventual demise and the uses that can be made of it to further the cause. So, Snape could have understood Voldemort's intention, but may have already been prepared to unstopper Dumbledore in the end. (I don't think he wanted to do this, however, which is why his hand twitched for the third clause of the Vow and he was so agitated in the forest with Dumbledore.) Also, I am not convinced that Snape is correct in his assessment that Bellatrix taught Draco Occlumency. Draco never affirms this. Bellatrix seems too much of an emotional nut case to master Occlumency. I think the teacher could just as easily have been Narcissa, who could be more canny than she appears, or someone who could surprise us, like Evil!Tonks. lealess From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 19 18:34:17 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:34:17 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > I don't think so. First, I think you have the movie version of the > Time-Turner in mind. Book!Hermione's Time_turner is an hourglass on a > chain, not a little glass lens with an hourglass inside. There's no > indication in the books that you can just spin it ("Three turns should > do it" indicates that it's turned precisely and manually, not spun), > and it would be difficult to just try a hit-and-miss method of getting > to the right time. How would they know if they were in 1955 or 1892 > without exploring the nearby village to check out the technology and > the clothing? You don't just collar the nearest Muggle and ask what > year it is. Knowing Hermione, she'd want to be precise and get the > time and date exactly right if they went back at all (and without a > neck chain, it would be harder to send all three of them back). > Ken: I have no idea what the time turner looked like in the movie. The picture I have in my mind is the illustration at the beginning of one the chapters of POA. You most certainly could twirl that design very easily. More to the point with a wand and the right charm you could twirl *any* kind of time turner quite easily. That is what magic is all about! Hmmm, how would you know what year it is? -Dress like the village idiot and do actually ask that muggle. -Look at the date on a newspaper in a vending box -Look at the license plates on shiny new cars, in the UK one of the characters on the plate number indicates the year the plate was issued and the same plate stays with the car its entire life (if I remember correctly). Here in Illinois of course you could just look at the year sticker on any plate but that won't help the Three Amigos unless they broom over here, do their time turning here, and then broom back. -Carry a muggle radio and listen for a news broadcast on the BBC. -Go into a bookstore and look at the copyright date on the new releases. -Go to a graveyard and look for the date on the headstone of a fresh grave. -Go to a car dealer and see which model year they are currently selling. -Ron could probably tell you by which broom model is currently the rage in the shops in Diagon Alley. -Hermione and Harry could probably tell you by walking down High street and seeing which clothes, video games, and numerous other consumer items are currently in fashion. -Do I really need to go on?? I'm beating you with a dead horse now Carol but it certainly isn't an insurmountable problem to tell what year you are in without raising suspicions among the Muggles or the Wizarding World. By moving in progressively smaller increments as you approach the target Hermione can be as anal as she wants to be about hitting the target exactly. Once you are down to a day or two she could easily count down the remaining turns. I just hope that there are no more time turners because they were all destroyed at the Ministry of Magic and only Nicholas Flamel knew how to make them. Ken From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jan 19 18:59:36 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:59:36 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163945 > Nikkalmati > Yes, but she does want to play fair and make it possible for us to figure it > out or at least to understand once it is revealed. She doesn't want the > reader to say to her/himself after DH "well, if I had only known that . . . " Magpie: But she does often want the reader to say that. She writes stories of re-cognition. We readers don't figure out that Quirrel has Voldemort on his head, or that Tom Riddle is the memory of Voldemort possessing Ginny, or that Sirius was framed by Scabbers, who is really Peter, or that Moody is really Crouch. We learn it in a surprising moment and that changes what we've seen before. There are some things that many readers do figure out--though probably based more on story things than hard evidence in the plot. Rowling isn't afraid of an "If only I had only known that..." She loves those. When Snape's motivations are revealed in Book VII his motivations in Spinner's End will also be clear. Since there's no revelation about them at the end of HBP we have to wait until we know for sure. Some people may be proved right, but I don't think that answer is given in HBP. > >Magpie: > . There's tragic irony to the scene > >regardless of whether Snape knows the task. What makes it comical to > me if he doesn't is that every line of Snape's in the scene is > really saying, "Um, what are we talking about, exactly? Could > somebody give me a hint?" The tragic irony is lost on Snape himself, > because he as yet has no idea what it is he's agreed to do. He's got > to wait a while before that dramatic moment comes--and when it does > we never see it. I find it hard to believe Rowling would write a > tragic story all about somebody agreeing to do something terrible > without realizing it and then forget to write the moment where the > person has that terrible realization. > > Nikkalmati > If we saw that moment, we would know his true loyalties wouldn't we? Magpie: As you yourself said, she plays fair. If Snape took the Vow to find out what Draco was given to do, JKR would write that arc for Snape. She may put in beats that we misinterpret (If only I had known...) but what's described here sounds more like flat-out cheating, which makes it no fun to read in retrospect. Not only do we not see the moment where Snape realizes he's *accidentally* agreed to kill Dumbledore or die (much as Jerry Seinfeld accidentally agreed to wear the Puffy Shirt on TV), we would at least need to have some sign of it in the text. Where does Snape learn this truth, realistically? If we don't get the moment where we see Snape learn the truth we need (according to the way I've seen Rowling write over the years) some event we can later identify as the thing that caused him to learn it, and a change in his behavior after this thing has occurred. There would also be moments in Spinner's End, imo, that pointed to the truth. Reading it over thinking that Snape doesn't really know what he's talking about, I'm just not seeing them. > Nikkallmati > > Yes, I agree, because by the Christmas party, Katie has been injured and DD > and Snape have figured out the target is DD. They may have figured it out > the first time they put their heads together in the summer, but of course, we > can't see that or we would know SS is loyal to DD. Magpie: So then Snape isn't trying to find out what the task is from Malfoy. That's never his motivation. It's only his motivation in Spinner's End, where his actions in no way advanced that motivation. He found out the task in a far more reasonable way, by thinking about things for five minutes. The motivation of trying to find out the task only exists to explain one scene and the fallout from it (I agreed to do WHAT???) somehow doesn't show at all. Storywise, this is why it's so weak, imo. The only thing it does for Snape's story is to make it so that he isn't actually agreeing to kill Dumbledore. It makes it seem to me as if he agreed to the Vow just to help the plot along. Magpie: Snape's line here does not have to be a complete lie just because of LV's orders as shown on the Tower. Snape's full line is to say that "He" means Snape to do "it" in "the end," but that he means for Draco to "try first." In the unlikely event Draco succeeds, Snape can stay at Hogwarts a while longer, Snape says. It would be totally in character for LV to like the idea of Dumbledore being killed by Snape to drive home the betrayal and Dumbledore's mistake at trusting Snape. Only Snape and Voldemort are privvy to Voldemort's feelings about Snape as a double agent. Snape could very well understand correctly that killing Dumbledore is something he wants Snape to do *in the end*. > Nikkalmati > If LV thought SS could kill DD, he would have him do it immediately. In > fact, SS's excuse for not killing Harry is that DD stands in the way. DD is > LV's greatest stumbling block. With DD out of the way, there is little need for > a spy at Hogwarts. If SS stood in the Great Hall and AK'd DD, or even > leaned over and poisoned his mead, Hogwarts would probably be closed. Snape here > is making up a reason to Narcissa's why he can't do the task for Draco. Magpie: You don't have the authority to say that "if LV thought SS could kill DD, he would have him do it immediately." There's nothing I read in the text that makes me believe I have to assume LV would never order Snape to kill DD. Snape obviously can do it, Bella and Narcissa both think he can do it. Snape himself claims to Bella and Narcissa that Voldemort expects him to do it and nobody challenges him. The reason Snape gives for not killing Harry when Bellatrix asks him directly is to say that Dumbledore was the only thing keeping Snape out of prison, and killing DD's favorite student would lose Snape that protection. He also says that he wanted to see if Harry was really the next Dark Lord as some believed, but when he realized he wasn't he still wouldn't risk killing him with DD close at hand. Nothing about being unable to kill DD. So he's not saying that DD "stands in the way." He's saying that DD offered him protection he didn't want to lose. He also explains that LV was ultimately *glad* that Snape didn't kill Harry, and there's no indication he's ordered Snape to kill Harry since coming back to life. (Now that LV is back he gives the orders.) Snape himself claims that "Potter belongs to the Dark Lord." So I'm not seeing where my interpretation of their situation couldn't be true. Bellatrix and Narcissa believe it fine. > >Magpie > > That, in any event, is what he is saying to Bellatrix and Narcissa, > who do know what the task is. He's telling them that Voldemort > intends for Snape to eventually be the person who kills Dumbledore, > but that he is still demanding that Draco try to kill him first. He > understands that his killing Dumbledore will spell the end of his > time at Hogwarts. If he's truly working blindfolded here, he's > pinned the tail right on the donkey. It's a good thing Draco's task > really did fit all that. That's part of the oddness of Snape in the > scene if he's gathering information-scene if he's gathering informa > instead of letting anyone else fill things in. > > Nikkalmati > Whatever Draco's task is, if Snape does it first, he can anticipate it will > reveal his loyal to LV and require him to leave Hogwarts. Magpie: Not necessarily. There are tasks that Draco could be given to do that could potentially be done by Snape without revealing his loyalties. Nikkalmati: If DD is dead, he > isn't really needed at Hogwarts anyway. Snape is not gathering information > here, how can he when he has told the witches he knows everything? He has > reassured Bella, first, that he is trusted by the Dark Lord enough to know the > plan. He is now trying to comfort Narcissa and assure her he will "help" > Draco. He intends to place himself in a position to get the information from > Draco later. Magpie: You have claimed that Snape took the Vow because he wants to know what Draco's task is. That is his goal. This therefore needs to be *shown* to be his goal to us readers. If you look back at any characters' actions in the book, I think they will show that. Characters act in straightforward ways that we can follow. Sometimes they have conflicting motivations which confuse us, but only until we get all the information. Then we can see the conflict as well. You've gotten around this using a manufactured cheat. Snape *isn't* fishing for information in the scene, you've agreed. You've said Snape can't fish for information because he's making them think he already knows everything. But pretending you know everything is a valid way of fishing for information! If his ultimate goal is to find this stuff out, why isn't he acting like the spy he is and acting like he knows everything to *manipulate* them into giving him information? And if he's decided that he's just going to give up on trying to find out that information in this scene and make plans to try to get it out of Draco in future, there is--as ever--no reason for him to take the Vow! He doesn't need to take this Vow and agree to do the task himself to pump Draco later. He's got enough to go on. In fact, he doesn't even need to pump Draco later. He can just drop in on Dumbledore the next day, tell him what he's heard, and they'll easily deduce together what the task is. If the point of the Vow is finding out what Draco is up to, I think it has to connect to that logically and I don't see that it does. > >Magpie: > > >If Snape's goal is to find out what Draco's task is, his behavior > should show that in Spinner's End. Yet his behavior in Spinner's End > doesn't show getting information as a priority. At one point he even > literally stops someone from giving him the information he so > desperately wants! If he's bluffing he's completely forgotten to do > so in a way that draws out information from the other people. The > only place in the scene where he's allegedly actively doing > something to find out the secret is where he takes the Vow...an > action that isn't related to getting a secret at all. Why would > agreeing to do some undisclosed thing on pain of death reveal to you > what the undisclosed thing is? It doesn't. It's only after he takes > the Vow that Snape has to start frantically trying to get Draco to > tell him what he's been told to do--he apparently didn't manage to > get it out of Narcissa and Bellatrix even after he took the Vow. > The Vow as an attempt to find out information is never referenced > again. > > Nikkalmati > > See above. He is not trying to get information at Spinners End, it would > look really suspicious if he were to try to pump the sisters at this point. He > stops Narcissa from telling at the very beginning to keep her from being > reported to LV by Bella. Magpie: Snape has the upper hand here; and even if he didn't I don't think it would look suspicious--any DE would be pumping them. Narcissa is about to blurt out the information to Snape. Snape is supposed to seriously want this information, yet he jumps in to stop her. And the reason is that suddenly he's worried that she's going to be reported by Bellatrix for telling? I'm not getting Bellatrix as that kind of threat from the text. Snape's shutting Narcissa up gets a rather childish satisfaction out of Bellatrix ("Even Snape says you shouldn't tell!"), which doesn't help the impression. snape doesn't save Narcissa anyway--Bellatrix could still report her for undermining Voldemort's plans by going to Snape. (Of course, she herself might get in trouble for being the Binder, which is all the more reason to wonder if Bellatrix would really want to tell Voldemort about this meeting.) All in all protecting Narcissa from Bellatrix doesn't seem like a pressing problem in the scene when I read it. Nikkalmalti: Then, he realizes this is a big opportunity (turns to > look out the window, turns back with his plan in place). If he already knows > and he can convince Bella he knows, Bella will not report Narcissa and he > can get the information out of Draco later without endangering Narcissa. (I > don't think Bella is in the position to go to LV and say "I can't believe you > told Snape". That would be a serious breach of Evil Overlord etiquette). Magpie: So after he lets go his golden opportunity to find out what he wants to know (sacrificed to his more important motivation of making sure that Narcissa has nothing to be reported to LV for...except coming to Snape at all and the request of Snape she's about to make), he now thinks that if he pretends to know he can get information out of Draco later. Why Draco later? If he pretends to know he can get information out of Bellatrix and Narcissa *now* with the same protection to Narcissa. If it's a breach of etiquette to say "I can't believe you told Snape" Snape could have let Narcissa finish, THEN say he already knew about the plan, and everything's fine. Snape would be doing exactly what he's already doing in the scene, except he'd actually know what he was talking about--and presumably wouldn't take the Vow. > Nikkalmati > See above. They bot figured it out pretty quickly. Magpie: With no need whatsoever for the UV, and terrible, easily forseeable consequences because of it. Makes me wonder why Snape couldn't figure it out pretty quickly back at the house, since he's working with the same information. > Nikkalmati > > I don't see how my theory changes anything about why Snape killed DD. If > anything, taking the UV without knowing he was promising to kill DD makes it > less about Snape. Knowing the UV was to kill DD, requires a lot of explaining > . Magpie: It doesn't change anything officially, because as of yet we don't know why he killed DD. But you're right--knowing the UV was to kill DD requires a lot of explaining. That's a good thing. Because the explaining is the story. Taking the UV without knowing what he was promising explains things away. We don't have to ask why Snape would do such a thing, because he didn't. And yet still, the explanation of why he'd take any Vow, given its deadly nature, seems to me to require something more than a passing idea that gained nothing for him, and never promised to. > Nikkalmati > Yes, DD and Snape figure out the task early on and Snape is trying to find > out the details from Draco or by following him. (BTW I still wonder why Draco > thought a necklace was a suitable gift for DD.) Magpie: I guess it might not have mattered that it was suitable. If DD got a gift and saw a necklace inside he might touch it regardless of whether he's ever wear it. The mead he would have to drink, the necklace he just had to touch once. Sort of like sending someone a bomb. Nikkimalti: Clearly, JKR doesn't want > every one of her readers to understand that Snape is DDM. She appears in > interviews to be disappointed that anyone believes in Snape. Her story depends > on ambiguity in the character, but she also has to play fair and leave us > clues. Magpie: I agree. I'm just not seeing any clues to this motivation in taking the Vow. It seems only there to make Snape look superficially bad. Also it seems more of JKR's pattern to always come up with something that has two coherent explanations, with one just being more right than the other. (The wrong explanation often leaves out small things, even if they're just sudden movements or expressions. With the right explanation everything clicks into place.) This explanation doesn't encompass Snape's taking the Vow to kill DD, since he didn't know what he was taking, but the story doesn't need Snape's taking an unknown Vow for any reason. It just hangs out there on its own. -m From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 19 17:16:52 2007 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:16:52 -0000 Subject: Could Dumbledore have got the invisiblity cloak on the night the Potters died. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163946 An invisibility cloak would be a useful thing when hiding, even under Fidelius, so perhaps James had it on him the night he died, but when Voldemort came and he told Lilly to run he gave her the cloak and she passed it on to an invisible Dumbledore. This could explain how Dumbledore knew about the house collapsing, and also how he knew about Lilly's sacrifice, he mentioned it in PS, however Harry didn't recall what happened until POA. Before you argue that Dumbledore would then know Peter was the secret keeper, couldn't Peter have written a note, like Dumbledore in OOTP, in a disguised hand and have someone give it to Dumbledore. Also didn't JKR say that there is an important reason that Dumbledore got the cloak, perhaps the fact that he was at Godric Hollow would be important? lone_white_werewolf From katbofaye at aol.com Fri Jan 19 21:23:37 2007 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:23:37 -0000 Subject: POA movie clues to book 7 solutions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163947 Over the holidays I watched the POA movie again. JKR is quoted saying the director inadvertently foreshadowed events in Book 6 and 7 providing hints to the future of the story. So I watched the movie with this in mind. I was interested to note the lake scene when the dementors attack Harry and Sirius. One soul is being sucked out of Sirius while two souls are being sucked out of Harry. This provides more evidence for the Harry as horcrux theory as well as that it is possible to remove one soul separately from the other. I have read on this site and others the suggestion Remus comments on Lily are the new bits indicating a romantic relationship. I do not think this is it. JKR mentions intuition and Cuaron mentions hints from the books as his source. There are no hints about a relationship between Remus and Lily. Has anyone else noticed the double soul removal? Any ideas? katssirius From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 21:37:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:37:55 -0000 Subject: POA movie clues to book 7 solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163948 katssirius wrote: > > Over the holidays I watched the POA movie again. JKR is quoted saying the director inadvertently foreshadowed events in Book 6 and 7 > providing hints to the future of the story. So I watched the movie > with this in mind. I was interested to note the lake scene when the > dementors attack Harry and Sirius. One soul is being sucked out of > Sirius while two souls are being sucked out of Harry. This provides > more evidence for the Harry as horcrux theory as well as that it is > possible to remove one soul separately from the other. I have read on this site and others the suggestion Remus comments on Lily are the new bits indicating a romantic relationship. I do not think this is it. JKR mentions intuition and Cuaron mentions hints from the books as his source. There are no hints about a relationship between Remus and Lily. Has anyone else noticed the double soul removal? Any ideas? Carol responds: I don't know what the director et al. were thinking, but in the books, sucking out the soul can only be done through a Dementor's kiss. It's likely, then, that they were sucking out happiness (of which Harry would have more than Sirius black) before the actual soul removal (which theoretically would need to be authorized by Fudge). I think the reason we see two streams of something coming from Harry in the media which should not be named is that two Dementors are simultaneously sucking out his happiness. I certainly hope that no such incident in DH is being foreshadowed, and I can't imagine a Dementor with his mouth to Harry's scar (or a cut from the reopened wound) to suck out the soul bit. Spare me from such a scene, JKR! Lupin's words relating to Lily's seeing the beauty in people who couldn't see it themselves, though wholly uncanonical, could resemble what JKR has in mind regarding Lily and Severus--not that she loved him (she obviously had a crush on James) but she could have seen the good in him as Sirius and James failed to do. Just a thought. (BTW, the film has Lupin stepping in front of Harry's Dementor Boggart and then saying that he tohought Harry's Boggart would be Voldemort. It also fails to explain how Lupin knew that the piece of parchment was a map. I wouldn't trust it as a guide to anything.) Carol, apologizing to the List Elves for discussing the film but hoping there's sufficient canon here to make the post acceptable on this list From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 00:22:43 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:22:43 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione (was:Re: It really annoys me ... [LONG] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163949 > >>Dicentra: > > 2. It is also no coincidence that the stone was retrieved the day > > Quirrell broke into Gringotts. Dumbledore must have known what > > had happened to Quirrell in Albania and what Voldemort was up to. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Frankly, especially considering that this was also Harry's > > birthday, I'm going with author-convenient coincidence. > for details> > >>Alla: > Okay, I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. I mean, > the reason why Dicentra argues that DD knew is because he retrieved > Stone on that very day that Quirrell did. > Are you saying that it happened just because it happened? Just for > plot related reasons? Betsy Hp: Yes. JKR needed to drop a clue for the reader about Quirrell, so she set it up so we'd see Quirrell was in Diagon Alley on the same day Gringotts was broken into. > >>Alla: > I mean, that is possible of course and I myself argued plot based > reasons often enough, but if we have two possibilities and one of > them has another canon to support it, isn't the plot needs reason > gets weaker automatically? > Betsy Hp: Yes, but I don't see any canon to support the idea (other than the coincidence itself) that Dumbledore knew from the beginning that Quirrell was working for Voldemort. So I doubt the suggestion that the coincidence *alone* is proof of Dumbledore's knowledge. And I *especially* doubt it because the reason Hagrid was in Diagon Alley that day is because it was Harry's birthday (now officially a student of Hogwarts as per his parents' wishes). That's too many coincidences (IMO) for a mere character to achieve, even the all- powerful Dumbledore. So I look to the even more god-like author. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I still don't see any reason to think Dumbledore was expecting > > *Voldemort* himself to get trapped. But I do think he was > > preparing for an intelligent, powerful, and at this point unknown > > Death Eater to enter the scene. Hence the desire to capture, not > > kill nor deter. > >>Alla: > The problem with this argument as I see it, or maybe I missed your > point is that if you are saying that DD did not expect Voldemort in > the back of Quirrel's head, why would he expect a DE to appear? > If he knows that somebody is after Stone, would he not know who is > that person, who is the only person who would want to be after the > stone? > Or at least that this DE would be heavily coached by LV. Betsy Hp: >From what I've read we can only be sure Dumbledore knew these facts: (1) someone was after the Stone; (2) the person after the Stone was able to break into Gringotts. Based on that information Dumbledore can already presume that this is someone working for the greviously injured Voldemort and someone with a great deal of magical skill and power. We know that Dumbledore figures out that Quirrell is interested in the Stone. (He may have started suspecting Quirrell from the beginning, but the Halloween Troll incident confirmed it.) We know that Quirrell is young (Harry describes him as such) and untried (Hagrid describes him as such). So it seems logical that Dumbledore suspects a bigger power behind Quirrell; Dumbledore may well fear that it's Voldemort himself. But knowing how badly injured Voldemort was (enough to barely be alive) I think it's logical to think that both Snape and Dumbledore think there's another Death Eater out there. A "Bellatrix" or "Barty Crouch Jr." type, powerful, unknown, desperate to bring their master back to power. Which is why stopping Quirrell alone isn't enough. They need to get to the *real* threat. And in the end, that suspicion was correct. I just think it was a bit of a surprise for Dumbledore to find out the power behind Quirrell was Voldemort himself. > >>Dicentra: > > 5. It's therefore no coincidence that Harry found the Mirror of > > Erised. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Again, this is a leap. For one thing, Harry didn't need to learn > > how to "work" the mirror to get the Stone at the end of PS. > > > > So, Dumbledore talking to Harry about resisting the mirror's pull > > isn't written as mysterious, and it isn't necessary. So I don't > > think there's a hidden purpose behind it. It is what it is. > >>Alla: > Ok, I snipped rather arbitrarily, but I lost the argument. Could > you tell me again why Dumbledore felt a need to tell Harry about > Mirror at all? Betsy Hp: Because Harry had discovered the Mirror and was falling under its thrall. Dumbledore only approaches Harry *after* Harry and Ron have an argument about the Mirror at the dinner table they share with Dumbledore, a dinner at which Harry only picks at his food and yearns to get back to the Mirror and his family, a dinner at which I bet Harry was showing the effects of his sleepless nights. Dumbledore stepped in because Harry was in over his head and needed help. > >>Alla: > I mean, see to me any talk about the mirror and NOT go looking for > it would encourage eleven year old boy to do **precisely** that - > go looking for it. > Betsy Hp: But as Pippin points out, Harry *doesn't* go looking for the Mirror. After his conversation with Dumbledore, he's done with it. > >> Betsy Hp: > > But Harry is already wrong in at least one point. There was no > > purpose to him knowing how the mirror worked. The mirror worked > > with or without Harry knowing about it. Harry's knowledge > > changed nothing. > > > >>Alla: > Is he though? As I said above to me the purpose of conversation was > to encourage Harry go looking for it. Betsy Hp: But it didn't. Harry didn't think about the Mirror again. And Harry really is wrong about needing to know how the Mirror worked. Harry didn't *make* himself think: "I want the Stone but not to use it!" It's just what he was thinking at the time. The Mirror did its thing with no help from Harry. > >>Alla: > > The main reason why I buy this version as JKR version is because as > I mentioned upthread I just do not **hear** Harry in this speech, > it does not sound to me as his way of talking at all, but pretty > much as JKR talking. > Betsy Hp: You mean, Harry sounded out of character in that speech? He sounds fairly true to himself to me. But I do agree that Harry's thoughtfulness weighs more powerfully to me as a reader than Hermione's emotional reaction [huh, what an interesting way for each character to react...] and I suspect JKR wanted us to leave PS with Harry's version of Dumbledore in mind. *However* I also think that logically, the story makes more sense, especially over the time of the series, if Hermione's version of Dumbledore is the true one. I hope I've shown how the story makes sense if Hermione had the right reaction, but I do realize that Harry's thoughtful statement is very hard to get around. Which is why some in the book confirmation would be nice. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163928 > >>Quick_Silver: > Ok I think I see why you want JK to shoot down that version of > Dumbledore. My one point (since aside from that I agree with you) is > that I think the version of Dumbledore you mention above > (manipulative!Dumbledore or whatever he goes by) is, IMO, tied > inherently with Dumbledore's supposed omniscience. So it could be > that the whole shooting down of Dumbledore might not happen with a > bang but a whimper in following with the pattern of Harry seeing a > more human Dumbledore with each book (or that the series has built > to this point perhaps?). Betsy Hp: I agree with this. I had been frustrated because I thought the "fully human"!Dumbledore would have been revealed by the end of HBP, what with Dumbledore being dead now. But Pippin pointed out (and I think this is what you're saying as well, Quick_Silver) that Harry still hasn't let go of omniscient!Dumbledore. Which, happily, makes a lot of sense. Harry still needs to become a man. I also agree that it probably won't be (and doesn't need to be, really) a big bangy thing, but I hope it is clear enough to fully expose the true version of Dumbledore. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163933 > >>Pippin: > > I think Dumbledore would have much preferred to destroy the > stone immediately rather than attempt to guard it at Hogwarts, > but that wasn't his decision to make. The stone was Nicholas > Flammel's property, not Dumbledore's. Given that Flammel didn't > yet see the need to destroy the stone, Hogwarts was the safest > place for it. No doubt Flammel was hoping the stone could remain > there until Voldemort was no longer a threat (Nicholas would > be used to taking the long view, don't you think?) > Betsy Hp: It's interesting, but I've always seen it as the opposite: that Flammel wanted to destroy the Stone but Dumbledore wanted to try this first. I don't know that there's any canon reason (I can't think of any ), but I always pictured Nicholas as Dumbledore's bearded old guy. So I pictured Dumbledore less willing to let Nicholas go onto the next big adventure. Not that Dumbledore feared death or anything of that sort, only it's always easier to face your own death than the death of your loved ones. So I kind of saw the events of PS (and especially the aftermath) as a bit of off-page growing for Dumbledore. (Made my heart ache a bit for the old guy. It left him very much alone.) As I said, no canon, but that's how I've always liked to imagine it. Betsy Hp From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 19 23:35:38 2007 From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:35:38 -0000 Subject: POA movie clues to book 7 solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163950 > >>katssirius wrote: >> Over the holidays I watched the POA movie again. >> >> I was interested to note the lake scene when the dementors attack Harry and Sirius. One soul is being sucked out of Sirius while two souls are being sucked out of Harry. This provides more evidence for the Harry as horcrux theory as well as that it is possible to remove one soul separately from the other.<< Mitchell: I've read seen and heard OVER AND OVER again the possibility that Harry is a horcrux. But I just can't buy into it. Not with Voldemort constantly trying to kill Harry! If He's gone though SO MUCH EFFORT to guard and protect his soul fragments, why would he kill Harry knowing he'd be destroying a part of himself? In the chapter "the only one he ever feared", Voldemort wasted no time or energy in trying to keep Harry alive. He said he was of no use to him! That just doesn't sound like the actions or mentality of someone who knows he's about to destroy something he values! I'm to agree with Carol that the two dementors around Harry is the reson for the two visuals of happiness being taken from him. But, as many have read and re-read, I'm sure the argument I've put forth has been put forth by others. None of us will ever really know till book 7 is released. Mitchell From kjones at telus.net Sat Jan 20 01:25:49 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:25:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B16F9D.2070908@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163951 snip > Betsy Hp: >>From what I've read we can only be sure Dumbledore knew these facts: > (1) someone was after the Stone; (2) the person after the Stone was > able to break into Gringotts. > > Based on that information Dumbledore can already presume that this is > someone working for the greviously injured Voldemort and someone with > a great deal of magical skill and power. > > We know that Dumbledore figures out that Quirrell is interested in > the Stone. (He may have started suspecting Quirrell from the > beginning, but the Halloween Troll incident confirmed it.) We know > that Quirrell is young (Harry describes him as such) and untried > (Hagrid describes him as such). So it seems logical that Dumbledore > suspects a bigger power behind Quirrell; Dumbledore may well fear > that it's Voldemort himself. Betsy HP KJ writes: Actually, Dumbledore must have known that Voldemort was close by after Harry had his first experience with him over the dead unicorn. The centaurs would have told DD that Voldemort was in the Forbidden Forest. Anything suspicious, such as the troll incident with Quirrel would have been explained, would have been explained by Voldemort's actual appearance in the woods. I also think that DD had his suspicions that once Harry and the stone were together in the same place, Voldemort would be lured into a trap. That's the only reason I can think of for leaving the stone at Gringott's until Harry was about to enter Hogwarts. For what it's worth. KJ From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 02:54:51 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 02:54:51 -0000 Subject: JKR's Dumbledore: Harry or Hermione In-Reply-To: <45B16F9D.2070908@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163952 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > We know that Dumbledore figures out that Quirrell is interested > > in the Stone. (He may have started suspecting Quirrell from the > > beginning, but the Halloween Troll incident confirmed it.) We > > know that Quirrell is young (Harry describes him as such) and > > untried (Hagrid describes him as such). So it seems logical that > > Dumbledore suspects a bigger power behind Quirrell; Dumbledore > > may well fear that it's Voldemort himself. > >>KJ writes: > Actually, Dumbledore must have known that Voldemort was close by > after Harry had his first experience with him over the dead > unicorn. The centaurs would have told DD that Voldemort was in the > Forbidden Forest. Betsy Hp: Ah! I'd forgotten about the dead unicorns and Harry's little scare in the forest! Yes, by that point Dumbledore would have had some pretty major clues that Voldemort was in the area. > >>KJ: > Anything suspicious, such as the troll incident with Quirrel > would have been explained, would have been explained by Voldemort's > actual appearance in the woods. I also think that DD had his > suspicions that once Harry and the stone were together in the same > place, Voldemort would be lured into a trap. That's the only > reason I can think of for leaving the stone at Gringott's until > Harry was about to enter Hogwarts. > For what it's worth. Betsy Hp: Well, the Stone isn't Dumbledore's, so it wasn't really his call. But I do think there was an influence of events, with Harry returning to the WW and Voldemort making his first move towards his big comeback. But I honestly think that has more to do with Harry and Voldemort's intertwined fates than anything Dumbledore tried to do. I'd imagine Dumbledore had his eye out, and I can agree that he probably kept an eye on certain items (the Stone, unicorns, etc.). But I don't think he purposefully arranged for Harry and the Stone to be in the very same room together with Voldemort. I don't think he'd use Harry as bait like that. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 03:32:26 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:32:26 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163953 > Nikkalmati > > One thing that bothers me is that in POA (Scholastic paperback at 133) Lupin > says to the class "Nobody knows what a boggart looks like when he is alone, > . ." > but in OOP (Scholastic hardback at 169 - I finally started buying the > hardbacks) Moody casts his eye up through the kitchen ceiling to the desk in the > drawing room above and declares "yeah, I see it . . . Yeah, it's a boggart . . > .Want me to go up and get rid of it, Molly?" > So, how did he know it was a boggart if no one knows what one looks like > when it is alone? I kind of wonder what Moody's boggart would be? zgirnius: I noticed this too. I decided that the Boggart did not assume a shape for Moody, because it was not aware that Moody was looking at it. It thought it was alone and in hiding, and was thus in its natural shape. (So Lupin was wrong). Alternatively, if the Boggart can sense when it is being seen, it turned into Moody's Boggart, and that is something one would not find hiding in a piece of furniture, even at the Black house. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Jan 20 03:45:19 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:45:19 EST Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163954 > 6. Snape loses his sardonic cool when Harry calls him a coward and > refers to Dumbledore's death. This is the only time during the battle > that Snape actually hits Harry with a curse. Why did Snape show his > weakness to Harry? What was it about that statement that pushed Snape > over the edge? Harry called Snape a coward earlier, yet Snape just > jeered at him then. Was it really about being called a coward or that > Harry accuses Snape of killing Dumbledore? This is my favorite > question, BTW. I can't wait to read the responses. >colebiancardi: >I believe that it was Harry's accusation of Snape killing Dumbledore that pushed Snape over the edge. To be called a coward is one thing, but then to follow up with that with Harry's declaration of "kill me like you killed him" was the last straw > I, Kemper, wondered in one of my answers, what does Snape consider to > be cowardice? Even though some have suggested that he loses his cool > hear because of some Marauder issues, I'm having difficulty buying it. > > What would Snape consider cowardice acts during the events in the > Lighting Struck Tower or the Flight of the Prince? Nikkalmati Harry has already called Snape a coward without much reaction, so I don't think it is that word alone that provokes Snape. By referring to murder, as in "why don't you murder me" ? Harry is demonstrating that he totally fails to "get it." Here Snape has been protecting Harry all along, he just killed DD to protect Harry, and he is refraining right then from harming him and the idiot boy still doesn't see it. I think that is the main reason Snape loses his cool and why he slaps Harry with a hex to drive home that he is deliberately not doing anything to Harry. His rage is over the perception that Harry is so stupid that he may make all of Snape's efforts fruitless. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jan 20 04:12:24 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:12:24 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163955 > Nikkalmati (BTW I still wonder why Draco > thought a necklace was a suitable gift for DD.) Potioncat: I didn't get that at first either. But, it wasn't the "necklace" Draco wanted DD to have, it was the curse on the necklace that he was sending. And look how powerful the curse was! Katy was very sick just from a slight touch. If DD had opened the package and taken the necklace in his hand...Well, things would have gone belly up a lot sooner. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jan 20 04:17:17 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:17:17 -0000 Subject: POA movie clues to book 7 solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163956 Katsirius wrote: > > Over the holidays I watched the POA movie again. JKR is quoted saying > the director inadvertently foreshadowed events in Book 6 and 7 > providing hints to the future of the story. Potioncat: Did she say books 6 and 7 or just 6? Wasn't she writing HBP at that time? I know we did a lot of predicting between WB!POA and HBP's arrival. But what I saw, once we had both, was that Buckbeak attacked the werewolf in WB!PoA to protect Harry. Buckbeak attacks Snape in HBP to protect Harry. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 20 04:16:16 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:16:16 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163957 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Then you have all the time-turners conveniently smashed and pointed > out by Hermione so everyone will know beyond a doubt there will be No > More Time Travel? > > I'd bet quite a few galleons we're going to see something happen with > time in DH even if it doesn't look or act exactly like the time- > turners. JKR has too many interesting clocks and watches in her > world for those objects to have no purpose and I don't understand why > she (of all authors) would sneak that watch to Ron, unexplained and > almost unnoticed, for nothing. > > Jen, buckling up her seat belt for a wild ride on the time-space > contiuum in DH. > You could be right, she does have a thing for clocks and watches. We are told that Harry's watch stopped too, but it was a pretty ordinary one as I recall. I do not know beyond a doubt that there will be no more time travel, I hope against hope that there will not be any more. I don't have any galleons but I do have some Interworld Credits I won off a Kzin in a poker game. I think I left them in my spaceship which, come to think of it, we are going to need if we are to do any more time traveling. The Earth moves you see, quite a bit in fact, even during three hours. If we are going back 16 years we've got quite a trip ahead of us. Of course not one in a hundred time travel authors seems aware of this simple fact. It is a mistake H.G. Wells made and most since him have followed in his footsteps. I really, really hope we are done time traveling. Ken From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 05:07:01 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:07:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The HP Fandom/Lexicon (was annoying inconsistencies) In-Reply-To: <006c01c73b71$c5fec5a0$df72400c@Spot> References: <006c01c73b71$c5fec5a0$df72400c@Spot> Message-ID: <2795713f0701192107v1fbdd294u26a5abd00c3cb103@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163958 DA Jones: Even if someone just set up an Eragon for adults yahoo group, I bet the popularity of that fandom would grow tremendously. Lynda: I've been hoping for just that!. Quite frankly the Eragon list I'm on is quite obviously mostly teens and I end up nearly pulling my hair out after reading two or three messages. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From scarah at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 05:34:44 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:34:44 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <498112.93789.qm@web37903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <498112.93789.qm@web37903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3202590701192134p76ed3352m8df4cc7877bc4098@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163959 Carol, who still doesn't think that Harry is a Horcrux or that one can be created accidentally or in advance, any more than a cake can be "encased" in a box before the cake is baked Sarah: I know I have belabored this point, but it really doesn't seem far-fetched to me that an object can't be prepared to accept the soul slice in advance of the murder. Going with the cake analogy, I think this is a little flawed. If we believe that Tom Riddle *ever* had a soul (and I think we must) then the "cake" was in fact already "baked." It has only to be "sliced." A Muggle could probably conceive some Goldberg device to snatch a cake slice once it is sliced from the rest of the cake, and pull it into a box. Is it so hard to believe a wizard with the powers of Lord Voldemort can enchant an object such to ensnare a slice of something once the slice is separated from the whole? Julie: I do not believe Harry is a Horcrux either. I think LV is a little smarter than that. Sarah: Problem is, he wasn't smart enough to foresee any of the rest of what happened at Godric's Hollow. If part of it went so wrong, why not the rest? Sarah From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 05:36:34 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:36:34 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > Nikkalmati: > > > By referring to murder, as in "why don't you murder me" ? > Harry is demonstrating that he totally fails to "get it." Here > Snape has been protecting Harry all along, he just killed DD to > protect Harry, and he is refraining right then from harming him > and the idiot boy still doesn't see it. Mike: I'm going to assume that this is sarcasm on your part and the "idiot boy" is coming out of Snape's mind, right? It's so hard to read sarcasm on this board, I'm not always sure if someone is writing from the character's perspective or giving their own opinion??! > Nikkalmati: > I think that is the main reason Snape loses his cool and why he > slaps Harry with a hex to drive home that he is deliberately not > doing anything to Harry. His rage is over the perception that > Harry is so stupid that he may make all of Snape's efforts > fruitless. Mike: I think you are closer to the reason than any other theory presented so far. If I could tweak this just a little; I think Snape is indeed infuriated with Harry here. But not so much because Harry doesn't get it right now, I think he has never seen Harry as capable of being the instrument of Voldemort's ultimate downfall. So, yeah, in Snape's mind, all this may prove fruitless, just as he has predicted all along (off screen, obviously). He probably reached the end of his rope just as Harry tried to use a couple of his own spells against him. At this point Snape just wants to get the remaining DEs out of there and wants Harry to SHUT UP. Bad enough he had to make himself Public Enemy number 1A, he's had just about enough of Harry's ignorant (in Snape's eyes) berating. Mike, who thinks we shouldn't be too hard on Harry, yet. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 05:48:48 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:48:48 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163961 Mike: At this point Snape just wants to get the remaining DEs out of > there and wants Harry to SHUT UP. Bad enough he had to make himself > Public Enemy number 1A, he's had just about enough of Harry's > ignorant (in Snape's eyes) berating. > > Mike, who thinks we shouldn't be too hard on Harry, yet. > Alla: Nah, Mike I think we should be very hard on Harry. :) After all, who in their right mind after watching the death of the loved one would have on their mind the one and only desire to bring the killer to justice and/or have revenge on him ( I think these two are intertwined in Harry's mind and absolutely convinced that right after watching DD murder Harry fully entitled to think of both) I mean what Harry should have done is of course to **thank** Snape for killing Dumbledore. That would have been an appropriate reaction, yes. That was sarcasm of course, and seriously speaking Mike I do thank you for saying that we should not be too hard on Harry. No, I would not dream of telling everybody how they should feel towards Harry, but I do think that Harry's reaction towards watching the murder of the loved one ( at least so far in Harry's eyes it is murder and in mine too) was the most understandable and normal reaction - to get the killer. I thought Snape hexing Harry was sooooo Snape - not to kill, no, but humiliation and hurt, which I am convinced Snape enjoys IMO. I also think that Buckbeack's reaction towards Snape ( like sentinent animal whose instincts are spot on IMO) is a big hint towards Snape loyalties and I so hoped that Buckbeack would tear him apart or at least hurt **really** badly. I know, I know we would have no story then, but I just want the bastard to pay so badly, lol. JMO, Alla From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 07:04:51 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:04:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0701192304g1f6f5ee6pf1bafae4df4d247d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163962 zgirnius: Alternatively, if the Boggart can sense when it is being seen, it turned into Moody's Boggart, and that is something one would not find hiding in a piece of furniture, even at the Black house. Lynda: Now that's an interesting assumption. It seems to me that a boggart would feel extremely ..."comfortable" in a house like the Black's. Dark, full of creepy things. Inhabited by people (for many years) who are, dedicated to the dark arts. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjones at telus.net Sat Jan 20 08:10:38 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:10:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <3202590701192134p76ed3352m8df4cc7877bc4098@mail.gmail.com> References: <498112.93789.qm@web37903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <3202590701192134p76ed3352m8df4cc7877bc4098@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45B1CE7E.5010900@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163963 > Sarah: > I know I have belabored this point, but it really doesn't seem > far-fetched to me that an object can't be prepared to accept the soul > slice in advance of the murder. > > Going with the cake analogy, I think this is a little flawed. If we > believe that Tom Riddle *ever* had a soul (and I think we must) then > the "cake" was in fact already "baked." It has only to be "sliced." > A Muggle could probably conceive some Goldberg device to snatch a cake > slice once it is sliced from the rest of the cake, and pull it into a > box. Is it so hard to believe a wizard with the powers of Lord > Voldemort can enchant an object such to ensnare a slice of something > once the slice is separated from the whole? KJ writes: I like the cake analogy. My theory is that the cake was already sliced (the murder of Lily if nothing else) and that when the Avada Kadavra bounced off the protection afforded by Lily's sacrifice, it blew the cake box to Hell and gone, and one little slice of cake struck Harry in the head. Voldemort would have no way of knowing what had happened and neither would anyone else because as JKR pointed out, nothing like that had ever happened before. Dumbledore was the only one who wondered because he already had his suspicions about Voldie's hobby. There was no preparation, there was no horcrux container, so it is not going to function quite like the other horcruxes. KJ From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jan 20 12:40:11 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:40:11 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0701192304g1f6f5ee6pf1bafae4df4d247d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163964 zgirnius: > Alternatively, if the Boggart can sense when it is being seen, it turned into Moody's Boggart, and that is something one would not find hiding in a piece of furniture, even at the Black house. Lynda: > Now that's an interesting assumption. It seems to me that a boggart would feel extremely ..."comfortable" in a house like the Black's. Dark, full of creepy things. Inhabited by people (for many years) who are, dedicated to the dark arts. Ceridwen: I'm not sure zgirnius is saying that the Boggart would not be found in the Black house. I read this as: if the Boggart felt Moody looking at it, it automatically changed into whatever it is that is Moody's fear. The fear is not something that would be found in a piece of furniture. Hermione's Boggart - McGonagall telling her she had failed everything - would not be found in furniture, for instance. If Moody's Boggart was his being attacked by Death Eaters, then of course it would not be in furniture, at the Black house or anywhere. This was my impression. I am not trying to speak for zgirnius. Ceridwen. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jan 20 14:04:05 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:04:05 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163965 > Ceridwen: > I'm not sure zgirnius is saying that the Boggart would not be found > in the Black house. I read this as: if the Boggart felt Moody > looking at it, it automatically changed into whatever it is that is > Moody's fear. The fear is not something that would be found in a > piece of furniture. Potioncat: Or, then again, maybe it would be. The Boggart, trapped in a piece of furniture, feels Moody's gaze and responds by turning itself into Moody, trapped in a piece of furniture. His greatest fear.... From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 14:07:43 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:07:43 -0000 Subject: POA movie clues to book 7 solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163966 > Mitchell: > I've read seen and heard OVER AND OVER again the possibility that Harry > is a horcrux. But I just can't buy into it. Not with Voldemort constantly trying to kill Harry! If He's gone though SO MUCH EFFORT to guard and protect his soul fragments, why would he kill Harry knowing he'd be destroying a part of himself? < I think there may be 2 1/2 people who think Voldemort meant to turn Harry into a Horcrux, but most people in the Hx!Harry camp believe it happened without LV's knowledge or consent. It is possible LV sensed a piece of his own soul when he possessed Harry at the end of OoP -- thus the instructions to the DEs to leave Harry for himself -- or he may still not know. If he has figured it out, he may care much more to finally rid himself of the Prophecy Boy to want to preserve him as a Hx, and instead rely on his other Hxes. Annemehr From josumner1964 at cs.com Sat Jan 20 06:43:12 2007 From: josumner1964 at cs.com (john sumner) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 06:43:12 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163967 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I mean what Harry should have done is of course to **thank** Snape > for killing Dumbledore. IMOH I think Snape is working undercover for Dumbledore, once more I get the feeling that Dumbledore faked his death and is waiting for the right moment to strike back at he who must not be named, in the meanwhile I think Snape is going to stick it to Harry as much as he can, because he still hates James Potter. "john sumner" From kamilaa at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 07:01:58 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:01:58 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163968 Going with the cake analogy, I think this is a little flawed. If we believe that Tom Riddle *ever* had a soul (and I think we must) then the "cake" was in fact already "baked." It has only to be "sliced." A Muggle could probably conceive some Goldberg device to snatch a cake slice once it is sliced from the rest of the cake, and pull it into a box. Is it so hard to believe a wizard with the powers of Lord Voldemort can enchant an object such to ensnare a slice of something once the slice is separated from the whole? As I understand it, this is more or less in line with my views on how a Horcrux is made. I believe that the soul, the cake if you will, is already in its baked state, the creation of the Horcrux is the process by which a slice, a tear, from that cake is encased in a container and preserved. I seem to be alone in my thoughts, but Horcrux!Harry or no, I find it quite difficult to believe that the spell to encase the torn slice is preformed entirely post-tear. It seems logical to me that the container must be prepared (via spell - hmm, would it be considered a charm or a curse?) pre-murder, then the murder is carried out, the soul tears, and the torn piece, instead of drifting off into the ether somewhere goes into the prepared container. At least I assume the soul fragments of murders who are muggles, or wizards who aren't creating a horcrux, go somewhere or the other and don't just forever drift about on our plane. If the spell is preformed and the containing vessel prepared entirely post-murder, what's to prevent the torn fragment from vanishing to wherever it would go otherwise? Is there a time delay? Or are there millions of torn soul fragments drifting around even as we speak - and if that's the case, and the spell is done entirely post-death, how's a poor wizard to be sure he gets the proper fragment, the one belonging to him? No, it seems to me the spell must be begun, and in my view, largely executed, prior to the death to be used. Which is why I think Harry might be an unintentional horcrux. I think LV may very well have intended to use Harry's death to make his Gryffindor!crux (I will be unsurprised to discover a relic of GG was at GH) - only things didn't go quite as planned. So instead of the fragment going into whatever container he'd intended it instead attached itself to Harry. I don't think this will be the way it finally plays out - but I'll be very surprised if Harry doesn't spend at least a chapter or three thinking this is the way things are going to play out - that he will have to die to ensure the destruction of that particular horcrux. I think he will have to face believing he cannot survive his task - and I think how he deals with that belief will largely determine whether or not he actually does survive. He's been sure he's going to die before - but it's always been in the heat of the moment - he's never really had to look certain death in the face from a far-off distance. Kamil From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 14:55:06 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:55:06 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0701192304g1f6f5ee6pf1bafae4df4d247d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163969 > zgirnius: > > Alternatively, if the Boggart can sense when it is being seen, it > turned into Moody's Boggart, and that is something one would not find > hiding in a piece of furniture, even at the Black house. > > Lynda: > > Now that's an interesting assumption. It seems to me that a boggart would > feel extremely ..."comfortable" in a house like the Black's. Dark, full of > creepy things. Inhabited by people (for many years) who are, dedicated to > the dark arts. zgirnius: I am not assuming that a boggart would feel uncomfortable, I agree it would. Actually, I am not assuming much at all. I am suggesting that since Moody knew it was a boggart, what he saw when he looked at it was either 1) a boggart in its natural (supposedly unknown) form, or 2) the shape Boggarts habitually take for Moody. Now, if whatever that is, belongs in 12 GP, how could Moody know it was a Boggart, and not...whatever? So I conclude that if the Boogart took a form for Moody, that form is not something that would tyoically hide out in a piece of furniture at 12 GP. I hope I am clearer, this time around...I blame it on the nasty virus I caught from the kiddies. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 17:49:10 2007 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:49:10 -0000 Subject: Newbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <72950.35166.qm@web33611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163970 Angie wrote: > > I love this theory, what does everyone else think? > > "Harry finds a time turner in Godric Hollows and uses it to go back in time to the night of his parents death. There he sees the truth about what really happened and it turns out that it is he who was the other person there that night. Harry tells DD about what happens and that is how DD knows exactly what to do with the baby and why he is so elusive about telling Harry any more than he absolutely has too. (snip) Ginger says: Welcome Angie! Of course I think it is a brilliant theory, but I am biased since I thought of the same thing (sort of, with variations) before. It was back in message 142162. I'll repost part of it here: Begin repost: Suppose Harry travelled back in time to GH, after being solidly convinced not to interfere, only to observe. He takes his IC with him, hides, and views the events. After it is all over, DD steps out of a closet and begins to leave (yes I know the house was destroyed, but the closet was intact for the purposes of this exercise- grant me that much?). Harry is outraged and calls out to him. DD stops, turns and listens as Harry berates him for allowing his parents to die. DD asks why Harry didn't do anything himself, to which Harry replies that he has time- turned to be there and realizes he has broken the "you must not be seen" rule. DD smiles and explains that he didn't interfere as he is there under the same circumstances as Harry. He, too, is time-turning, but from 3 hours in the future. He has left Harry in the care of Hagrid and has time-turned to GH to find out what happened so he will know what to do with baby Harry. Harry realizes this is a golden opertunity to have a final conversation with DD and to warn him of everything that will happen in our stories, but before he can begin, DD warns him that anything Harry tells him will be considered interference with time. Harry blurts out "But Snape- you mustn't trust him!" to which DD replies, "Professor Snape, Harry, and I trust him completely, and someday, so shall you." With that, DD disapperates. Ok, end of my little fantasy, but you can see all the plot bunnies multiplying here. Harry could time-turn back further and try again to talk to DD. He could write DD a note and time-turn back and leave it in DD's office. He could disguise himself as a seer, time-turn back and tell DD he has an important prophecy for him. The possibilities are endless. And the way they could effect DD and how he seemed semi-omnicient would be equally infinite. If it happens this way, I call dibs on the chapter summary. Ginger, whose mind just blew from overload. It was an Evil Overload. End repost. Now, to the present. I know that there are very good arguments about the time-turners being destroyed, and the nasty calculations involved in getting to the right place and time, but it could be done. Just because we can't go haywire making up plot devices doesn't mean JKR can't ;) Your idea that Harry tells DD everything about GH is a good one. Somehow, some way, DD did find out. There are other ways, of course. Portraits, ghosts, baby Harry's memory in a penseive, and several others have been mentioned. It has also been guessed that there was someone else there (Snape being the biggie), but I don't think Harry was the one who told Lily to run. I like this idea because it would be an emotionally powerful scene to read. I also agree with you that there could be some sort of a clue that gives Harry an idea of how to defeat LV for good. Ginger, hoping the blast from the past didn't get too long. From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Jan 20 17:59:50 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:59:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me (but not me ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B25896.6010809@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163971 potioncat wrote: >>Ceridwen: >>I'm not sure zgirnius is saying that the Boggart would not be found >>in the Black house. I read this as: if the Boggart felt Moody >>looking at it, it automatically changed into whatever it is that is >>Moody's fear. The fear is not something that would be found in a >>piece of furniture. > > Potioncat: > Or, then again, maybe it would be. The Boggart, trapped in a piece of > furniture, feels Moody's gaze and responds by turning itself into > Moody, trapped in a piece of furniture. His greatest fear.... We don't see with our eyes; we see with our brains. This is especially significant with Moody's "Mad Eye", which transmits who knows what sort of information, and is transmitted to his brain who knows how. Bart From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 18:10:28 2007 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:10:28 -0000 Subject: the best played game of chess Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163972 A thought struck me the other day. At the end of PS/SS, DD awards Ron points for "the best-played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years". At first my mind started on a silly tangent with all sorts of questions: How did DD know that it was "the best"? He wasn't there to watch it. Quirrelmort would have had to play as well. We know he got by the keys before the chess set, since he was the one who bent the wings, and we know what he did to the troll afterwards. So how did DD know that Ron's game was "best"? Did he count intentions? Did he interview the chess pieces? I discounted the silliest question of all: Didn't DD have to play through as well? I figure that there wouldn't have been time for him to do that. No, I think DD had some sort of "back-door key". I mean, when he set up the mirror he had to get it in there somehow, right? I don't think he dragged it after him whilst singing, dropped it down on the Devil's Snare, let it get attacked by keys, set it up as a pawn, and risked the troll whacking it. So I went back to musing about the chess game played by Quirrelmort. Was it really inferior to Ron's? Which piece did he set himself up as? How long did it take? I wasn't going to bore the list with all these questions, but then I happened upon one that just might matter: Who masterminded the game? Was it Quirrel or LV? Much has been said about Ron's chess abilities coming in handy in the future should Harry need someone to plan strategy. If Quirrel was the chessmaster, then there's nothing to worry about. 99% of us think Quirrel is dead anyway. (Sends a purple turban over to CV.) Although I can imagine Quirrel arguing with LV about which move to make next. If LV was behind the game, then Ron has a good match ahead of him. I find this unlikely since LV has a bad track record of "I forgot about that". No, that doesn't make for a good chess player. Heck, I can't remember how half the peices move. I'd have been clonked in 5 moves. So what do y'all think? Was Quirrel the one who got past the chess set? Or was it LV? Or did they put their heads together (so to speak)? Ginger, who wonders if this is even relevant, but that has never stopped her before. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 20 18:29:18 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:29:18 -0000 Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163973 > Nikkalmati > > Harry has already called Snape a coward without much reaction, so I don't > think it is that word alone that provokes Snape. By referring to murder, as in > "why don't you murder me" ? Harry is demonstrating that he totally fails to > "get it." Here Snape has been protecting Harry all along, he just killed DD > to protect Harry, and he is refraining right then from harming him and the > idiot boy still doesn't see it. I think that is the main reason Snape loses > his cool and why he slaps Harry with a hex to drive home that he is > deliberately not doing anything to Harry. His rage is over the perception that Harry is so stupid that he may make all of Snape's efforts fruitless. Pippin: Huh? If Snape is perpetrating a ruse, whether the ruse is the killing itself or the motive for it, the worst thing would be if Harry 'got' it. Harry has no subtlety, no capacity for occlumency, and is simply not capable of treating Snape as a murderer if he doesn't believe that Snape is one. Snape's escape is hardly being hindered by Harry. There's certainly no reason Snape couldn't have struck Harry's wand away or incapacitated him as soon as he was within striking distance. Instead he stops for this pleasant little chat about ways and means. If he's enraged, perhaps it's because Harry's attempt to stop him is so incompetent that Snape is hard put to it to find a reason to escape without doing Harry any real harm. So fortunate that Buckbeak got loose -- or did Snape free him and Imperius him to chase Snape off the grounds? Do we really think a man can outrun a hippogriff? Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jan 20 18:34:37 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:34:37 -0000 Subject: Since we're wondering about Quirrell... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163974 I recently read PS/SS again, and have begun to wonder about the dinner conversation between Quirrell and Snape at the opening feast. By this time, Quirrell is Quirrell!Mort, and the back of his turban, where LV's head resides, is facing Harry. Harry doesn't know this at the time, he only knows that his scar is hurting and Snape is looking at him. He gets the impression that Snape doesn't like him. Maybe, from that point on, Snape doesn't. Quirrell had met Harry in Diagon Alley, but Snape had never met him before. If LV is directing Quirrell at this point, might he have tried to make Harry look as bad as possible to one of his former followers? Could Quirrell have told Snape how arrogant he found Harry to be when he met him, whether it was the truth or not? This would, of course, assume some personal knowledge of the animosity between Snape and James, on the part of either Quirrell or LV. Also, one point I just thought of, could Harry's scar have started hurting when LV began to get angry or annoyed with him as he faced in Harry's direction while Quirrell was telling Snape about Harry? LV has no reason to like the boy, after all. I was just wondering if Snape just disliked Harry and thought of him as an arrogant boy merely based on his views of James, or if Quirrell! Mort's report of how he found Harry to be, negatively influence Snape's opinion? Would things in the Potions classroom have been different if Snape and Quirrell hadn't sat together that night? Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 18:45:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:45:46 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <45B1CE7E.5010900@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163975 KJ writes: > > I like the cake analogy. My theory is that the cake was already sliced (the murder of Lily if nothing else) and that when the Avada Kadavra bounced off the protection afforded by Lily's sacrifice, it blew the cake box to Hell and gone, and one little slice of cake struck Harry in the head. Voldemort would have no way of knowing what had happened and neither would anyone else because as JKR pointed out, nothing like that had ever happened before. Dumbledore was the only one who wondered because he already had his suspicions about Voldie's hobby. There was no preparation, there was no horcrux container, so it is not going to function quite like the other horcruxes. Carol responds: There's no evidence for preparation. We're told that the spell *encases* the soul bit, which means that the soul bit must be available *before* the spell is performed. Nor do we see Tom Riddle bringing prepared Horcruxes with him to a murder. He killed Hepzibah Smith to *obtain* two objects for Horcruxes. Presumably, he made the cup into a Horcrux, using the soul fragment from her murder, but he could only have made it into a Horcrux after he obtained it, which would also be after the murder. And the locket would have to use a different soul fragment. He'd already performed four murders before he killed Hepzibah, Myrtle and the Riddles. Myrtle's death would logically relate to the locket and he must have used one of the Riddles, probably his father, for the ring Horcrux. Using the cup for Hepzibah, he'd have two murders and one future Horcrux left over. I'm assuming that he used one of the Riddles, probably his grandfather (a Riddle by birth unlike his grandmother) for the locket. At that point, he still had one usable soul bit, probably his grandmother's, available, but no container to put it in. Anyway, if anyone can provide any evidence for a preparatory spell, I'd like to see it. He would have had to take some prepared object to Godric's Hollow, and had he done so, it, not Harry or his open wound, would have become the Horcrux. Nor did he cast any preparatory spell on Harry to give him back his own soul bit or he'd have known that Harry was a Horcrux and not repeatedly tried to kill him. Carol, wishing JKR would dispel the Harry!Horcrux theory on her website From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Jan 20 20:40:21 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:40:21 -0000 Subject: T-BAY: Dumbledore is Worse than we Thought! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163976 Alla and Ceridwen are sitting at a rickety old table facing onto Theory Bay. A large stack of papers are at Alla's elbow. A history book is lying open and ignored by Ceridwen's cup. The night is no longer young, and a breeze blows across the timeworn dock. Alla sets her teacup down and grabs at the papers to keep them from blowing off the table again. Lying on the table between them is a parchment with a picture of Albus Dumbledore. "I do not wish to believe that Dumbledore is evil," Alla says as she flicks a pen at the parchment. "But, sometimes, the things he does..." she sighs. "Placing Harry with abusive Dursleys, allowing Snape to abuse him verbally in class, along with poor Neville..." "Rowling says that Dumbledore is Harry's mentor, the Wise Guy With The Beard," Ceridwen says. "I just don't think he's omniscient. Harry did when he was younger, but obviously to readers, he's made mistakes." "But, to leave him at the Dursleys' house, the way they treated him!" says Alla, making a face. "Irresponsible, at the least." "Maybe he wanted Harry to hate prejudice. They're as prejudiced against witches and wizards as Purebloods are against Muggles." "But, that would mean Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, which I do not like at all! Conniving, manipulative..." Alla calls Dumbledore's parentage into question. "I always did sort-of wonder. Sometimes, he does come off as manipulative. Very Slytherin, in fact." "Yes." Alla narrows her eyes at the parchment. "*Very* Slytherin." At these words, the parchment rises into the air between them and slowly begins to revolve. The picture of Dumbledore is replaced by a picture of Voldemort on its reverse. As the parchment spins faster, the two begin to blend. It is difficult to tell where Dumbledore ends and Voldemort begins. "I do think Harry will live," Ceridwen says as the parchment spins faster. "But, a lot of people don't want Harry to kill. Since 'Either must die at the hand of the other', how can he do that?" She stops and really looks at the revolving parchment. "Wait. What if..." "No." Alla shakes her head, but cannot take her eyes from the spinning pictures. "Really, he couldn't be!" "But, what if he is? What if Harry doesn't kill Voldemort, but instead, Voldemort is sent back in time to live out his life as a decent member of Wizarding society? And, what if he does?" Alla looks gray. It could have been the seventeen feet of legal parchment she had completed, or it could have been the fanatical gleam in Ceridwen's eyes. "Then, if he had lived out his life as decent wizard, there would be no problem. And, how does this have anything to do with Dumbledore?" "It has everything to do with Dumbledore. Because Voldemort *is* Dumbledore." "Impossible! McGonagall says that Dumbledore is too noble to use the sorts of spells Voldemort has used." "By that time, he has been Dumbledore for so long, and lived an exemplary life, that of course she would think that. She's only half his age, or thereabouts. Or, he's given every appearance of being exemplary. Because that's the night when he left Harry with the Dursleys." "Yes! And, McGonagall objected!" Alla eyes the spinning parchment again. Red eyes, blue eyes, red eyes blue... "It would explain why he left baby Harry with the Dursleys, who do not want him. He wanted to break down Harry's mind, alter his ability to fight against Voldemort's injustice!" She shakes her head, casting off the beginnings of the enchantment. "But, what about Griselda Marchbanks? What about young Dumbledore amazing the proctors in his O.W.L.s?" "That was the real Dumbledore. Albus, who is still alive and well and..." "Rowling said Dumbledore is dead!" "The one we know is dead. The real one, the one who amazed his proctors, is alive and taking care of the Hogshead." "Then, he is contributing to Polyjuice for Riddle?" "No, it's a glamour. Polyjuice for a hundred years?" Ceridwen gives Alla one of those looks that older people give younger people who are saying silly things. "Then, what about the Horcruxes? What about Snape? Oh, if he is really evil, then of course he would allow Snape to be evil too." "Snape first, because he's easy. Imperius. Plus, a little favoritism to anger him when he was younger, plus playing the Good Guy to his own earlier self's Bad Guy, confusing the heck out of Snape, then placing him under that curse. Do you really think he couldn't have gotten someone else instead of Umbridge? What about Gilderoy Lockhart? Harry learned to really hate fame from watching him!" "No. No." Alla shakes her head. "This I cannot believe. Umbridge was after Dumbledore as well." "And look what she got for it." Ceridwen takes a sip of tea. "He's awfully friendly with Phineas Nigellus, Headmaster, Slytherin... Great-grandfather or some ancestor of Bellatrix and Regulus." Ceridwen leans forward confidentially. "You know he didn't know about R.A.B." "Which leads us to the Horcruxes. Why, if he is Voldemort, did he not know where to find every Horcrux? Why did he not know whether Nagini was a Horcrux or not?" "Who says he's being truthful there? He knows, he just isn't telling." "The locket." "Ah. The locket. But, he explained that, didn't he? Voldemort wouldn't know if a soul piece of his went missing. He didn't know, he honestly didn't know!" "Then, why give Harry those lessons about understanding Tom Riddle?" "Arrogance. He hasn't read the Evil Overlord's handbook, even as Dumbledore. Also, think about this. He knew who to take memories from, he knew where to find the ring, he knows what Voldemort is feeling. Since Bob Ogden is dead, he had to have collected that memory years, maybe even decades, before he shows it in the Pensieve. He would have to have known he would need it." Alla thinks. "Lupin. What about Lupin?" "A masterpiece, whether Lupin's ESE or not. How much damage can a young werewolf cause at a school? When he was young, Tom Riddle sicced a Basilisk on Muggleborns, why not a werewolf when he's Headmaster? Voldemort courted the werewolf contingent after all. By giving Lupin a chance at the school, he's building trust, and he's earned Lupin's gratitude for giving him that chance. He is also trusted enough to be able to plant subtle ideas into Lupin's mind, ideas that make him not so sure of himself, that make him disillusioned with the Wizarding World as a whole. 'Dumbledore' understands, 'Dumbledore' will help, no matter what the rest of them all think. 'They' are bad, 'Dumbledore' is good. "And then, he brings Lupin back when Harry is in school. Black was not his agent, but everyone thinks he was. Lupin will protect his friend, making Lupin look bad. Then, Lupin gets the DADA curse, which Voldemort placed himself, and forgets his Wolfsbane, which of course Voldemort would have known from the Death Eater parents, and there's Lupin, ready, literally, to be thrown to the wolves in Half- Blood Prince." Alla is still not completely won over. "What about Crouch!Moody? Why was Dumbledore so upset?" "He botched it. He knew he would. And, haven't you ever wondered how the real Moody was fooled into being captured? *Paranoid* Moody?" Alla's eyes grow wide. She stares through the rapidly revolving parchment. "But, he would trust his old friend Albus! Dumbledore set him up!" "Yes. Then he Obliviated all memory of his presence from Moody's mind. He's the one to explain it all, isn't he? We only know what Dumbledore tells us." "Back to Snape. All roads in the Potterverse lead to Snape. Why did he allow Snape to kill him?" "Allow? Hmph. Snape was finally breaking through the Imperius he'd been under all those years. That look of hatred and revulsion? Snape giving Dumble!Mort what he owes him for using him as a pawn." "Methinks," Alla says, taking a sip of her now-cold tea and making a face, "that this theory is absolutely crazy." She looks up at the sliver of moon shining just above the hills across the bay. "If we built this into something, would it float?" "I don't know. We'd have to name it. What about DIVEL?" "DIVEL?" Alla blinks. "What is DIVEL?" "'Devil' sideways. It means, Dumbledore Is Voldemort's Extended Life." Alla gets up and retrieves a hammer, some nails, and a stack of boards from the shack conveniently located near the table for theorists. "If we are going to build this... whatever it is, we'd better get started." And the revolving picture of Dumble!Mort smirks and puts away its wand. Alladwen. From mopardanno at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 20:52:01 2007 From: mopardanno at yahoo.com (mopardanno) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:52:01 -0000 Subject: POA movie clues to book 7 solutions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163977 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Just a thought. (BTW, the film has Lupin stepping in front of Harry's Dementor Boggart and then saying that he tohought Harry's Boggart would be Voldemort. It also fails to explain how Lupin knew that the piece of parchment was a map. I wouldn't trust it as a guide to anything.) Dan now: My first post, but I have been reading along alot over the past few months. How Lupin knew that the piece of parchment was a map, was that Lupin was obviously involved in the creation of the "Marauders Map" As Mooney. Mssr's, Mooney, Padfoot, Wormtail and Prongs IIRC are who made it, and that group of 4 ( Lupin, Sirius, Pettigrew, and James Potter ) were known as the Marauders. But agreed, the movie does not explain this in any way shape or form, that is just something I picked up from the books. Dan From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 20:55:59 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:55:59 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > There's no evidence for preparation. Mike: There's no evidence at all. We have not been told in canon how the spell works. Nobody knows. It's all conjecture. > Carol: > We're told that the spell *encases* the soul bit, which means that > the soul bit must be available *before* the spell is performed. Mike: No it doesn't. Have you seen those sanders or table saws with dust collection bags. You turn them on and they start with the suction. But there isn't any dust to collect until you start sanding/cutting. If you knock over a plant while vacuuming, do you have to turn off then turn back on the vacuum before you suck up the spilled dirt? Now canon. Did Marietta have to snitch on the DA to Umbridge *before* Hermione put the spell on the roster? No. She put the spell on the roster and it waited for something to activate it. So... you put the spell on your intended Horcrux object and yourself; the spell waits for the soul to be split at which time it sucks up the soul piece. I just don't see how you can make any definitive statement about the mechanics of Horcrux creation with literally *no* canon evidence to back up any position. There is no canon that the Horcrux creation spell must come after the soul is split either. There is no canon that the Horcrux creation spell *can* come after the soul is split. Personally, I take the position that if the spell isn't cast before the murder, the soul piece does not seperate from the main and begins to repair itself. The chance is lost, it's too late to seperate it and encase it. Is there canon for my position? No. Is there canon against my position? No. Is there canon for or against the spell-after-murder position? No. So I must look for other clues. I clued in on Slughorn telling Ton that "[t]he wizard *intent* upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage:..." (HBP p.498, US, emphasis mine). Slughorn told me that the *intent* must be established, i.e. the spell must be cast *before* the soul is torn thereby establishing intent. Thats my clue. What's your clue that the spell *must* come after the murder? > Carol: > Nor do we see Tom Riddle bringing prepared Horcruxes with him > to a murder. Mike: Nor do we see Tom Riddle at any of those murders. And if Tom Riddle was intending to make his first Horcrux with his fathers murder and therefore had his diary in his pocket, you wouldn't *see* it, would you? > Carol resumes: > Anyway, if anyone can provide any evidence for a preparatory spell, > I'd like to see it. Mike: Likewise, if you have any evidence that the spell can come after the murder, I'd like to see that. > Carol: > He would have had to take some prepared object to Godric's > Hollow, and had he done so, it, not Harry or his open wound, > would have become the Horcrux. Mike: Unless, of course, the object, like the house, was destroyed by the rebounding AK. Also, Harry was *marked* by a spell that doesn't leave a mark. Harry deflected a spell that cannot be deflected. JKR said that things happened that night that have never happened before. Another clue for me to ask, what else happened there that never happened before? > Carol: > Nor did he cast any preparatory spell > on Harry to give him back his own soul bit or he'd have known that > Harry was a Horcrux and not repeatedly tried to kill him. Mike: Excuse me, but ... how do you know what happened that night? Did I miss a chapter somewhere? If you were Voldemort, would you give up one of your Horcruxes to kill the "prophesy boy"? I think he would. Besides, the logical time for Voldemort to have discovered that Harry has one of Voldemort's soul bits was when he possessed him briefly at the MoM. And *nobody* has tried to kill Harry since, have they? > Carol, wishing JKR would dispel the Harry!Horcrux theory on her > website Mike, thinking that she doesn't dispel the theory because to JKR its fact. From cuimedono at gmail.com Sat Jan 20 20:03:38 2007 From: cuimedono at gmail.com (cuimedono) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:03:38 -0000 Subject: Since we're wondering about Quirrell... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163979 Ceridwen: > By this time, Quirrell is Quirrell!Mort, and the back of his turban, > where LV's head resides, is facing Harry. Harry doesn't know this at > the time, he only knows that his scar is hurting and Snape is looking > at him. He gets the impression that Snape doesn't like him. and > I was just wondering if Snape just disliked Harry and thought of him > as an arrogant boy merely based on his views of James, or if Quirrell! > Mort's report of how he found Harry to be, negatively influence > Snape's opinion? Would things in the Potions classroom have been > different if Snape and Quirrell hadn't sat together that night? > Hi all, I'm new to the list, Sarah from Philadelphia. I read PS/SS a while ago and do not have my own copy of it, so could someone quote the passage Cerwiden is referencing? If Snape looks at Harry with that "distaste" once his scar starts hurting, I think it is very likely that Snape recognizes something is up with Harry + LV. As a Death Eater and wizard involved with the war, Snape would have had enough experience to see the signs of a connection between Harry's scar hurting and LV activity/proximity/etc, even if he did not make the jump to realizing LV is beside him on Quirrell's head, or understanding exactly what said connection is. When I read PS/SS, I didn't think this, but now having read all six books, I think it is a subtle hint as to Snape's loyalties. He is not a very, er, warm and fuzzy guy, and any true concern for Harry would naturally not appear as such, given his personality and role as a spy. I think his dislike of Harry has everything to do with James Potter and, as the later books come develop the story, with Harry's inability to understand what Snape is trying to do - save Harry's hide on numerous occassions. -Sarah From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 20 23:17:19 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:17:19 -0000 Subject: Harry as Horcrux/De-Horcruxing the Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163980 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Annemehr" wrote: > > Annemehr: > > > I really like your Captain Kirk's door image, but the problem here > is that Harry was stabbed with the Basilisk fang just before he > stabbed the diary with it -- so if he *was* a Horcrux, and your > theory is accurate, he ought to have ceased to be so right then. > > That is partly why, in my "De-Horcruxing Harry" post earlier in > this thread (#163784), I concluded that, if merely making a hole in > a Hx is enough to release the soul piece, and if Harry is indeed a > Hx, then the Hx would have to be restricted to his scar. Other > parts of him have bled numerous times, including the arm which was > stabbed by both the fang and the knife Wormtail used to resurrect > LV. > > I do take note of your idea that is might need to be a magical > object that creates the new portal, though. Mike: Well you sure poked a hole in that theory . I still do like the portal part of my theory, can I keep that? I went back to reread your other post and the scar as portal would still fit with your theory. But what wouldn't fit is how the diary soul piece got out if Harry didn't stab the "location" of the diary's Horcrux. IOW, if Harry wasn't de-Horcruxed when he got stabbed by the Basilisk fang because it didn't stab his scar, how come the diary *was* de-Horcruxed if it wasn't stabbed in it's Horcrux location? I suppose you could say that Harry just got lucky, hit the right spot, but it weakens any theory to claim luck was with you. Then again, the diary was so small, maybe Harry couldn't help but hit the Horcrux's location. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had to take a couple of days to ponder the implications of your reponse to my theory and your previous post. Sorry, it took me so long to respond. Here's what I came up with: Harry didn't de-Horcrux the diary. The soul piece was already out of the diary and was regenerating a physical body by feeding off of Ginny or Ginny's soul, if you will. When Harry stabbed the diary he broke that connection from Ginny through the diary to the almost complete Tom. The connection broke, no more Tom cuz 9/10ths isn't good enough, and the soul bit is no longer anchored, its *freeeee*. IOW, even if Harry hadn't stabbed the diary it would still no longer have been a Horcrux. The soul piece was already out of the diary. Of course, if he hadn't stabbed it we would have one more Tom Riddle and one less Ginny Weasley. So, Im going back with my ethereal Horcrux theory. It may still have to be extracted through the portal. But I'm back to being convinced that there is no specific location of the soul or a soul piece. Harry didn't release the soul piece from the diary by stabbing it. He broke the connection that was feeding the already escaped soul piece. OK Anne, go ahead, poke another hole in this one, I can take it ;-) Mike, still wondering what happens to free roaming soul pieces. Do they try to rejoin with the Mothership, or do they just frolic around in the meadow until it's time to cross over? PS: > Annemehr: > I sorted through some of the canon for this idea back in > message #119783, before HBP was published. Mike: I'm fixin' to read that one :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 20 23:27:56 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:27:56 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163981 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: Mike: > Personally, I take the position that if the spell isn't cast before > the murder, the soul piece does not seperate from the main and begins > to repair itself. The chance is lost, it's too late to seperate it > and encase it. > > Is there canon for my position? No. Is there canon against my > position? No. Is there canon for or against the spell-after-murder > position? No. Geoff: I think there is. '"How do you split your soul?" "Well," said Slughorn unomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his own advantage" he would encase the torn portion -"' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) Nothing in what Slughorn says implies that the soul would begin to repair itself. The thrust of his comments is that the soul fragment DOES separate from the main piece. Killing rips the soul apart. Full stop. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 20 23:58:38 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:58:38 -0000 Subject: Horcrux confusion (was Harry as Horcrux/De-Horcruxing the Diary) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163982 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Mike: > I went back to reread your other post and the scar as portal would > still fit with your theory. But what wouldn't fit is how the diary > soul piece got out if Harry didn't stab the "location" of the diary's > Horcrux. IOW, if Harry wasn't de-Horcruxed when he got stabbed by the > Basilisk fang because it didn't stab his scar, how come the diary > *was* de-Horcruxed if it wasn't stabbed in it's Horcrux location? I > suppose you could say that Harry just got lucky, hit the right spot, > but it weakens any theory to claim luck was with you. Then again, the > diary was so small, maybe Harry couldn't help but hit the Horcrux's > location. Geoff: I hope Mike will forgive me for using part of one of his posts but I am being pedantic and pointing out that there is a good deal of confusion over the use of the word Horcrux. In the above, for example, the diary wasn't de-Horcruxed by being stabbed in its Horcrux location. The diary IS the Horcrux. What was removed was the soul piece. From the analogy which has been used of a cake and the cake-tin, the cake-tin is the Horcrux and the cake is the soul fragment. It becomes confusing and difficult to follow an argument when these two are mixed up. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 00:28:54 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:28:54 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > Mike previously: > > > Personally, I take the position that if the spell isn't cast > > before the murder, the soul piece does not seperate from the main > > and begins to repair itself. The chance is lost, it's too late to > > seperate it and encase it. > > > > Geoff: > > > Nothing in what Slughorn says implies that the soul would begin to > repair itself. The thrust of his comments is that the soul fragment > DOES separate from the main piece. Killing rips the soul apart. > Full stop. Mike now: Wellll..., actually not full stop. Slughorn goes on to explain what one can do with that torn piece, but he doesn't say what happens to the piece if it isn't removed to an external object. That was left for us to conjecture. Does a fully repentant murderer get his soul restored? Maybe with residual "scarring"? Let's say I accept your premise. The soul piece splits off and ... what .... floats away? Heads off "through the veil"? Or do all the soul fragments from a mass murderer like Voldemort remain in his body like so much confetti? How would you square that with your previous post wherein you likened the soul to a gas filling a container and if a part is removed the remaining expands to still fill the container? Where does the removed gas go, to a new container? How did we get a new container? What's your guess, Geoff? Keep in mind Dumbledore's pronouncement that Voldemort seemed to be saving his Horcrux making for significant murders. How does one do that if the torn soul pieces from other murders remain with the host as seperate entities? Do the seperated pieces have markers that designate which murder they came from? Does the Horcrux encasing spell actually select which soul piece it's going to encase? The logistics of this scenario is too complicated for me and I suspect way too complicated for JKR with her penchant to short shrift the mechanics of magic. I have to go with the simplified version. The Horcrux is made at the time of the murder and that is the only soul piece available for encasement. At any rate, it doesn't change my position on when a Horcrux creation spell can be cast in relation to the murder that splits the soul. There still isn't any canon as to when it must be cast, and I'm still leaning on the premise that pre-loading the spell is necessary to accomplish the deed. Mike, who really has no position on what happens to a split soul, only trying to explain how Harry could have accidentally been endowed with a guest soul piece from Voldiepants From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 00:38:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:38:47 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163985 Carol: > > There's no evidence for preparation. > > Mike: There's no evidence at all. We have not been told in canon how > the spell works. Nobody knows. It's all conjecture. Carol: Then we're even. However, we do have Slughorn's answer to the question, "How do you encase the soul bit?": "There is a spell." A spell to encase the soul bit, which therefore must already exist. > > > Carol: > > We're told that the spell *encases* the soul bit, which means that > > the soul bit must be available *before* the spell is performed. > > Mike: > No it doesn't. Have you seen those sanders or table saws with dust > collection bags. You turn them on and they start with the suction. > But there isn't any dust to collect until you start sanding/cutting. > If you knock over a plant while vacuuming, do you have to turn off > then turn back on the vacuum before you suck up the spilled dirt? Carol: I don't know about sanders, but the vacuum can't suck up the spilled dirt until the dirt is spilled. By the same token, you can't encase a soul bit until the soul bit is split off. Simple logic: the murder has to precede the encasement. The act of murder splits off the soul bit--that's what Slughorn tells us. Once the soul is split, the soul bit is available. There's no canon anywhere for a time limit on Horcrux creation, or for healing of the split soul (unfortunately for Snape). I'm not trying to make a definitive statement, just firmly stating my opinion, which seems to me to be firmly supported by Slughorn's words. Mike: > Is there canon for my position? No. Is there canon against my > position? No. Is there canon for or against the spell-after-murder > position? No. Carol: No canon except Slughorn's words. But there's also simple logic. You can't encase what doesn't yet exist, and the soul bit is created by the act of murder. So I must look for other clues. I clued in on Slughorn > telling Ton that "[t]he wizard *intent* upon creating a Horcrux would > use the damage to his advantage:..." (HBP p.498, US, emphasis mine). > Slughorn told me that the *intent* must be established, i.e. the > spell must be cast *before* the soul is torn thereby establishing > intent. Thats my clue. What's your clue that the spell *must* come > after the murder? Carol: First, I think you're reading too much into the word "intent." Essentially, it just means the wizard who wants to make a Horcrux would use the damage created by killing someone to his advantage. It doesn't mean that the murder can't be committed for other reasons. It only means that murder is a prequisite to Horcrux creation. If you want to create a Horcrux, you take advantage of your split soul. Or, if you haven't yet killed anyone, you go out and kill them. But the soul has to be split for the soul bit to be accessible for placing in a Horcrux. There's really no question about that, or none that I can see. No murder, no split soul, no Horcrux. *My* clue is the word "encase." We're told that the soul bit is placed inside an object by a spell, not the soul bit automatically places itself inside a prepared object. Here are the relevant sentences: "(Slughorn:) 'A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul.' "'I don't quite understand how that works, though, sir,' said Riddle. . . . "'Well, you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one's body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged. . . .' "But Riddle's hunger was now apparent. His expression was greedy. He could no longer hide his longing. "'How do you split your soul?'" "'Well,' said Slughorn uncomfortably, 'you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature.' "'But how do you do it?'" "'By an act of evil--the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon making a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the torn portion--" "'Encase? But how?' "'There is a spell, do not ask me. I don't know!'" (HBP Am. ed. 498). To me, this explanation is straightforward. Killing, or at least murder, rips the soul apart, whether the murderer wants to make a Horcrux or not. A wizard "intent on making a Horcrux" has most likely already committed murder. (Contrast Slughorn, who says, "Do I look like a killer?" Tom, we know, has already killed, once using a Basilisk as his weapon and three times using Avada Kedavra. Step one has been completed four times over. Now, "intent on making a Horcrux," he can use that damage to make multiple Horcruxes, which explains his next question about being able to make more than one. But the order is clear. How do you split your soul? You kil somebody. (If you've already killed, it's already split.) How do you make a Horcrux? You encase the soul bit from the murder in an object using a spell. Not a word about preparing the object in advance. Here's the conversation in brief. "How do you make a Horcrux?" "You split your soul." "How do you split your soul?" "You commit murder, which splits the soul, and encase the torn portion in an object." "How do you encase the torn portion?" "There's an incantation." You kill, creating a soul bit, and *then* you encase the soul bit, which can't be encased until it exists. Carol: > > Nor do we see Tom Riddle bringing prepared Horcruxes with him > > to a murder. > > Mike: > Nor do we see Tom Riddle at any of those murders. And if Tom Riddle > was intending to make his first Horcrux with his fathers murder and > therefore had his diary in his pocket, you wouldn't *see* it, would > you? > Carol: But it makes no sense to use the diary for his father's murder. The ring he acquired from Morfin would be associated with that murder, just as the diary is associated with Myrtle's. And both murders occur *before* the conversation with Slughorn, which gives him some indication how to make Horcruxes. (Slughorn, however, points out that Tom is unlikely to find the information he wants in the Hogwarts library. And just having he ring with him wouldn't make it a Horcrux. He'd still need to *encase* the soul bit from his father's murder in the ring--after he killed his father. Moreover, we know that Tom didn't go to Little Hangleton to murder his father or anyone else. He went looking for information on the Gaunts. It's only through Morfin's foolish comparison of his looks to "that Muggle's" that he knew where his father lived. And Voldemort says himself in GoF that he killed his father in revenge. (In CoS, Diary!Tom speaks as if his "filthy Muggle father" is alive.) We're never going to agree on this, Mike, but I think my reading of the canon is more straightforward than yours. It follows the logical sequence laid out by slughorn, and it takes at face value Tom Riddle's questions about how to do it. IMO, the only reason to ask about multiple Horcruxes is that he's already committed multiple murders and has soul bits to spare. (I still say that he could easily make a second one after he's protected by the first one. It seems like a really odd question. It's only Harry's interpretation that it's the question he really wants to ask. Note the greed and eagerness on his face when he's asking how it's done. I'm speculating now, but it seems likely to me that he found out how to create a Horcrux, not from the Hogwarts library or Slughorn, but from the one living man who had created one--Voldemort. And that would be sometime after the murder of the Riddles and the conversation with Slughorn but before the murder of Hepzibah Smith. We're never going to convince each other, but this is what I think. No preparatory spell, no accidental Horcruxes, no Horcruxes when he was still sixteen. That's my view. I'm not asking you to share it because you clearly have a radically different interpretation of the same canon. But mine *is* canon-based, as you can see. > > > Carol resumes: > > Anyway, if anyone can provide any evidence for a preparatory spell, > > I'd like to see it. > > Mike: > Likewise, if you have any evidence that the spell can come after the > murder, I'd like to see that. > > Carol: > > Nor did he cast any preparatory spell on Harry to give him back his own soul bit or he'd have known that Harry was a Horcrux and not repeatedly tried to kill him. > > Mike: > Excuse me, but ... how do you know what happened that night? Did I > miss a chapter somewhere? > If you were Voldemort, would you give up one of your Horcruxes to > kill the "prophesy boy"? I think he would. Besides, the logical time > for Voldemort to have discovered that Harry has one of Voldemort's > soul bits was when he possessed him briefly at the MoM. And *nobody* > has tried to kill Harry since, have they? Carol: Come on, Mike. There's no need for sarcasm. No, you didn't miss a chapter somewhere. I'm going by Harry's Dementor-induced memories and whatever else we *know* happened at GH, including Voldemort's eagerness to kill Harry: Voldie fights James, order Lily to step aside, kills her, tries to kill Harry, and is vaporized by the deflected AK. Dumbledore says he thinks that Voldemort wanted to use Harry's murder to create a Horcrux, but that doesn't make creating the Horcrux the primary motive, as I think we agree. There's no indication that he prepared a Horcrux before killing Harry, nor do I see a need to do so. IMO, he would have plenty of time to seek for a suitable object *after* the murder--and if he had one in mind, it was probably the Sword of Gryffindor to complete his collection. But killing Harry was the main objective. The Horcrux could wait. Carol, apologizing for sounding a bit too adamant in her previous post From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 21 01:36:33 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:36:33 EST Subject: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163986 >Lana >I just get pricklies when I think about it, so I have this nagging feeling we have missed something in the books that will come out to play with the mirror. Not sure what it is that could have been missed, but there is something I think.. LOL Nikkalmati Do we have any idea where the other mirror is? Of course, Harry broke his, but I am sure it can be repaired. If Sirius was in the habit of carrying it around with him, he may have had it on him when he went through the Veil. If that is true and Harry goes through the Veil at some point (see Carol possession theory), he may leave the mirror he has with one of the friends and once he finds Sirius' body, he then can communicate back to the friend with the mirror Sirius had in his pocket. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 01:40:02 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:40:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40701201740l53800a51g90b294a965f9c32c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163987 montims: not wanting to quote from all the the posts that have already been posted, but following on from them - on her website, Jo described horcruxes as 'the receptacle in which a Dark wizard has hidden a fragment of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality.' To me, it sounds like a deliberate placing of the split soul into a receptacle, thus an action after the soul-splitting event, rather than the receptacle standing by to catch flying bits of soul... From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 02:08:31 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:08:31 -0600 Subject: pronouns Message-ID: <8ee758b40701201808g1d1a780bla729130a5b29df6f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163988 montims: while looking at the diary, I read again the entry on Dan and Snape - "Dan has changed his theory on Snape; he says he doesn't want to be like one of those people who are photographed, beaming, next to mad dictators." I had always read the "he"s as Dan and Snape respectively, but I wonder now if it is Dan and Dan, meaning that he believes Snape is bad... I tried the search, but couldn't find the discussion and I'm interested in reading opinions, so please point me. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 02:48:06 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:48:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The two-way mirror - a cruel useless plot device In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701201848t1f059f80me02e369d19c88d2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163989 >Lana >I just get pricklies when I think about it, so I have this nagging feeling we have missed something in the books that will come out to play with the mirror. Not sure what it is that could have been missed, but there is something I think.. LOL Nikkalmati Do we have any idea where the other mirror is? Of course, Harry broke his, but I am sure it can be repaired. If Sirius was in the habit of carrying it around with him, he may have had it on him when he went through the Veil. If that is true and Harry goes through the Veil at some point (see Carol possession theory), he may leave the mirror he has with one of the friends and once he finds Sirius' body, he then can communicate back to the friend with the mirror Sirius had in his pocket. Nikkalmati ------------------------------------ Jeremiah: It is unknown if Sirius went through the veil with the mirror. If he did then would sirius be able to respod to Harry's calls at the end of OotP? IMO I don't think that he would. The morror is a physical object and he moved to a plane where you are nolonger physical, but then again, where is Sirius' body? I think that's the Mystery, now isn't it? I disagree with Nikkalmati's theory about posession, but that's the fun of this board. :) I do, however, think that the Dept of Mysteries will be a portion of the final book but I have no idea how... It's possible that someone might need a time-turner, or Ron has to confront the "inner" scars from the brain, or that the Veil will be revisited... but for what reasons I cannot imagine as of right now. (jeremiah is currently marking up his freshly purchased paperbacks and hopes to find some interresting clue or fact that he has not discovered as of right now.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 21 02:51:48 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 21:51:48 EST Subject: What might Snape consider cowardice? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163990 > Nikkalmati: > > > he just killed DD to > protect Harry, and he is refraining right then from harming him > and the idiot boy still doesn't see it. >Mike: >I'm going to assume that this is sarcasm on your part and the "idiot boy" is coming out of Snape's mind, right? It's so hard to read sarcasm on this board, I'm not always sure if someone is writing from the character's perspective or giving their own opinion??! Nikkalmati Yes indeed, this is Snape's POV and "idiot boy" is his impression at that moment. I do not mean to be hard on Harry, but he is young; I assume he has a way to go in the next book to achieve whatever realm of inner peace or level of control etc. to be effective in bringing down LV. > Nikkalmati: > I think that is the main reason Snape loses his cool and why he > slaps Harry with a hex to drive home that he is deliberately not > doing anything to Harry. His rage is over the perception that > Harry is so stupid that he may make all of Snape's efforts > fruitless. Mike: I think you are closer to the reason than any other theory presented so far. If I could tweak this just a little; I think Snape is indeed infuriated with Harry here. But not so much because Harry doesn't get it right now, I think he has never seen Harry as capable of being the instrument of Voldemort's ultimate downfall. So, yeah, in Snape's mind, all this may prove fruitless, just as he has predicted all along (off screen, obviously). Nikkalmati Snape as DDM is in a very bad position having to rely on Harry to defeat LV, save the WW, and release Snape from whatever bondage he is under. I agree he has never seen Harry as up to the job. If Harry had been more like Hermione, at least looked like he was trying, Snape would not have been so hard on Harry from the beginning. I have trouble accepting that Snape hates Harry primarily because he hated James. I think he dislikes Harry because of who he perceives Harry to be (and part of that is that Harry is like his father). We know that Harry is not like James - at least he doesn't have most of James' faults. Snape has always had a limited and wrong-headed view of Harry, but circumstances (JKR) have conspired to confirm in Snape's mind that Harry is like James, and James lost. If Snape hates Harry, I would propose it is because Lily gave her life for him and Snape cared in some measure for Lily. Even fathers have been known to hate their own children if the mother died in childbirth, rare but it can happen. I have been persuaded by the argument that Snape never mentions Lily, that he had feelings for her. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 02:54:34 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:54:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: POA movie clues to book 7 solutions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701201854g7de1ca17m444f7d8f1329128@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163991 > >>katssirius wrote: >> Over the holidays I watched the POA movie again. >> >> I was interested to note the lake scene when the dementors attack Harry and Sirius. One soul is being sucked out of Sirius while two souls are being sucked out of Harry. This provides more evidence for the Harry as horcrux theory as well as that it is possible to remove one soul separately from the other.<< Mitchell: I've read seen and heard OVER AND OVER again the possibility that Harry is a horcrux. But I just can't buy into it. Not with Voldemort constantly trying to kill Harry! If He's gone though SO MUCH EFFORT to guard and protect his soul fragments, why would he kill Harry knowing he'd be destroying a part of himself? ---------------------------- Jeremiah: I agree with Mitchell. I see no reason for Voldemort to have tried to make Harry a Horcrux if LV intended to kill Harry. The accidental theory sounds better in this light but from what Slughorn said the spell would be complicated. But knowing that LV was going to murder Harry then LV may have inteded to use the murder to create one. But I would think that LV, being in his 60's by this time would have already made all of them. And that's my opinion on why Harry is not a Horcrux. (But I could be wrong). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 21 03:22:03 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:22:03 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163992 >Pippin: >Listees who read carefully know that Bella is involved because Snape says so: "Ah....Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching you Occlumency, I see." --HBP ch 15 Nikkalmati Oops, I stand corrected. Snape guessed that Bella was helping Draco. >Pippin Really, your theory has Snape figuring out what he agreed to so early that it scarcely makes any difference, unless what you're saying is that he wouldn't have agreed at all if he'd known. Nikkalmati It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter! It only means he did not deliberately promise to kill DD! That is what I mean; he would not under any circumstances have made that promise, if he knew what it was, unless he is not DDM or unless you accept that DD and Snape already planned for Snape to kill DD. No other explanation has been given IMHO which explains the UV. Nikkalmati >Pippin >But then we should not only see something which we could later recognize as the moment when he realizes what he's agreed to do, we should see Snape trying desperately to undo his mistake. That doesn't happen. Nikkalmati I don't see how we could possibly see that moment without giving away Snape's true allegiance and feelings. Do you think in DH we are going to see Snape agonizing over killing DD? We have never gotten inside Snape's head to see what he was thinking and we may never get that chance. The best we have is the cryptic argument with DD in the Forbidden Forest. Nikkalmati >Nikklamati: >We do find out that Draco has refused to come see SS when told to >and we see Draco walk out on SS in a fit of anger. Furthermore, SS >and DD don't seem to learn anything more about Draco's task during >the rest of the year than they knew at Christmas! >Pippin: >But that's what the argument in the forest is about, seemingly. >Dumbledore thinks Draco's plans can never come to fruition because there's no way to get DE's into the castle. Snape thinks that Dumbledore takes too much for granted. Dumbledore wins the argument, and Snape is told to continue his investigations in Slytherin -- not, one assumes, continue them with Bella or in Hogsmeade or do anything which would make Voldemort aware that Dumbledore knows that Draco is plotting against him. Nikkalmati I can agree with this, but I don't see that it contradicts what I said. Nikkalmati Pippin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 03:55:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:55:43 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163993 Nikklamati: > >We do find out that Draco has refused to come see SS when told to and we see Draco walk out on SS in a fit of anger. Furthermore, SS and DD don't seem to learn anything more about Draco's task during the rest of the year than they knew at Christmas! Carol responds: I'm not so sure. Snape has put Crabbe and Goyle in detention. He would know that they're helping Draco but don't know what he's up to. He could use Legilimency to figure out that it has something to do with the RoR. He also knows that Filch found Draco in an upstairs corridor--where else but the RoR? Snape's pale face--he looks angry and even a bit afraid--suggests that he knows or suspects exactly where Draco was. Obviously, Snape can't interrogate Draco directly again--Draco's not going to cooperate with someone he thinks is a Death Eater out to steal his glory, but he can interrogate the little girls Draco is suddenly hanging around with and discover that they know even less than Crabbe and Goyle, which leads to the conclusion that Draco is polyjuicing his friends. And clearly Snape is following Draco around or he couldn't have saved him from Sectumsempra. He also knows that Draco has outside help, Bella and possibly other Death Eaters, but he can hardly interrogate them. Also, of course, he knows that Draco must be the one who sent the poisoned mead. The argument in the forest occurs soon after that incident. DD *is* taking too much for granted, and investigations into Snape's house have yielded as much information as possible. DD tells Harry that he knows more about what Draco is doing than Harry does, and his source of information has to be Snape. The one thing they don't know, and can't know without confronting Draco himself and endangering all three of them, is that he's trying to repair the Vanishing Cabinet. And that, of course, is the crucial piece of information which makes all their efforts to thwart the UV futile. Carol, who would be very surprised if Snape didn't know or suspect a lot more than he let on to Draco at Christmas From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 04:06:37 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 04:06:37 -0000 Subject: Harry as Horcrux/De-Horcruxing the Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163994 > > Annemehr: > > > > > > I really like your Captain Kirk's door image, but the problem here > > is that Harry was stabbed with the Basilisk fang just before he > > stabbed the diary with it -- so if he *was* a Horcrux, and your > > theory is accurate, he ought to have ceased to be so right then. > > > > That is partly why, in my "De-Horcruxing Harry" post earlier in > > this thread (#163784), I concluded that, if merely making a hole in > > a Hx is enough to release the soul piece, and if Harry is indeed a > > Hx, then the Hx would have to be restricted to his scar. Other > > parts of him have bled numerous times, including the arm which was > > stabbed by both the fang and the knife Wormtail used to resurrect > > LV. > > > > I do take note of your idea that is might need to be a magical > > object that creates the new portal, though. > > Mike: > Well you sure poked a hole in that theory . I still > do like the portal part of my theory, can I keep that? > > I went back to reread your other post and the scar as portal would > still fit with your theory. But what wouldn't fit is how the diary > soul piece got out if Harry didn't stab the "location" of the diary's > Horcrux. IOW, if Harry wasn't de-Horcruxed when he got stabbed by the > Basilisk fang because it didn't stab his scar, how come the diary > *was* de-Horcruxed if it wasn't stabbed in it's Horcrux location? I > suppose you could say that Harry just got lucky, hit the right spot, > but it weakens any theory to claim luck was with you. Then again, the > diary was so small, maybe Harry couldn't help but hit the Horcrux's > location. Annemehr: By all means, keep the portal! But, I'm not sure you understood me, quite. I *do* think the soul-bit inhabits the whole of a Horcrux. Also, I do think that **maybe** if you open a Hx in some way -- in any location on the Hx -- you can release the soul-bit. However, I realise this can *not* be true *if* Harry's whole self is a Horcrux, because we know he's been cut numerous times -- and often with magical items to boot. In this thread, I was positing that one of the extant Hxes is Harry's *scar* (which was the cut, at the time it was created), rather than Harry *himself*. I.E. what if the scar is not merely the portal, but the Hx itself? This may be utter nonsense, but I don't think it's impossible. However, it definitely would require a little something extra from a talented wizard to confine the soul-bit -- and thus the Hx -- to just that one little corner of Harry when otherwise his whole self would be the Hx. This is where I brazenly commandeer Talisman's Dumbledore-turned- Harry-into-a-Horcrux-of-LV theory (see end of message #163728). I needed it to lend plausibilty to the idea that the soul-bit *could* have been confined to the scar, because I needed somebody to do the confining. Let's be clear, though. As far as I am aware (and I did just go and check), Talisman never specified Harry's scar as the Horcrux. I have no clue what she would think of the idea. I am not absolutely married to the idea myself. I was only wondering (A)if the hole in the Diary, the crack in the ring, and the unopenability of the locket might tell us something about how to de-Hx a Hx. I think these are suggestive, but I know they are by no means definitive. And then I further speculated (B)on what that might mean if Harry (or his scar) was a Hx. --------------------------------------------------------------- I suppose I may as well outline the reasons I do think Harry('s scar) is a Horcrux, and why I agree that DD did it: (1)That Harry has a bit of LV's soul within him somewhere is the only explanation we can infer from existing canon for how Harry has LV's inherent powers and a link to his thoughts and emotions. Of course, JKR *may* have a little surprise in store for us in DH, regarding some other reason for the link, but it would feel like authorial cheating to me. I'll just content myself for now with what seems to be the best explanation -- it's a soul-bit. (2)I'm sure LV did not intend to make Harry into a Hx at GH. In CoS, DD told Harry that the transfer was "not something [LV] intended to do." In GoF, LV told his DEs that he did try to kill Harry, and why he believes he failed. (3)The idea of Harry being an accidental Hx is possible, but messy. It seems unlikely to me. Much too unlikely to build the whole story around. (4)As an unrepentant "Puppetmaster!DD" believer (and he does it only for the *best* reasons), when I first read Talisman's Hx!Harry theory, right away I thought that it brought everything into focus and made items (1) (2) and (3) fit in the most elegant way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike: > I had to take a couple of days to ponder the implications of your > reponse to my theory and your previous post. Sorry, it took me so > long to respond. Annemehr: No problem at all. Who wouldn't prefer a thought-out reply? :) Mike: > Here's what I came up with: > > Harry didn't de-Horcrux the diary. The soul piece was already out of > the diary and was regenerating a physical body by feeding off of > Ginny or Ginny's soul, if you will. When Harry stabbed the diary he > broke that connection from Ginny through the diary to the almost > complete Tom. The connection broke, no more Tom cuz 9/10ths isn't > good enough, and the soul bit is no longer anchored, its *freeeee*. Annemehr: Good point. "Enough to let me leave its pages at last..." Tom says. Okay, that certainly weakens any evidence for thinking it is not harmful to stab a Horcrux. Although, if there *is* still that 1/10 of soul still seeping out... ;) Mike: > So, Im going back with my ethereal Horcrux theory. It may still have > to be extracted through the portal. But I'm back to being convinced > that there is no specific location of the soul or a soul piece. > > OK Anne, go ahead, poke another hole in this one, I can take it ;-) Well, hopefully I was clear enough above in explaining that I have no argument with this -- so, no poking holes today! Annemehr From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 21 04:17:33 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:17:33 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163996 >Magpie: >But she does often want the reader to say that. She writes stories of re-cognition. We readers don't figure out that Quirrel has Voldemort on his head, or that Tom Riddle is the memory of Voldemort possessing Ginny, or that Sirius was framed by Scabbers, who is really Peter, or that Moody is really Crouch. We learn it in a surprising moment and that changes what we've seen before. There are some things that many readers do figure out--though probably based more on story things than hard evidence in the plot. Rowling isn't afraid of an "If only I had only known that..." She loves those. >When Snape's motivations are revealed in Book VII his motivations in Spinner's End will also be clear. Since there's no revelation about them at the end of HBP we have to wait until we know for sure. Some people may be proved right, but I don't think that answer is given in HBP. Nikkalmati We have clues, of course, but I guess I am engaging in speculation while I wait . >Magpie: >As you yourself said, she plays fair. If Snape took the Vow to find >out what Draco was given to do, JKR would write that arc for Snape. She may put in beats that we misinterpret (If only I had known...) but what's described here sounds more like flat-out cheating, which makes it no fun to read in retrospect. Not only do we not see the moment where Snape realizes he's *accidentally* agreed to kill Dumbledore or die (much as Jerry Seinfeld accidentally agreed to wear the Puffy Shirt on TV), we would at least need to have some sign of it in the text. Where does Snape learn this truth, realistically? If we don't get the moment where we see Snape learn the truth we need (according to the way I've seen Rowling write over the years) some event we can later identify as the thing that caused him to learn it, and a change in his behavior after this thing has occurred. There would also be moments in Spinner's End, imo, that pointed to the truth. Reading it over thinking that Snape doesn't really know what he's talking about, I'm just not seeing them. Nikkalmati I cannot envision how she could let us see Snape's recognition moment without letting out his true loyalty. Nikkalmait >Magpie: >So then Snape isn't trying to find out what the task is from Malfoy. That's never his motivation. It's only his motivation in Spinner's End, where his actions in no way advanced that motivation. He found out the task in a far more reasonable way, by thinking about things for five minutes. The motivation of trying to find out the task only exists to explain one scene and the fallout from it (I agreed to do WHAT???) somehow doesn't show at all. Storywise, this is why it's so weak, imo. The only thing it does for Snape's story is to make it so that he isn't actually agreeing to kill Dumbledore. It makes it seem to me as if he agreed to the Vow just to help the plot along. >Magpie: >You don't have the authority to say that "if LV thought SS could kill DD, he would have him do it immediately.kill DD, he would ha read in the text that makes me believe I have to assume LV would never order Snape to kill DD. Snape obviously can do it, Bella and Narcissa both think he can do it. Snape himself claims to Bella and Narcissa that Voldemort expects him to do it and nobody challenges him. Nikkalmati I don't claim any authority here at all . However, logic tells me that if LV thought it was that easy to kill DD, he would just have Snape do it and get it over with. Why play around? Canon does tell us Narcissa and Bella saw it as a suicide mission for Draco. I don't think Narcissa really cares if Snape is killed in the attempt as long as Draco is safe. That's not what she says, of course. It also might be a bit embarrassing for LV to have Snape kill DD and start the rumor that LV was afraid to do it. Note Narcissa blurts out "even the Dark Lord . . " and is shushed by Bella. Nikkalmati Magpie Nikkalmati: If DD is dead, he > isn't really needed at Hogwarts anyway. Snape is not gathering information > here, how can he when he has told the witches he knows everything? He has > reassured Bella, first, that he is trusted by the Dark Lord enough to know the > plan. He is now trying to comfort Narcissa and assure her he will "help" > Draco. He intends to place himself in a position to get the information from > Draco later. >Magpie: >You have claimed that Snape took the Vow because he wants to know >what Draco's task is. That is his goal. . You've said >Snape can't fish for information because he's making them think he already knows everything. But pretending you know everything is a valid way of fishing for information! If his ultimate goal is to find this stuff out, why isn't he acting like the spy he is and acting like he knows everything to *manipulate* them into giving him information? And if he's decided that he's just going to give up on trying to find out that information in this scene and make plans to try to get it out of Draco in future, there is--as ever--no reason for him to take the Vow! He doesn't need to take this Vow and agree to do the task himself to pump Draco later. He's got enough to go on. In fact, he doesn't even need to pump Draco later. He can just drop in on Dumbledore the next day, tell him what he's heard, and they'll easily deduce together what the task is. Nikkalmati Ok, pretending he knows everything is a way of finding things out. He does find out some things from the discussion, like it is a suicide mission and the Dark Lord himself . . . and that Narcissa thinks it is to punish Lucius, and Bella would be glad for any of her sons to do it etc. That is useful stuff. But when he takes the Vow, he will have Narcissa telling Draco to cooperate with him. He doesn't just want to know the task; he wants to know the details, which Narcissa does not know. Remember, Snape does not think he is vowing to do anything other than to help and protect Draco. If he swears that, he thinks, Draco will let him in on all his little secrets. Right? Well, not exactly how it turns out. >Magpie: >Snape has the upper hand here; and even if he didn't I don't think >it would look suspicious--it would look suspicious--any DE would >about to blurt out the information to Snape. Snape is supposed to seriously want this information, yet he jumps in to stop her. And the reason is that suddenly he's worried that she's going to be reported by Bellatrix for telling? I'm not getting Bellatrix as that kind of threat from the text. Snape's shutting Narcissa up gets a rather childish satisfaction out of Bellatrix ("Even Snape says you shouldn't tell!"), which doesn't help the impression. snape doesn't save Narcissa anyway--Bellatrix could still report her for undermining Voldemort's plans by going to Snape. (Of course, she herself might get in trouble for being the Binder, which is all the more reason to wonder if Bellatrix would really want to tell Voldemort about this meeting.) All in all protecting Narcissa from Bellatrix doesn't seem like a pressing problem in the scene when I read it. >Magpie: >So after he lets go his golden opportunity to find out what he wants >to know (sacrificed to his more important motivation of making sure that Narcissa has nothing to be reported to LV for...except coming to Snape at all and the request of Snape she's about to make), he now thinks that if he pretends to know he can get information out of Draco later. Why Draco later? If he pretends to know he can get information out of Bellatrix and Narcissa *now* with the same protection to Narcissa. Nikkalmati You have to read the scene in stages. The very first thing that happens is Narcissa starts her tale, Bella warns her, and Snape agrees. At this point Snape doesn't know he needs more information, or he has not figured out how to get it without endangering Narcissa. Yes, by the time we get to the UV, Bella is in too deep to betray them and that might be one minor reason for the vow - to implicate Bella in the plot and prevent her from going to LV. Lets turn this around. If Snape knows all about Draco's task, when Narcissa turns up on his doorstep all upset, he would deduce why she was there at onc e. In that case, what possible reason does he have for telling her to be quiet? He can turn immediately to Bella and admonish her that Narcissa is not betraying a confidence. Why stop her in the first place? Nikkalmati . >Magpie: >With no need whatsoever for the UV, and terrible, easily forseeable consequences because of it. Makes me wonder why Snape couldn't figure it out pretty quickly back at the house, since he's working with the same information. Nikkalmati The purpose was to get in with Draco; there were no terrible easily forseeable consequences to what he thought he was going to promise; (I agree with Carol that once the process was started, he could not refuse or stop, or if he did, he, or even he and Narcissa, could die at once.) I don't know how long it took him to figure it out, but I don't think he had when he agreed to take the UV and clasped Narcissa's hand. Nikkalmati (maybe I'm wrong, but I think it is a viable theory; if he knew, for me, DDM goes out the window) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 21 04:19:57 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:19:57 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163997 Pippin: >> > Really, your theory has Snape figuring out what he agreed to so > early > that it scarcely makes any difference, unless what you're saying is > that > he wouldn't have agreed at all if he'd known. > > But then we should not only see something which we could later > recognize as the moment when he realizes what he's agreed to do, > we should see Snape trying desperately to undo his mistake. That > doesn't happen. > > >lealess >I have a slightly different view of the whole scene. When Snape says "..he means for me to do it," "he" could be Dumbledore, not Voldemort. Dumbledore has already been injured by the ring and has been treated by Snape, for a curse that is no doubt deadly. Snape has probably succeeded in putting a stopper in death, but death may still be inevitable, only waiting for that cork to pop. Previous to the events at Spinner's End, Snape and Dumbledore may have already discussed Dumbledore's eventual demise and the uses that can be made of it to further the cause. So, Snape could have understood Voldemort's intention, but may have already been prepared to unstopper Dumbledore in the end. (I don't think he wanted to do this, however, which is why his hand twitched for the third clause of the Vow and he was so agitated in the forest with Dumbledore.) Nikkalmati Veeery interesting. If Snape thinks DD means him to do "it", that means that Snape does know exactly what Draco's task is and that part of the eventual plan is for Snape to kill DD (if everything goes south and it comes down to the last possible choice?). The problem I have with that idea is that IMHO, my personal view, that would not be a moral decision. Now, as a friend at work told me, it is her story and she can write it however she wants, and, yes, all kinds of terrible things are done in war, but JKR has indicated she is writing a story from a Christian viewpoint and having two main characters conspire to kill one of them, whether it is collateral damage in wartime or whether it is assisted suicide, it infringes on my moral code. I used to get out of the quandary by assuming (based in part of the phoenix rising from the fire) that DD is not dead or will be revived. I now think (after the New York book reading) that JKR did not intend for DD to return, much as I might wish it. This may just be my problem, but I could never recommend the books to children, if it turns out DD and SS conspired to end DD's life. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 04:25:46 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 04:25:46 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163998 > Carol: > Here's the conversation in brief. "How do you make a Horcrux?" "You > split your soul." "How do you split your soul?" "You commit murder, > which splits the soul, and encase the torn portion in an object." "How > do you encase the torn portion?" "There's an incantation." You kill, > creating a soul bit, and *then* you encase the soul bit, which can't > be encased until it exists. Annemehr: That still does not logically mean that the spell has to be done after the murder. I have no druthers either way regarding when the spell is done, but I think Mike is right that there is no canon to help us. The casting of the spell and the soul-bit entering the Hx are discrete things and there is no reason why they can't be separated in time, in the same way that Hermione's spell on the DA roster and the appearance of the pustules on Marietta's face were separated in time. (And IIRC Mike actually used this example somewhere.) Slughorn himself said he does not know the spell that creates a Horcrux. As far as we know, he was truthful on that point -- so, as far as we know, he does not know when the spell can be cast, either. There is no use trying to parse his words too precisely when he himself is very imprecise. Annemehr From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jan 21 04:37:04 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 04:37:04 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163999 Ken: > You could be right, she does have a thing for clocks and watches. We > are told that Harry's watch stopped too, but it was a pretty > ordinary one as I recall. I do not know beyond a doubt that there > will be no more time travel, I hope against hope that there will > not be any more. Jen: I do believe the watches are significant and will prove to do something magical. The obvious purpose should be something to do with time! But I found a hole in my logic, speculation passing as canon. I said Dumbledore used time-travel extensively, meaning to get the memories, but really there's no *proof* of that. It's odd how he conveniently reached Bob Ogden, Morfin and Hokey right before each one died, especially Ogden whom Dumbledore said died 'some time ago'. That would mean Dumbledore was tracking down memories long before he put together the bit about the Horcruxes and my impression was the diary tipped him off and started his search. Back to the point, if Dumbledore time-traveled, he was seen in each of these situations and in the case of Morfin, he attempted to change the circumstance. So he didn't follow the rules of time travel for some reason. Ken: > I don't have any galleons but I do have some Interworld Credits I > won off a Kzin in a poker game. I think I left them in my spaceship > which, come to think of it, we are going to need if we are to do > any more time traveling. The Earth moves you see, quite a bit in > fact, even during three hours. If we are going back 16 years we've > got quite a trip ahead of us. Of course not one in a hundred time > travel authors seems aware of this simple fact. It is a mistake > H.G. Wells made and most since him have followed in his footsteps. Jen: Better keep your Interworld Credits, they're no good here. ;) Actually, I'm not counting on a trip back to Godric's Hollow myself. I could see the Trio going back to talk to Dumbledore, who wouldn't be fazed by the Trio appearing from the future, or using Ron's watch for the same reason Dumbledore might have done, for information- gathering. That's not exactly exciting but could shorten the Horcrux searches. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 06:49:45 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 06:49:45 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164000 > Carol: > Also, of course, he knows > that Draco must be the one who sent the poisoned mead. The argument in > the forest occurs soon after that incident. DD *is* taking too much > for granted, and investigations into Snape's house have yielded as > much information as possible. zgirnius: Actually, the argument occurs before the mead incident. Hagrid recounts what he heard to Harry in the evening, on the day Ron is poisoned, but he states that he overheard the conversation "t'other night". Otherwise, this would be a me-too post! From scarah at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 07:02:58 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:02:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590701202302o2c2b4790r76e714935f10a642@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164001 Carol: Then we're even. However, we do have Slughorn's answer to the question, "How do you encase the soul bit?": "There is a spell." A spell to encase the soul bit, which therefore must already exist. Sarah: I have to disagree. First, Slughorn (who does not use the word "encase") claims not to know what the spell even is, and Tom, who is using the word "encase," claims to know even less. Carol: Anyway, if anyone can provide any evidence for a preparatory spell, I'd like to see it. Sarah: In terms of Horcruxes, no. (But I agree with Mike that the alternatives are neither proven.) In terms of other spells? Sure. Goblet of Fire: someone prepared long ago, now you just dump in paper and let it do its thing. Bludgers: someone charmed at I don't know, the Bludger factory, but they go after the athletes as they were programmed to. Snitch: see Bludgers. Enchanted mirrors: enchant it once, it mocks your appearance indefinitely. Marauder's Map: magic done years ago, it still performs its function. Cursed items at Borgin and Burkes: cursed a long time ago, yet still perform their functions. **Portkeys: (probably the strongest example) don't operate until it is either the right time of day, or until they are touched.** I'm sure there are more, but there is certainly canon for items having magic done to them before they are meant to be used. If a Portkey can be programmed to operate at a certain time or when touched, etc. then why couldn't an item be caused to do the same with a soul slice? Sarah From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 21 07:47:04 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 07:47:04 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164002 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol: > I'm speculating now, but it seems likely to me that he found out how > to create a Horcrux, not from the Hogwarts library or Slughorn, but > from the one living man who had created one--Voldemort. And that would > be sometime after the murder of the Riddles and the conversation with > Slughorn but before the murder of Hepzibah Smith. Geoff: Hang on, I think I'm losing the plot here. Am I misreading you or are you suggesting in a roundabout way that he taught himself to make Horcruxes? I think I'm about to launch a new society - IHHC, the I hate Horcruxes Club :-) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 21 07:55:55 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 07:55:55 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <3202590701202302o2c2b4790r76e714935f10a642@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > Sarah: > I have to disagree. First, Slughorn (who does not use the word > "encase") claims not to know what the spell even is, and Tom, who is > using the word "encase," claims to know even less. Geoff: Just to clarify things, Slughorn does use the word "encase".... "Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his own advantage" he would encase the torn portion -" "Encase? but how -?"' (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) From scarah at gmail.com Sun Jan 21 08:40:52 2007 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:40:52 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: <3202590701202302o2c2b4790r76e714935f10a642@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3202590701210040u5daa623bu985cc3b7edd81b25@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164004 > Geoff: > Just to clarify things, Slughorn does use the word "encase".... > > "Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to > remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." > "But how do you do it?" > "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. > The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his own advantage" he > would encase the torn portion -" > "Encase? but how -?"' > (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) Sarah: Yes, you're right. I usually look it up first and this time I failed to, so, conceded, he said "Encased." However. I don't believe that the use of the word "Encased" automatically equals "Magic done after the fact." You snipped the rest of my post. There is so much magic in the Potterverse that involves preparing an object first and having that object react later, that I can't even quote it all. Can you respond to any of that? Sarah From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Jan 21 12:45:29 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <3202590701210040u5daa623bu985cc3b7edd81b25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164005 Sarah: > However. I don't believe that the use of the word "Encased" > automatically equals "Magic done after the fact." > > You snipped the rest of my post. There is so much magic in the > Potterverse that involves preparing an object first and having that > object react later, that I can't even quote it all. Can you respond > to any of that? Ceridwen: I read that. :D I don't think that was what Carol had in mind, though. The items you mentioned - Bludgers, Portkeys, and some other things I'm forgetting - are all *finished* at an earlier moment than when they are used. The Bludger will be a Bludger, no more tinkering necessary, once it rolls off the assembly line at the Bludger factory (loved that visual, by the way), the Portkey will take its handlers where it was programmed to take them, at the appointed time. Some people are suggesting that an item intended as a Horcrux must first be "primed" magically before it is ready to receive the soul piece, which would involve another bit of magic to get the intangible soul piece out of the host and into the item, then, perhaps, magically sealed (?) to keep the soul piece inside of it. Some are saying that the first step, priming the item, doesn't necessarily need to be done only after the soul has been ripped. For a cold-blooded killer like Voldemort/Tom Riddle, he can plot a murder and prime an object before he goes off to actually kill the person. I think this is where the debate gets fuzzy. Some people think the item must be brought along to the murder scene in order to encase the freshly torn soul piece; others think that the item does not have to be primed, and can in fact be found after the soul has been split, then primed, then used as a receptacle for the soul piece, even years later. So this debate actually goes back to Godrick's Hollow, and the possibility that the item enchanted to become a Horcrux, perhaps a relic of Gryffindor or Ravenclaw which was not known to the WW at large (see DD's comments about Founders' Relics), might be found in the overgrown ruins, given that such ruins exist and were not cleared away to build a shopping mall. Ceridwen, who is now wondering if Bludgers roll off the assembly line, or fly off. From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Jan 21 16:28:29 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:28:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] the best played game of chess/A note on Slytherin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B394AD.40301@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164006 quigonginger wrote: > At the end of PS/SS, DD awards Ron points for "the best-played game > of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years". Bart: There are several explanations I can think of off the top of my head. I assume many more are possible. 1) There was a "back door" through several, if not all, of the traps (such as playing music for Fluffy). What Q/V did was find out several of these "back doors", while the kids actually had to make their way through the traps. The key to winning the chess match was to actually sacrifice yourself, not knowing whether or not you'd survive. Ron's willingness to do so won him the points. 2) Ron's game happened to have the self-sacrifice aspect, and he won the points for doing so. 3) Points, house cup, etc. are all, in the scheme of things, meaningless anyway. Frankly, in OOP, I really expected a Slytherin to show up in the DA, and, when he joins his fellow Slytherins in poking fun at Ron, say something like, "Hey, Quidditch is a game. This is real life. Learn the difference!" I still don't know of the lack of any Slytherins joining the DA was singificant, or just bad writing on JKR's part. Consider: In Muggles, studies have shown that about 10% of people are truly good; they do the right thing just because it's the right thing. About 85% of the population will generally do the right thing, but will do the wrong thing if they believe that nobody will ever find out about it (that the deed was actually done, not that they did it). Only 5% of the population is likely to do something wrong just on the basis that they won't get caught. Since Slytherins comprise 25% of the Hogwarts student body, one would assume that even if they got the full 5%, 20% would be like most of us. One counter-note. A friend of mine in college came from a rather wealthy family, and went to an exclusive school. Many stores in the neighborhood went out of business, because many of the students in the school shoplifted regularly, and the storeowners, because of the political influence of their parents, couldn't turn them in to the police. I will not go into the details he pointed out, but, in general, the students who did the shoplifting came from homes that had servants who were treated like, well, house elves. The attitude extended to janitorial staff, shopkeepers, etc. Those who were brought up to believe that the fact that they had a lot of money made them no better than anybody else (with a high correlation to belonging to religions that emphasized equality of all people, including within their own religion) were the ones who either did not participate or even actively tried to stop it. Now, given that nobody in the Slytherins are the type who would actively try to stop DE-type activities, one would assume that there would be AT LEAST one or two who were sufficiently afraid of the DE's and others to make common cause with the DA. Bart From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jan 21 17:06:44 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:06:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, a Deatheater./the best played chess game References: Message-ID: <004a01c73d7e$87f7b500$806c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164007 > Nikkalmati > > I cannot envision how she could let us see Snape's recognition moment > without letting out his true loyalty. Magpie: If JKR couldn't envision it, then she wouldn't write it, imo. Because it's cheating. It's telling us after the fact that there was emotional stuff going on with Snape that doesn't track with what we saw. For instance, you said to Pippin that JKR never lets us into Snape's head, but that's not true. Snape has been known to tell us what's in his head--at the end of PoA, for instance. At the end of that book he tells us how he's felt, and about the Prank, and that informs the scenes we've seen before. One of JKR's greatest strengths--perhaps the greatest--is her ability to show you what's going on with a person very clearly and have it misinterpreted. It doesn't all happen off-stage. In this scenario you're describing the biggest moment in Snape's arc in HBP goes nowhere. It doesn't fit anything strategic, since it doesn't help Snape find out what the task is (and the only place he actively tries to find out what the task is in some other way is off-screen), nor does it help him get in with Draco (with whom he should already be in), and it doesn't fit in emotionally, because JKR hasn't written anything pointing to that sudden recognition or the fallout from it. > Nikkalmati > > I don't claim any authority here at all . However, logic tells me > that > if LV thought it was that easy to kill DD, he would just have Snape do it > and > get it over with. Why play around? Magpie: Sorry, this is one of the things I don't buy with the "Draco told Voldemort about the Cabinets and Voldemort made that his plan, and then told him to kill DD on the side." Any theory that basically says, "If I were LV I'd think the canonical plan was illogical..." I go with what we're told in canon of LV's plan. Not only does no one in canon suggest that Snape killing DD can't ever be an option, several people in LV's camp state outright that it is. They don't say killing DD is *easy*--certainly it's not so easy a novice like Draco could do it. But there's nothing to indicate that LV wouldn't consider that his best man--the one who's been hoodwinking DD all these years--could give it a try. Nikkalmati: Canon does tell us Narcissa and Bella > saw it as a suicide mission for Draco. I don't think Narcissa really > cares if > Snape is killed in the attempt as long as Draco is safe. That's not what > she says, of course. It also might be a bit embarrassing for LV to have > Snape > kill DD and start the rumor that LV was afraid to do it. Note Narcissa > blurts out "even the Dark Lord . . " and is shushed by Bella. Magpie: Yes, she sees it as a suicide mission for Draco, and she would obviously sacrifice Snape in his place if somebody has to die trying. But everyone knowing that killing DD would be a huge challenge doesn't prove that LV couldn't ever have someone attempt it. Snape himself says he (Snape) has wanted Dumbledore alive for a reason that benefits himself. > Nikkalmati > > Ok, pretending he knows everything is a way of finding things out. He > does > find out some things from the discussion, like it is a suicide mission and > the Dark Lord himself . . . and that Narcissa thinks it is to punish > Lucius, and > Bella would be glad for any of her sons to do it etc. That is useful > stuff. But when he takes the Vow, he will have Narcissa telling Draco to > cooperate with him. He doesn't just want to know the task; he wants to > know the > details, which Narcissa does not know. Remember, Snape does not think he > is > vowing to do anything other than to help and protect Draco. If he swears > that, > he thinks, Draco will let him in on all his little secrets. Right? > Well, not > exactly how it turns out. Magpie: But Snape can get all of these things without taking the Vow. Snape's already an important figure in Draco's life--probably someone he would be more likely to go to for help than Narcissa at this stage of his life. Snape could also agree to Narcissa's terms without taking the Vow. He's the one with the power here. He's gotten all the information you described already. He doesn't have to put his life on the line for it after the fact. Even if he'd only sworn the first two parts he's taking quite a risk--but then there's that third Vow. That, as was said elsewhere, seems to take a lot of explaining and "he didn't know what he was vowing to do" falls comically flat to me because what a silly thing to do! Nor am I comfortable with the magical explanation which says, "Once you've got the ropes you have to agree to everything a person might say" because it robs the Vow of the free will of the person making it. The Vow, to me, seems to just add a magical component to an actual Vow. Snape's hand-twitch, to me, indicates that he doesn't want to take that third Vow, but that he's covering that up. I think if he didn't know what he was vowing to do, we'd get more than that (I don't recall more, but I don't have the book with me), a pause where Snape would have to weigh whether this was a wise idea or not. There also tends to be a lot of reference to the third part of the Vow being a big surprise, but it's not a total shock. It is what Narcissa was asking him for all along. >>Magpie: >>So after he lets go his golden opportunity to find out what he wants >>to know (sacrificed to his more important motivation of making sure > that Narcissa has nothing to be reported to LV for...except coming > to Snape at all and the request of Snape she's about to make), he > now thinks that if he pretends to know he can get information out of > Draco later. Why Draco later? If he pretends to know he can get > information out of Bellatrix and Narcissa *now* with the same > protection to Narcissa. > > > Nikkalmati > > You have to read the scene in stages. The very first thing that happens > is > Narcissa starts her tale, Bella warns her, and Snape agrees. At this > point > Snape doesn't know he needs more information, or he has not figured out > how to > get it without endangering Narcissa. Yes, by the time we get to the UV, > Bella is in too deep to betray them and that might be one minor reason > for the > vow - to implicate Bella in the plot and prevent her from going to LV. Magpie: None of these stages are indicated by anyone's behavior. In fact, the scene is really written along totally different lines. Bellatrix is already deep in by following Narcissa to Snape's house, she's already in a precarious position. Snape never shows any signs of these different motivations shifting around. It's again a similar problem that I have to many of the interpretations of Draco's arc in HBP--it comes down to lots of complicated changes of DE priorities that are invisible in the text that seem to work backwards from the theory that's being proven instead of deducing from what's there. This just seems completely at odds with the way Rowling writes as I've read her. It's not that Snape can't want to protect Narcissa as much as he can in the scene. But it imo needs to fit into the whole scene smoothly, not just be incredibly important--important enough to override what's supposed to be his top priority, and then disappear a second later when it's not needed to explain any more lines. Nikkalmati:> > Lets turn this around. If Snape knows all about Draco's task, when > Narcissa > turns up on his doorstep all upset, he would deduce why she was there at > onc> e. In that case, what possible reason does he have for telling her > to be > quiet? He can turn immediately to Bella and admonish her that Narcissa > is not > betraying a confidence. Why stop her in the first place? Magpie: That particular turnaround turned up a pretty weak flaw there. Snape's playing the part of the loyal DE throughout the scene, and shutting Narcissa up (out of loyalty) is an easy, perfectly in character thing for DE!Snape to do. It's exactly in character with the persona he has on that side. Snape is the authority figure in the scene. Admonishing Bellatrix is "siding" with Narcissa. He's not siding with her. He's establishing himself as the loyal DE here before he offers her some hope. Unlike Clueless!Snape, Clued-in!Snape doesn't lose anything by putting off the discussion for a few seconds. He gets two things out of the moment instead of one (he can remind everyone of his DE loyalty and the power of his position). It's only Clueless!Snape who throws something away by shutting Narcissa up. > Nikkalmati > > The purpose was to get in with Draco; there were no terrible easily > forseeable consequences to what he thought he was going to promise; (I > agree with > Carol that once the process was started, he could not refuse or stop, or > if he > did, he, or even he and Narcissa, could die at once.) I don't know how > long > it took him to figure it out, but I don't think he had when he agreed to > take > the UV and clasped Narcissa's hand. Magpie: So this is a new reason for Draco taking the Vow--he's not trying to find out what the task is, he's making the Vow because it's the way to get Draco to work with him. But since when does Snape need to go through Narcissa to get in with Draco? He's already in with him and has been for 5 years. The the UV doesn't do anything towards the purpose of getting in with Draco either. If we say that Snape couldn't have foreseen that Draco wouldn't appreciate the Vow because he wasn't prepared for Draco's change in attitude, it begs the question of why Snape would think he needed to work so hard to get Draco to work with him to begin with, since it's that same change in attitude that changed his relationship with Snape. I don't see how you can say there weren't easily foreseeable bad consequences to what Snape *did* promise (to do the task himself). As I said above, I don't accept the explanation that he just couldn't stop once he started, because that takes away from this being a Vow that someone makes and just turns it into coercion. However, even if that is the idea, we're left with the bigger problem that this predicament that Snape's gotten himself into should then be his story in HBP and it isn't. (Your reason for this being that it would reveal his loyalties.) Nikkalmati: Veeery interesting. If Snape thinks DD means him to do "it", that means that Snape does know exactly what Draco's task is and that part of the eventual plan is for Snape to kill DD (if everything goes south and it comes down to the last possible choice?). Magpie: I brought up the same possibility, that Snape's "he" is Dumbledore, and that this doesn't even necessarily refer to the specific Draco plot. Snape the double agent could have surmised over the years that either Dumbledore or Voldemort saw Snape's killing Dumbledore as part of his plans. Though of course the moral problems with this on Dumbledore's part are obvious. (Since this is Snape's impression, it could be a mistaken one, but it certainly stuck out to me as a possibly ambiguous line.) > Nikkalmati (maybe I'm wrong, but I think it is a viable theory; if he > knew, > for me, DDM goes out the window) Magpie: Where as for me, that's the whole challenge of the story, and the reason to read book VII. The explanation that it was all a mistake takes away from HBP and isn't too exciting an answer. I'd rather go double or nothing with Rowling and assume she's going for the bigger challenge. Bart: Frankly, in OOP, I really expected a Slytherin to show up in the DA, and, when he joins his fellow Slytherins in poking fun at Ron, say something like, "Hey, Quidditch is a game. This is real life. Learn the difference!" I still don't know of the lack of any lytherins joining the DA was singificant, or just bad writing on JKR's part. Magpie: Bad writing? It seemed like she knew exactly what she was doing to me. Hermione was supposedly trying to listen to the hat's warnings about joining with other houses and instead she recreated the same schism the hat was singing about. She heard "join the houses" and automatically excluded Slytherin--just as Slytherin would have stayed away if we assume they knew about that first meeting. So you wound up with two groups, one Slytherin, one everyone else. (Harry, too, listens to the hat's talk of joining with Slytherin, looks at Malfoy and vows he would never work with him.) I think Slytherin's pretty obviously the shadow house here, and it seems like JKR's plot is very much centered on how she's going to play Slytherin. I think the DA/IS was part of that. -m (who's never made any secret of hiding her dislike of the "Good Slytherins join up with Harry" storyline) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 21 18:00:24 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 21 Jan 2007 18:00:24 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/21/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1169402424.17.14558.m37a@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164008 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 21, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 19:14:10 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:14:10 -0000 Subject: the best played game of chess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164009 --- "quigonginger" wrote: > > A thought struck me the other day. > > At the end of PS/SS, DD awards Ron points for "the > best-played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many > years". > > At first my mind started on a silly tangent with all > sorts of questions: How did DD know that it was "the > best"? He wasn't there to watch it. > bboyminn: How do you know that Dumbledore was speaking with absolute literal precision? Maybe, he was just making a general statement that since Ron won, he must have done pretty well. Reasonably, it doesn't have to be literally the best game of chess that was every played in the history of Hogwarts. It just has to be a good noteworthy game of chess. Next, let's look at what was at stake in that game of chess. In my fan fiction which takes place in the far future, Ron's greatest claim to fame amoung the general public is that game of chess. That was an absolutely unprecidented and historic game of chess. What was at stake? The entire fate of the wizard world and the lives of his friends. If Ron loses, Harry doesn't go on, eventually Voldemort wins, and the result is misery, chaos, oppression, and tyranny for everyone plus death for a great many. Further, in even playing the game, Ron is risking his life, or has a reasonable preception that his life is at risk. Even further in sacrificing himself, there is a reasonable probability that he will forfeit his life, or at least suffer significant bodily injury. When was the last time you saw a game of chess where the stakes were that high? When was the last time you saw someone bet their life and the lives of hundreds on the outcome of a game the way Ron did? Oh yes indeed, this was truly the best played game of chess in lo these many many years. > Ginger continues: > > Quirrelmort would have had to play as well. ... > > I discounted the silliest question of all: Didn't DD > have to play through as well? ... No, I think DD had > some sort of "back-door key". ... > bboyminn: So, why would Dumbledore have a 'back door', a point on which I very much agree, and not let the other teachers protecting the Stone use it? Do, you think Dumbledore made Quirrel fight his way through all the previous challenges, just so he could place his Troll after the chess challenge? I don't think so. Do you think Dumbledore made Snape fight his way through all the challenges so he could set up the challenge of Logic and Potions? I don't think so. That would be too time consuming and too unreliable, so I conclude that Dumbledore shared his 'backdoor' with all the teachers who were helping him guard the Stone. I seems like the only reasonable and practical thing to do. More likely each teacher who set up a challenge also set up a 'by pass'. Individual teachers shared their personal 'backdoor' with Dumbledore, and he in turn shared them with the next person to set up the next sbusequent challenge. >Ginger concludes: > > Who masterminded the game? Was it Quirrel or LV?... bboyminn: I'm completely baffled by this question? Perhaps I don't understand what you really intend to ask, but McGonagall was the one who created the enchanted Chess Set, and I have always assumed it was against McGonagall's chess skills that you played. Have I misinterpreted the question? Steve/BlueWizard From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 19:35:53 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:35:53 -0000 Subject: Harry as Horcrux/De-Horcruxing the Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164010 Annemehr wrote: > I was only wondering (A)if the hole in the Diary, the crack in the > ring, and the unopenability of the locket might tell us something > about how to de-Hx a Hx. I think these are suggestive, but I know > they are by no means definitive. Carol responds: This much I agree with. You De-Horcruxify a Horcrux by opening, cracking, or poking a hole in the Horcrux, releasing soul bit (and in some cases, releasing a protective curse which is not in tiself part of the Horcrux. Since Dumbledore regards these released soul bits as "destroyed," it seems most likely to me that they go where the soul would have gone had Voldemort actually been killed by the AK, i.e., beyond the Veil. But based on Dumbledore's remarks and the durability of the materials used in most Horcruxes (the diary is exceptional in many ways), doing so (normally) requires great skill and power. We know that Harry couldn't just open us the locket at 12 GP. Something more will be required, and it may well be as dangerous as cracking open the ring. One thing's for sure; Harry's not going to stab the locket or the cup with a Basilisk fang. nor his own forehead, if I'm wrong and the scar really is a Horcrux. (I agree with you that the powers he acquired from Voldie reside in the scar and that his whole body is not a Horcrux, but I don't think the scar is a Horcrux, either, for all the reasons I've already given.) Annemehr: (1)That Harry has a bit of LV's soul within him somewhere is the only explanation we can infer from existing canon for how Harry has LV's inherent powers and a link to his thoughts and emotions. Of course, JKR *may* have a little surprise in store for us in DH, regarding some other reason for the link, but it would feel like authorial cheating to me. I'll just content myself for now with what seems to be the best explanation -- it's a soul-bit. Carol: Actually, we do have another explanation. Magic resides in the blood: The Dursleys are described as not having a drop of magical blood in their veins. Lily's blood (in the sense of a blood relationship) protects Harry even when the relative isn't magical. Everyone from the pureblood Malfoys to the "half-breed" (not just Half-Blood) Hagrid talks about the importance of blood. The blood of a wizard enemy is required to restore Voldemort's body; the gleam in Dumbledore's eye indicates that there's some significance besides what LV himself recognizes to his choosing Harry's. Unicorn blood (also magical) is used in the first restorative potion, the one that created Fetal!mort. And it seems to me that a released soul bit would go beyond the Veil rather than into Harry's open cut. (Why in the world would it go there? To possess him? No. The main soul might have done that if it could, but clearly, neither it nor the soul bit possessed him. We've already been told that he's not possessed. IMO, the soul bit, being eternal and released from its body, not anchored to the earth like the main soul by the Horcruxes, would go wherever the soul goes after death. Or it would remain with the main soul, damaged but not detached because no encasing spell had been performed.) But blood. How easy, how feasible, for a bit of Voldie's magical blood to enter the scar and pass on some of Voldie's powers to Harry. We do have an alternate explanation, and it is both canonical and foreshadowed in canon, as a bit of Voldie's soul in Harry is not. A blood link would also explain the mind link and the ability to feel Voldie's emotions. (I think the powers Harry acquired from LV are mostly mental--Parseltongue, the mind link, and possibly possession). At any rate, it's at least as likely that he could acquire these powers from Voldie's magical blood as from a soul bit, which, IMO, would not seek out a person or other container in which to encase itself but would either stay with the main soul till detached by the encasement spell or go beyond the Veil, as the de-Horcruxed soul bits appear to do. (the other Horcruxes don't protect *them*, evidently.) Annemehr: > (3)The idea of Harry being an accidental Hx is possible, but messy. > It seems unlikely to me. Much too unlikely to build the whole story > around. Carol: Yes, indeed. Nor do I think that Dumbledore would turn Harry into a Voldemort Horcrux. Why in the world wold he want to endanger Harry in that way, or prolong Voldemort's life? That sounds to me like an act of supreme evil. (Besides, I think you can only make a Horcrux with a fragment of your own soul, having first committed murder. DD regards Horcruxes as evil. He'd be a supreme hypocrite and liar if he made Harry into a Horcrux himself and didn't tell him. That's not a DD who remotely qualifies as "the epitome of goodness.") > > Mike: > > Harry didn't de-Horcrux the diary. The soul piece was already out of the diary and was regenerating a physical body by feeding off of Ginny or Ginny's soul, if you will. When Harry stabbed the diary he broke that connection from Ginny through the diary to the almost complete Tom. The connection broke, no more Tom cuz 9/10ths isn't good enough, and the soul bit is no longer anchored, its *freeeee*. Carol: Mike, I actually like this idea. (Surprise.) But also, there's no evidence of protections put on the diary beyond making it impervious to water. Ink is absorbed into the pages (and perhaps becomes part of the diary?), and, of course, the memories were magically placed inside it and would not be washed out, any more than washing the Sorting Hat would wash out the "brains" of the Founders. But I still wonder whether fire might have destroyed it and saved both Harry and Ginny a lot of grief. I don't think there was a protective curse on it since it had to be opened in order for a witch or wizard to interact with it, and, once ensnared, they were unlikely to harm their new "friend." Carol, still a member of the Harry-is-not-a-Horcrux faction From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 20:12:52 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:12:52 -0000 Subject: Bludger Training - A message from the Manufacturer Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164012 Ceridwen, who is now wondering if Bludgers roll off the assembly line, or fly off. End of Inquiry. *************************************************************** Bludger Manufacturing Operational Company (BMOC) The BMOC would like to thank Ceridwen for her inquiry and take this oppurtunity to clear up a few misconceptions. Bludgers are about as useful as a newborn Bugbear when they *fly* off of the assembly line. All flight and no fight. They can't seem to understand their mission in life. This is where the Bludger Utility Trainers - Timing, Headhunting, Evasive Adjustment Determinant Specialists come in. Of course, our acronym is so distasteful that we have a hard time recruiting for this position. And I'll bet that very few of you saw one of our pamphlets during career week at Hogwarts. You know, a good Bludger doesn't just fly around randomly trying to hit anything in sight, uhh... well, that is, if they had eyes. Only 3 out of every 5 Bludgers make it through their training, and only 1 in 20 are considered "international standard". We have to train the Bludgers how and when to attack properly, where to attempt interdiction on both the Chasers and the Seekers and how to avoid the Beaters whenever possible. It's no easy task trying to train a big stupid ball, stinger spells have so little affect on them. And we have a hard time retaining good trainers, they hate showing up at parties with black eyes, broken noses and bruises all over their body. Some have even been accused of being on the Troll Wrestling Tour (the TWT, not to be confused with the Tri-Wizard Tournament) We tried to retrain the incompetent ones to be Muggle bowling balls, but most of those are just so untrainable that they don't continue down the alley to their own pins, constantly jumping lanes and going for every pin in the other alleys. Muggles can't figure out how to keep score with a Bludger Bowling Ball. We would like to extend a welcoming hand to any youngsters that are too dull, ... ahhh ... lesser qualified than hoped, to consider a job with our firm. We have an excellent pension plan and you're going to need it. "You too can be a BMOC. Come join our firm and our team of expert B.U.T.T.H.E.A.D.S." ***************************************************************** Mike, who considers himself an expert BUTTHEAD. :-) From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 20:20:02 2007 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:20:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marauder's Map and Sirius's "usefulness" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <123495.36784.qm@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164013 > Louise Wrote: > > I've wondered why, when Sirius was hangin aroun 12 Grimmauld > feeling so helpless in OOTP, Dumbledore didn't assign him to try to > create more Marauder's-style maps of Hogwarts or other key > locations.... Or, for that matter, why not have > him assist some other Order members in becoming Animagi? It seems > like both would have been useful weapons in the fight against > Voldemort. I think JKR was setting up a situation where it was impossible for Sirius to do anything useful at all. There really was a lot of "hurry up and wait" going on in OOTP, not just for Sirius but for everyone else too. Unfortunately, everyone else had a day job or undercover responsibilities that only they could do (ie, Lupin and the werewolves, who I assume he was involved with in some way before officially joining them in HBP). The other person who was trying to make themselves useful was Molly and it's interesting that her personality was getting more than a little brittle under the strain. But Sirius' feelings of being uninvolved and useless are key to the overall feeling of the book, with its sense of a coiled spring being wound tighter and tighter until it finally explodes at the climax. And we're meant to see that this frustration also reflects Harry's own personal situation as well. If Sirius had been doing something useful, there would have been no mirroring Harry's situation - and no way to tell that Harry has advantages that Sirius doesn't have. His friends are alive and care enough about him that they go after him in his room when he shuts them out - did anyone care enough to haul Sirius out of Buckbeak's room when he spent hours there? Even Harry simply stays out of his way, whether it's cleaning house with Molly or playing chess with Ron. Sirius was totally alone; Harry felt totally alone but wasn't. Magda ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 20:29:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:29:13 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164014 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol: > > > There's no evidence for preparation. > > > > Mike: There's no evidence at all. We have not been > > told in canon how the spell works. Nobody knows. > > It's all conjecture. > > Carol: > Then we're even. However, we do have Slughorn's answer > to the question, "How do you encase the soul bit?": > "There is a spell." A spell to encase the soul bit, > which therefore must already exist. > > > ... Simple logic: the murder has to precede the > encasement. > > Mike: > > Is there canon for my position? No. Is there canon > > against my position? No. Is there canon for or against > > the spell-after-murder position? No. > > Carol: > No canon except Slughorn's words. But there's also > simple logic. ... > > bboyminn: Anyone who has been around a while and has been reading opinions here will find it no surprise that Carol and I are kindred spirits, or kindred-ish spirits. We frequently hold similar opinions based on similar analysis. First, before I address the issue, let me ramble a bit. There are two ways to approach any problem or mystery. The first is to rationalize and the second is to be rational. To be rational means you gather evidence and accept whatever conclusion the evidence tells you. Rationalize means you start with a conclusion and seek out evidence you can interpret to support it. How does that apply to us? Well to some extent, here in this group, we are all rationalizing, but we have no choice. We are dealing with a well crafted mystery in which the most critical and revealing information is withheld from us. Consequently, we are all force to strike a balance between 'rational' and rationalize'. Mike wants Harry to be a Horcrux, so he seeks out and interprets available information to support that idea. Others, don't want Harry to be a Horcrux, and so seek out and interpret available information in a way that supports that idea. The difference is that some of us are stretching a little more in order to reach our conclusions. I believe, and surely no one is surprised, that Carol has stretched the least to reach her conclusions. My first reason to support Carol is Dumbledore; directly and tangentally, Dumbledore is the source of all information on this matter, and he doesn't seem to agree. Noted though, that Dumbledore is famous for withholding information, and I'm willing to change my preception when new information is revealed. But give what we have, Dumbledore's apparent lack of belief in 'Harry the Horcrux' settles it for me. There are however a few other logical flaws. Voldemort has killed many people, far more people than he has Horcruxes for. If the Horcrux object is pre-prepared and ready to receive the Soul-Bit, then why doesn't one of the many existing Soul-Bits just jump right into it? Further, as Carol points out in both explanations and quotations, Tom Riddle has many murders under his belt and has the Gaunt Ring. locket, and diary before he has fully determined how to create Horcruxes. Tom has objects that we know will eventually become Horcruxes before, during, and after the time when he commited murder, and they don't seem to be Horcruxes /yet/. This also touches on the issue of 'healing of the soul-bits'. Just using my general knowledge of religion I think I fairly conclude that eventually torn soul-bits heal. Yet, it takes a great deal of time and repentance for this to happen. A deeply regreted death that occurred many many years ago would probably be healed to a limted extent. A cold blooded murder that has no regret or repentance is probably still fully torn after those same many many years. Based on that reasoning, I don't see any need to rush the creation of any Horcrux. Anyone cold enough to willfully create Horcruxes is not the type of person who is going to have their soul heal quickly. There was plenty of time for Voldemort to use the murder of is Father and Grandparents to make Horcruxes at a later time. As far as being able to very selectively chose which torn piece of soul was encased, I suspect the most freshly torn bit of soul is most available. That is, the tear is still fresh and volitile, and therefore most readily available. But beyond that I don't really think Voldemort or anyone can chose. I think they may be able to focus heavily on a particular murder as the coax the soul-bit out, but I think for the most part, any particular soul-bit is more symbolic of a specific murder than literally associated with it. A soul-bit is a soul-bit, for the most part. > Carol continues: > > ... > Carol: > > ... > > We're never going to agree on this, Mike, but I think > my reading of the canon is more straightforward than > yours. ... > bboyminn: We are all following a twisted path to reach our conclusion mostly because we have no choice. We simply don't have enough evidence for a straight forward interpretation. Yet, as will suprise no one, I think Carol's interpretation follows the straightest possible path of logic and reaches the most obvious conclusion. Sorry, Mike. > Carol concludes: > > I'm speculating now, but it seems likely to me that he > found out how to create a Horcrux, not from the Hogwarts > library or Slughorn, but from the one living man who had > created one--***Voldemort***. bboyminn: Did you by any chance actually mean 'Grindelwald' instead of Voldemort? If so, then once again, my dear kindred spirit, I agree. It seems very likely that in the course of the next book we will discover some connection between Riddle and Grindelwald, though how we will get there and how that will move the story forward I'm not sure. OK, admittely that was (another) long rant to really say nothing more that 'I agree with Carol' which I do. But I think I agree because Carol is using the most straight forward interpretation of the avaible information. I think those who support the 'Harry the Horcrux' idea are selecting and twisting the information to suit their requirements, or at least do so more than others. Now, I haven't absolutely ruled out 'Harry the Horcrux'. I'm just saying that with the available information, 'Harry the Horcrux' is an extreme and mostly unfounded conclusion. If and when more information becomes available, or if it turns out to be revealed as the climactic 'twist' then I will be more than satified and equally willing to eat my electrons, but until then, I stand firmly behing 'Harry the NOT Horcrux'. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 20:45:59 2007 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:45:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070121204559.77027.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure > there must be :-) For me: 1. The entire set-up of the Triwizard Tournament in GOF. Why can't the champions and their headmasters simply apparate or portkey to Hogwarts a few times a year rather than stay on the property for months and months? Why have a team of judges made up of the very headmasters whose students are competing (plus one nutty former bureaucrat)? How exactly is international co-operation being promoted or enhanced here? The TWT really ruined GOF for me; it was the first time in the series that I really couldn't swallow something whole. 2. The way that JKR is increasingly not explaining important bits of magic - like how horcruxes are created or how you get out of a pensieve when there's no one around to pull you out (something that Harry really needs to know, IMO). At first I assumed we'd get the details in later books but since there's only one to go, I'm starting to feel that we won't get any explanations at all. Which wouldn't be too bad except that "just in time!" magic spells show up regularly that Harry just happens to need to know... 3. The way that some things are presented to us as being rare (ie, Harry being a broom prodigy in PS/SS) or unusual (occlumency being "an obscure branch of magic" in OOTP) and then turning out to be kind of common. Such as Ginny being a budding Quidditch star because she borrowed her brothers' brooms and flew around the garden at home - and who threw bludgers at her? The garden gnomes? Or Bellatrix - of all people! - being able to impart occlumency skills to Draco. It kind of deflates the uniqueness of things. Magda ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Sun Jan 21 17:53:07 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 17:53:07 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater who assists suicide?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164016 > Nikkalmati > > Veeery interesting. If Snape thinks DD means him to do "it", that means > that Snape does know exactly what Draco's task is and that part of the eventual > plan is for Snape to kill DD (if everything goes south and it comes down to > the last possible choice?). > > The problem I have with that idea is that IMHO, my personal view, that > would not be a moral decision. Now, as a friend at work told me, it is her story > and she can write it however she wants, and, yes, all kinds of terrible > things are done in war, but JKR has indicated she is writing a story from a > Christian viewpoint and having two main characters conspire to kill one of them, > whether it is collateral damage in wartime or whether it is assisted suicide, > it infringes on my moral code. I used to get out of the quandary by > assuming (based in part of the phoenix rising from the fire) that DD is not dead or > will be revived. I now think (after the New York book reading) that JKR did > not intend for DD to return, much as I might wish it. This may just be my > problem, but I could never recommend the books to children, if it turns out DD > and SS conspired to end DD's life. > > Lilygale, responding to the assisted suicide idea and who apologizes if this is a double post - Yahoomort ate a post earlier So what is stoppered death, and how might it be similar or different to suicide? To my mind (and I'm certainly no expert), suicide implies an intent to take one's death into one's own hand and voluntarily die despite having an opportunity to live. Stoppered death implies that death is inevitable but posponed. Of course, death is inevitable for us all. Is unstoppering death an act against nature? Let's look at an analogy. What if your doctor tells you that you have metastatic cancer and have 3 months to live. But with radiation and chemotherapy, you could live for 12 months. As far as I know, there is nothing immoral in Judaism, Christianity or other moral systems if one chooses to avoid treatment and live out ones life span of 3 months. One is simply letting nature takes its course. By lifting the stopper on death, is one actively committing suicide, or just letting nature take its course? I am of the opinion that, in the Potterverse, when Snape unstoppers Dumbledore's death on the tower upon Dumbledore's request, the men are letting the damage done by the Horcrux take its natural and final course. It is not suicide because, but Dumbledore is not actively choosing death. The death has already happened. He is using his death (he is *already dead*) to help Harry and Draco, and to defeat LV. Another question about suicide: was drinking the potion in the cave an act of suicide? Or an act of bravery committed during wartime. Again, I don't think Dumbledore acted suicidally any more than a soldier, fighting in a war, can be said to be suicidal. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 21 21:07:21 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:07:21 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <3202590701210040u5daa623bu985cc3b7edd81b25@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164017 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > > > Geoff: > > Just to clarify things, Slughorn does use the word "encase".... > > > > "Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to > > remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." > > "But how do you do it?" > > "By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. > > The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his own advantage" he > > would encase the torn portion -" > > "Encase? but how -?"' > > (HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition) > > Sarah: > Yes, you're right. I usually look it up first and this time I failed > to, so, conceded, he said "Encased." > > However. I don't believe that the use of the word "Encased" > automatically equals "Magic done after the fact." > > You snipped the rest of my post. There is so much magic in the > Potterverse that involves preparing an object first and having that > object react later, that I can't even quote it all. Can you respond > to any of that? Geoff: The reason I snipped the post is that I merely wanted to point out that Slughorn obviously did know things about Horcruxes and what their function was. Moving on, to be quite frank I find myself unable to really draw conclusions about the dratted things except that I hold to my view that Harry is a Non-crux - a view which I shall maintain until since time as it might possibly be disproved. i.e. the launch of Book 7. Ever since I read HBP and the long drawn-out threads began to analyse, dissect and theorise over these objects, I have increasingly found them annoying. We have talked recently about the wizard soul and, in message 163780, I posed the rhetorical questions "However, if a person is made into a Horcrux, where does the soul piece reside? Indeed, what form does a soul fragment take? Where does our own soul reside for that matter? Can we see it, touch it?" As a Christian, I ponder over where my soul is. I suppose that many of us think of it as being inside our heads, like thoughts and feelings etc. But the fact is that I, along with other believers like myself, consider that, although it is an intangible, it covers more than our thoughts and feelings. It is the essential 'me' which I believe will go into the afterlife. The fact that JKR is manipulating something which is intangible rather like a specific object is what both puzzles and annoys me. Someone has likened a Horcrux to a cake tin with the soul inside able to be sliced like a swiss roll or equivalent. But I postulated recently that maybe when a person loses a soul fragment that it is like removing air from a balloon. and that the remaining soul fragments expand to fill the remaining space. But how do you capture an intangible piece of soul and contain it? Is it like a container of say, a rare gas, where it is kept in an airtight container - i.e. the wizard's body somewhere and then transferred to another airtight container, namely the Horcrux. >From which, one asks, how can an intangible soul fragment be held in stasis in a ring or a diary or a locket. We cannot pinpoint where our soul resides in us and cannot visualise a situation where it is elsewhere. Jesus talked about a person losing their soul but did not go further into specifics; perhaps the warning was enough. The other thoughts about Horcruxes which come to me are why JKR introduced them so late in the plot. By Book 6, we were begining to try to crystallise our thinking about the possible end games to the battle and suddenly we have these mysterious new objects littering the countryside and Harry apparently having to occupy himself in frantically trying to find them and deal with in a way that satisfies the story and ties up umpteen loose ends in the space of a reasonably-sized Book 7. Another member emailed me today off-group to agree with my comment about threatening to form an I-Hate-Horcruxes-Club because she had disliked them form the word 'go'. I suspect that opinion will be divided on their function and usefulness but I hope that Book 7 will provide a few more tangible answers to an irritatingly intangible creation.... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 21:09:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:09:31 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164018 Nikkalmati Nikkalmati wrote: > The purpose was to get in with Draco; there were no terrible easily forseeable consequences to what he thought he was going to promise; (I agree with Carol that once the process was started, he could not refuse or stop, or if he did, he, or even he and Narcissa, could die at once.) I don't know how long it took him to figure it out, but I don't think he had when he agreed to take the UV and clasped Narcissa's hand. > > Nikkalmati (maybe I'm wrong, but I think it is a viable theory; if he knew, for me, DDM goes out the window) Carol responds: First, a clarification. I'm only speculating that once the process started, he couldn't get out of it. There may be other reasons, as well, why he chose to accept the unanticapated third provision. He may have been under orders from DD to keep his cover and/or protect Draco at all costs, and if he knew Draco's mission (the killing part, not the Vanishing Cabinet part) he must have thought, given Dumbledore's power, that the risk to himself was greater than that to Dumbledore. He may have believed, too, that together they could keep the vow from being activated simply by preventing Draco from getting anywhere near Dumbledore. When Narcissa asks Snape to take the UV to help and protect Draco, he certainly interprets "help" differently from Narcissa. "Help" actually means thwarting him, as we see by his later putting Crabbe and Goyle in detention. Fortunately, the UV as actually worded doesn't ask him to help Draco at all, only to watch over him and protect him. He can have only one motive for taking that vow, and that's to protect Draco from the only person who is actually endangering him at that time, Voldemort--at the risk of his own life. And he does that willingly, perhaps because he's used to risking his life and intends to protect Draco, anyway. (Having Bella as the binder implicates her in the process--Narcissa and Snape can take the vow undermining one of LV's objectives while still supporting the other one--or so he wants Bella to think.) IMO, agreeing to take the vow in the first place reflects the extent of his commitment to Dumbledore and his opposition to the Dark Lord. No one but Snape is endangered by those first two provisions. The third one, I realize, is tricky, but I think that the hand twitch indicates that he knows what he's getting into, knows the risk he's taking. But the motive to protect Draco and keep him from killing or being killed is still there, as is the wish to keep Bellatrix and Narcissa from discovering his true loyalties. And, as you said, he may be unable to get out of it once he's bound by the first two ropes of fire. The imagery is sinister and hellish. I was terrified for Snape after reading that chapter. "Spinner's End"? I thought it meant that Snape himself would die. At any rate, it's still perfectly possible, in my view, for Snape to agree to protect and "help" (watch over or even thwart) Draco. He's not, after all, agreeing to help him fix the Vanishing Cabinet, which he doesn't even know about, and he certainly intends to find out exactly what Draco's plans are if he can. (Teenage boys being what they are, that would not be an easy mission.) But once he'd either been forced into accepting the third provision or chosen to accept it as a calculated risk (more to himself than the powerful DD, he would think), the only thing left to do was to report the entire incident to Dumbledore and work out some sort of contingency plan, beginning with watching over and interrogating Draco, the second of which he finally managed at Christmas. As I said in another post, I think he and DD knew virtually everything, maybe even that Rosmerta was Draco's accomplice in Hogsmeade (as indicated by Katie's receiving the cursed necklace in her ladies' restroom and by the poisoned mead also being hers). The only thing they didn't know was that Draco would actually succeed in getting DEs into Hogwarts via the Vanishing Cabinet. And, of course, they couldn't have anticipated a helpless, wandless, and dying Dumbledore on the tower. His condition made his death inevitable, either from the poison or from the DEs. Only Snape, by keeping the UV, could get his body off the tower, preventing Greyback from having him for afters, snatch up Draco before they harmed him, and get the DEs to follow him before Harry (whom Snape would have known from the brooms was hiding under the Invisibility Cloak) came rushing out to fight the DEs. Anyway, I disagree that DDM!Snape is only possible if Snape didn't know what he was agreeing to do. Trapped!Snape, caught in the fiery ropes of the unanticipated third provision, is another possibility, especially if the DADA curse fell into place at just that moment (Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position on what appears to be the same night would make Snape the DADA teacher, whether he knew it or not). But even if he could somehow have escaped from Bella (standing over him with a wand as he knelt at her feet), Narcissa (desperate enough by her own admission to do anything to protect her son), and the vow itself (his wand hand was bound in ropes of fire), and refusal to take the third provision could have been interpreted as breaking the vow), he still could have chosen to agree to that last provision as a calculated risk, accepting the huge danger to himself and hoping to prevent the danger to either Draco or Dumbledore. Carol, who would rather see Snape unemployed in Greenland than as the DADA teacher bound by an Unbreakable Vow From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 21:08:35 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:08:35 -0000 Subject: Harry as Horcrux/De-Horcruxing the Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164019 --- "Annemehr" wrote: > > Annemehr: > > ...huge snip... > > I suppose I may as well outline the reasons I do think > Harry('s scar) is a Horcrux, and why I agree that DD > did it: > > (1)That Harry has a bit of LV's soul within him > somewhere is the only explanation we can infer from > existing canon for how Harry has LV's inherent powers > and a link to his thoughts and emotions. Of course, > JKR *may* have a little surprise in store for us in DH, > regarding some other reason for the link, but it would > feel like authorial cheating to me. I'll just content > myself for now with what seems to be the best > explanation -- it's a soul-bit. > bboyminn: Let me give you the reason why I don't buy this particular explanation. When Dumbledore is explaining Horcruxes to Harry, he gives Harry a warning, which I will greatly paraphrase. When he explains to Harry that Voldemort has transformed and diminished himself by removing bits of his soul, he warns Harry that this has not diminished Voldemort's power in any way. While Voldemort may have greatly diminished his humanitry and conscience, removing those soul bits has not diminished Voldemort's magical power. This implies to me that power does not follow soul; that they are separate entities. Based on that interpretation, I concluded that Harry receiving Voldemort's powers does not equal Harry receiving Voldemort's soul. Nor does Harry having Voldemort's powers equal Harry having Voldemort soul (or at least a piece of it) If the power follows the soul then certainly Voldemort's powers would be diminished with each loss of soul, but Dumbledore makes it clear that's not what is happening and that is enough evidence for me. Once again, I will add that Dumbledore is the fount of all knowledge and wisdom regarding Harry, his scar connection, the transferred powers, and of Horcruxes in general. If Dumbledore hasn't reach the conclusion, or at least considered the possibility, that Harry is a Horcrux, then I don't see how we can. Again, that is based on available information, we may learn more, and that 'more' may contradict this conclusion, but until that informatoin is available, I'm sticking with Harry the NOT Horcrux. Certainly, it is reasonable to conclude that there is some big mystery around Harry having some of Voldemort's power and having the scar connection. Further, Harry the Horcrux is a great speculative explanation for what we see, but I think on deeper analysis, and given the currently available information, it is a speculation that is not established as sound. Yet, there is definitely a mystery there. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 21:28:42 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:28:42 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164020 Jen wrote: > I found a hole in my logic, speculation passing as canon. I said Dumbledore used time-travel extensively, meaning to get the memories, but really there's no *proof* of that. It's odd how he conveniently reached Bob Ogden, Morfin and Hokey right before each one died, especially Ogden whom Dumbledore said died 'some time ago'. That would mean Dumbledore was tracking down memories long before he put together the bit about the Horcruxes and my impression was the diary tipped him off and started his search. > > Back to the point, if Dumbledore time-traveled, he was seen in each of these situations and in the case of Morfin, he attempted to change the circumstance. So he didn't follow the rules of time travel for some reason. Carol responds: I don't see the oddity. Even if he didn't yet suspect Horcruxes, he certainly suspected that Tom Riddle had killed his own parents and framed his uncle, just as he knew that the Muggle, Frank Bryce, suspected by the Muggle police (but fortunately not arrested) was innocent. ("I read the Muggle papers, you see.") He couldn't interview Frank, and really, there was no point in doing so, but he could easily talk with Ogden, whom he'd have needed to see before interviewing Morfin, and talk him into giving him the memory of his encounter with Morfin, along with the true memory of what happened with Tom Riddle if he could get it. But Morfin died before his name could be cleared, and perhaps Bob Ogden died soon afterwards as well. (Could he have been another of Tom's murders?) As for Hokey, DD would again have suspected that Tom Riddle was responsible. He knew that Tom had disappeared immediately afterwards, and he probably knew that two heirlooms, one from Slytherin and one from Hufflepuff, had been stolen from her. He would have visited Caractacus Burke (we see only part of that conversation, where Burke rises out of the Pensieve, Trelawneylike, to talk about the locket) and learned that Tom had visited Hepzibah just days before her murder. And that would have led him to Hokey, whose memory he would take as he took Morfin's, presumably with permission from Bob Ogden if he was still alive. No coincidence at all, really. And if he didn't suspect Horcruxes after Hepzibah's death and the theft of the locket and cup, he certainly suspected them when he saw Voldemort's altered appearance when he came to apply for the DADA position. Carol, agreeing that the two watches are intriguing but not that Time Travel was required to obtain the memories from Hokey, Morfin, Ogden, or Burke From hpcentaur at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 15:38:28 2007 From: hpcentaur at yahoo.com (hpcentaur) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:38:28 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter (was) a Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164021 Harry Potter was a horcrux. Do you remember the 4th book/movie. Voldemort needed Harry's blood. Maybe the blood was the Horcrux. In the 2th book/movie when Harry stabbed the diary, blood came out of the diary. Go To http://harry-potter-harry-potter-swicki.eurekster.com to find Harry Potter websites. (It is a Harry Potter Search Engine) hpcentaur From shedevil00202 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 21 15:20:39 2007 From: shedevil00202 at hotmail.com (Kazzi) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:20:39 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164022 Sherry: I believe he murdered Dumbledore in > cold blood. No excuse, no redemption scene will ever minimize or justify > that for me. Only if it turns out that Dumbledore died of something else > and Snape was just masking that death and pretended to use the killing > curse. But I don't expect that to happen. If the story ends up that DD was > dying or died from the potion in the cave, the potion that Harry forced him > to drink, and Snape faked the AK to cover that up, I'll want to throw up. > That would make Snape too heroic for me, and I'd be borrowing lupinlore's > wood chipper to destroy my audio and braille books. LOL. I was truly > shocked during the tower scene, because, as I said, I hated Snape but > believed he would save DD and prove his loyalty. Nothing can ever redeem > him now for me. I believe that Snape killed Dumbledore on his orders. Just before Snape turns his wand on him it look like Dumbledore's begging Snape not to do it. But for a man who see's death as the next great adventure why would he beg for his life I just can't see him doing this. And there was the argument between Dumbledore and Snape in the forest were Snape said he didn't want to do something no more. No one knows what that something is but I think Dumbledore was ordering Snape to kill him so that LV would think that Snape realy was on his side but of course we shall all soon find out but I don't think Snape is a death eater. But he is cruel character though. "Kazzi (shedevil00202)" From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 21 22:05:33 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:05:33 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164024 > > Nikkalmati > > It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter! It only means he did not deliberately promise to kill DD! That is what I mean; he would not under any circumstances have made that promise, if he knew what it was, unless he is not DDM or unless you accept that DD and Snape already planned for Snape to kill DD. No other explanation has been given IMHO which explains the UV. Pippin: Well..Narcissa wants a promise that Snape will kill Dumbledore if necessary, but the vow itself could as easily be interpreted as Snape swearing that he will die rather than kill Dumbledore. I don't have any moral problems with that. > > Nikkalmati > > I don't see how we could possibly see that moment without giving away Snape's true allegiance and feelings. Pippin: Neither the twitch, the argument in the forest, nor the anguished moment outside Hagrid's hut gives away Snape's true allegiance and feelings, yet I am sure that in the end we will know exactly why Snape reacted as he did. JKR is perfectly capable of writing a reaction scene without giving away a thing. She touches on the investigation into the attacks without telling us whether Snape is helping or hindering it, and in the same way she could give us a scene where Snape is not clear on what he's supposed to do -- and we wouldn't know whether he is fishing for further details or hearing things for the first time. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 22:07:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:07:18 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164025 Carol earlier: > > I'm speculating now, but it seems likely to me that he found out how to create a Horcrux, not from the Hogwarts library or Slughorn, but from the one living man who had created one--Voldemort. And that would be sometime after the murder of the Riddles and the conversation with Slughorn but before the murder of Hepzibah Smith. > > Geoff: > Hang on, I think I'm losing the plot here. Am I misreading you or are you suggesting in a roundabout way that he taught himself to make Horcruxes? > > I think I'm about to launch a new society - IHHC, the I hate Horcruxes Club :-) > Carol: Oi! I should read my own posts more carefully. That's supposed to read: "The one living man who had created one--Grindelwald." To clarify: Slughorn says that the information isn't available at Hogwarts, and he doesn't provide sufficient information himself for Tom (who has already split his soul but doesn't know the spell to create a Horcrux) to create one at that time. He's still wearing the ring, which to me means that it isn't yet a Horcrux or it would be hidden. His questions also indicate that he doesn't yet know how to make one. If he can't learn the information at Hogwarts, what can he do? Simple. Go to someone who *can* teach him, the one wizard known to have created a Horcrux. I know this is speculation, but Grindelwald is mentioned twice in SS/PS for a reason. The date of his defeat by Dumbledore coincides with the date that Tom left school. Coincidence? I think not. And Dumbledore implies that both he and Voldemort were aware of a wizard who had made a single Horcrux. Who more likely than "the Dark wizard Grindelwald" to be that person? As I've noted earlier, I don't think that the diary was a Horcrux to begin with. I think it was originally a powerful magical object intended to interact with the reader, who would open the Chamber of Secrets, proving that Tom was the Heir of Slytherin. Later, after he'd split his soul four times (I count Myrtle as a murder) *and* knew the requisite spell, he made it into a Horcrux, along with the one trophy he'd acquired, the Peverell ring. IOW, I don't think that the *memory* (or memories) he placed in the diary are the same thing as the soul bit that was placed there later. (Why would he use a meaningless diary of no more worth than a mouth organ? It already had significance for him *before* he made it a Horcrux. Dumbleddore said so himself.) So I don't think Tom created any Horcruxes at sixteen, but I do think he'd made two of them by the time he killed Hepzibah Smith. A visit to Grindelwald in 1945, just before his defeat, fits nicely into that niche. And why would DD have gone after Grindelwald just at that time unless he was trying to prevent Tom from learning to create a Horcrux? Sheesh. I can't believe I typed "Voldemort" for "Grindelwald." No wonder you were confused! Carol, noting that Lupinlore has already founded a society for people who hate Horcruxes if you care to join From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 22:18:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:18:58 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? Magical Theory... ( was: ...(Harry as Horcrux)) In-Reply-To: <24DCD13E-0186-4303-B9C6-E6F1FF654C1D@golden.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164026 --- doug rogers wrote: > ... > > doug: > > ... > > When I started into the topic a long time ago on Mugglenet, I asked, > why don't any of the major characters, powerful wizards, > knowledgeable magicians all... NONE of them ever speak on magical > theory, even in general principle. Why do none of them ever voice > even any sub-vocce thoughts about the nature or the source of the > magic they use? ... > bboyminn: Here is the flaw in that argument; the books are filled with Magical Theory, we just don't get to hear any of it, yet it is absolutely there in every book. When Harry is doing poorly in class, the teacher assigns him homework involving studying the Magical Theory behing the 'thing' he is not getting. Each class has text books, and it seem clear that those books are filled with Magical Theory. There are Homework assignments, essays, papers, a huge book store filled with books, a huge library filled with books, Hermoine even resorts to the study of theory to help Harry learn things, Umbridge's class is nothing but theory. My point is that Magical Theory is there in all the books, but we don't hear a discussion of it because the purpose of the books is NOT to educate us on the matter. Even Harry being at school to learn magic is a McGuffin of sorts. It gives us a framework in which other more important aspects can play out, but it is not a story about Harry learning Magical Theory, it is a coming-of-age story about Harry growing up, learning what is important, making friends, finding allies, overcoming obsticals, and fighting Voldemort. Still, in every book the existance of Magical Theory is confirmed. We hear that it exists, even if we don't actually get to hear the details of it. Though as to the overal conclusion of the core subject of this discussion, I agree, inconclusive. That said, I think Harry the Horcrux, while hinted at, is far more inconclusive based on available information than Harry is NOT a Horcrux. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 21 22:25:44 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:25:44 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter (was) a Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164027 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpcentaur" wrote: > > Harry Potter was a horcrux. Do you remember the 4th book/movie. > Voldemort needed Harry's blood. Maybe the blood was the Horcrux. > In the 2th book/movie when Harry stabbed the diary, blood came out of > the diary. > > Go To http://harry-potter-harry-potter-swicki.eurekster.com to find > Harry Potter websites. (It is a Harry Potter Search Engine) Geoff: T'wasn't blood... Canon tells us otherwise. '"Let me go!" Harry snarled, tugging. With a loud ripping noise, his bag split in two. His books, wand, parchment and quill spilled onto the floor and his ink bottle smashed over the lot.' (COS "The Very Secret Diary" p.177 UK edition) 'It wasn't until they had reached Professor Flitwick's class that Harry noticed something rather odd about Riddle's diary. All his other books were drenched in scarlet ink. The diary, however, was as clean as it had been before the ink bottle had smashed all over it.' (ibid. p179) 'Harry sat on his four-poster bed and flicked through the blank pages, not one of which had a trace of scarlet ink on it. Then he pulled a new bottle out of his bedside cabinet, dipped his quill into it and dropped a blot onto the first page of the diary. The ink shone brightly on the paper for a second and then, as though it was being sucked into the page, vanished.' (ibid. p.179) 'Then, in a rush of wings, Fawkes soared back overhead and something fell into Harry's lap - the diary. For a split second, both Harry and Riddle, wand still raised, stared at it. Then, without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do it all along, Harry seized the Basilisk fang on the floor next to him and plunged it straight into the heart of the book. There was a long, dreadful, piercing scream. Ink spurted out of the diary in torrents, streaming over Harry's hands, flooding the floor.' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.237 UK edition) So, it was red ink, not blood..... From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 21 23:25:04 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:25:04 -0000 Subject: Harry as Horcrux/De-Horcruxing the Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164028 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Annemehr" wrote: > > > > Annemehr: > > > > ...huge snip... > > > > I suppose I may as well outline the reasons I do think > > Harry('s scar) is a Horcrux, and why I agree that DD > > did it: > > > > (1)That Harry has a bit of LV's soul within him > > somewhere is the only explanation we can infer from > > existing canon for how Harry has LV's inherent powers > > and a link to his thoughts and emotions. Of course, > > JKR *may* have a little surprise in store for us in DH, > > regarding some other reason for the link, but it would > > feel like authorial cheating to me. I'll just content > > myself for now with what seems to be the best > > explanation -- it's a soul-bit. > > > > > bboyminn: > > Let me give you the reason why I don't buy this particular > explanation. > > When Dumbledore is explaining Horcruxes to Harry, he gives > Harry a warning, which I will greatly paraphrase. > > When he explains to Harry that Voldemort has transformed > and diminished himself by removing bits of his soul, he > warns Harry that this has not diminished Voldemort's power > in any way. While Voldemort may have greatly diminished > his humanitry and conscience, removing those soul bits > has not diminished Voldemort's magical power. > > This implies to me that power does not follow soul; that > they are separate entities. Based on that interpretation, > I concluded that Harry receiving Voldemort's powers > does not equal Harry receiving Voldemort's soul. Nor does > Harry having Voldemort's powers equal Harry having > Voldemort soul (or at least a piece of it) Annemehr: I disagree with your conclusion, firstly because of the power of possession which Vapor!Mort retained. In the graveyard, he explained to his DEs that, while a vapor, he could not weild his other powers because he could not hold a wand. And, acutally I would add he could not speak Parseltongue because he didn't have a tongue. But Vapor! Mort was nothing *but* soul -- albeit an incomplete one -- and he, as a mere bit of soul, retained and used the power of possession. Then at his rebirth he could once again weild the ones that required a body -- i.e., they had remained latent with him during his stint as a mere bit of soul, until his reembodiment. This tells me that a bit of soul can carry magical power. If the bit of soul that lived in Albania all those years could contain power, what about the bits that went into the Hxes? Indeed, in CoS we saw that the bit that went into the diary certainly did use Parseltongue and possession on Ginny, and weilded Harry's wand in the Chamber. So I conclude that if Harry carries a bit of LV's soul, he'd have received LV's powers with it. bboyminn: > If the power follows the soul then certainly Voldemort's > powers would be diminished with each loss of soul, but > Dumbledore makes it clear that's not what is happening and > that is enough evidence for me. Annemehr: I figure possession and being a Parselmouth are like toggle switches: either you can or you can't. As far as how powerfully magic a soul bit is compared to the original undivided soul, I suppose JKR could have written it either way as she wished. But a greatly weakened LV is no fun, so she had him retain his magical strength. A jkrowling.com FAQ answer of hers does suggest to me that the soul bit might be as powerful as the original: -------------------------------------------------------------- In 'Chamber of Secrets', what would have happened if Ginny had died and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary? I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably. --------------------------------------------------------------- It looks like the Diary!Riddle would have had power of his own. Oh, hey, I wonder if we *will* see a Hx soul bit escape and obtain a body for itself? bboyminn: > Once again, I will add that Dumbledore is the fount of all > knowledge and wisdom regarding Harry, his scar connection, > the transferred powers, and of Horcruxes in general. If > Dumbledore hasn't reach the conclusion, or at least > considered the possibility, that Harry is a Horcrux, then > I don't see how we can. But that fount is an annoyingly slow trickle! For one thing, we know there's that wonderful (and no doubt highly useful) story of what happened to DD's wand hand that's still awaiting another time to be told. I'm sure there's plenty more "everything" for DD to impart to Harry in the next book. Annemehr, also sure that, dead as he might be, Dumbledore is going to be a huge character in DH P.S. I *know* that making predictions based on what we already know is a dangerous game. A friend recently reminded me of this little phrase from the September 29th, 2006 Diary entry from Jo's website: "Sitting at my desk trying to invent a word yesterday..." It seems it reminded her (JKR, I mean) of the search for the word "Horcrux." Which means she's still been making up new stuff for DH. So, if you are holding out for a non-Horcrux explanation for the scar phenomenon, I can't blame you. What's a poor theorist to do? ;) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 22 00:01:09 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:01:09 -0000 Subject: Harry as a "Horcrux"--my view (long!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164029 There are so many different views going around it's too hard to quote them, so I thought I'd just state my views, after trying to work it out logically in my mind. First, here's what we know: A Horcrux is an object encasing a piece of torn soul, created by means of an intentional spell. One tears one's soul by a supreme act of evil--murder. Dumbledore told Harry that Voldemort inadvertently transferred some of his powers to Harry during the failed AK at GH. Reasonably solid conjecture based on canon: We've heard no direct canon on what happens to the separate soul pieces when a soul is "torn" and the wizard doesn't encase one of them in a Horcrux. Still, it doesn't seem likely they leave the body and "float" about, so if one doesn't removed the piece and place it in a Horcrux, then the torn piece remains within the body. (Presumably this is what happened with Snape, if he has in fact killed before Dumbledore, or he did actually kill Dumbledore thus tearing his soul. Not to mention the state of all the other DEs who've committed murder for Voldemort). We also have no direct canon on what happens to a soul piece after a Horcrux is destroyed. Is the soul piece destroyed along with it? Can a soul piece be destroyed? Canon only mention the destruction of the Horcruxes, not the soul pieces, so I would assume the soul pieces do survive, and in this case "float" off somewhere, beyond the veil or into some other plane where they remain in some sort of waiting mode. Waiting for what? For the rest of the soul pieces to be free--either removed from Horcruxes or released from the original body upon its demise--so the "entirety" of the soul--torn or whole--can go wherever the soul goes after death. This implies that the soul piece, once released from the Horcrux, is unavailable its "owner." Which fits with canon, since we heard nothing about Voldemort trying to retrieve the diary soul piece and re-encase it in another Horcrux. Once unencased in a Horcrux or a body, it's gone. That's what seems logical to me anyway. Now on to whether Harry is a Horcrux. Well...no, of course he isn't. He's not an object Voldemort intended or "spelled" to encase a soul piece, which seems to be part of a Horcrux definition. But does this automatically mean that Harry does NOT have a piece of Voldemort's soul residing in him? No, I don't believe it does. Looking again at the events of Godric's Hollow as we know them, Dumbledore believes Voldemort "intended" to make a Horcrux upon Harry's death. The part we don't know about Horcruxes of course, is how the spell works. Is a spell required to "prepare" the soul piece to leave the body and enter the Horcrux? Or is a spell only needed once the murder is complete and the wizard has the intended Horcrux object in his hands? Finally, does it even matter? I don't think so, and here's why. Voldemort made his previous Horcruxes by splitting his soul. Let's assume he had all the time in the world to pluck those soul bits out of his body and place them in the Horcrux object. He could do it immediately, wait a few days, or wait years after a murder (as he may have after the murder of his father and grandparents). All he has to do is pluck out that torn part of his soul (don't ask me how he tells all his torn soul pieces apart!) and place it in the Horcrux by means of the Horcrux spell. This is what he plans to do with Harry's murder, whether he brought the intended Horcrux object to Godric's Hollow or planned to go get it later. Voldemort split his soul as usual, but something went wrong, and everything became different. Not only did the AK rebound (as it never had before), but unlike all the other times Voldemort split his soul, this time he NO LONGER HAD A BODY ACTING AS A CONTAINER FOR HIS SPLIT SOUL. Equally, and this might even work better, if a preparatory spell *is* required for the soon to be split piece of soul (or even a piece that is already split and still residing in the body with the rest of one's soul), it still leaves Voldemort in the same predicament. (Note: This kind of spell would explain how a specific soul split, e.g. the one resulting from Tom Riddle Sr's murder rather than the one resulting from some nameless Muggle-lover's murder the previous week ends up encased in a Horcrux. Er, I think...) In any case, what matters is that Voldemort lost his body after having split his soul. And he lost his body in a never before seen manner. During such unusual circumstances, what would happen to his split soul? Will it all "hang together" or will some pieces separate? Does it matter how recently part of the soul has been split off, i.e. does a newly split piece need a period of time to heal/reintegrate/glue itself back to the main soul? Could the rebounded AK have affected this process, throwing the recently split soul piece out of the cobbled-together "whole" so to speak? We don't know. I don't think there is any canon that even gives us a real clue. Which makes it quite possible that Voldemort inadvertently tossed this recently split soul piece to the wind with the AK. The rest of his much-torn soul stuck together and slinked off to hide and regroup in Albania. And this split soul piece without a home, it could have floated off like the ones released from Horcruxes presumably do...or it could have been slammed into Harry's forehead by the force of the never-before seen and still barely understood rebounding AK. Which is why I don't think we have enough evidence to even say whether Harry likely is, or likely is not, possessing a piece of Voldemort's soul. If he is, you can call him an accidental "horcrux" or simply In-Possession-of-a-Voldemort- Soul-Piece!Harry. That's really mere semantics. Besides, what matters more is Dumbledore. Does he know, does he suspect, how can he *not*, and what does this mean for his character? Unless Dumbledore is much more of an idiot than he appears he'd have to suspect. He said himself that Voldemort "transferred" part of his powers to Harry. And, yes, that could be a simple magical process, if we're only talking about actual magical abilities like Parselmouth. What it doesn't explain is Harry and Voldemort's mental connection in OotP. It's not Legilimency or any kind of known magic. So what is it? Some ultimately unexplainable telepathy, or is it because Voldemort has part of himself in Harry, thus is able to communicate with that part of himself in a way separate from magic (or enhanced by magic but not merely magic)? I think Dumbledore would have to consider the latter as a distinct possiblitity, given the lack of certainty still surrounding everything to do with Harry's survival at Godric's Hollow. As for why Dumbledore said he was telling Harry everything but didn't inform him of this possibility, well, I think Dumbledore can be forgiven (by us, and by Harry) for not telling Harry that he might be/probably is a "horcrux" (using the term loosely), which implies that Harry (as the object encasing the soul piece) must be destroyed to release the soul piece so Voldemort can be killed. How is he supposed to tell Harry THAT? What would that do to Harry, especially if Dumbledore knows of no way to remove the soul piece without Harry dying? Harry's already far too impulsive, and oblivious to his own well-being in his dedication to whatever cause has his attention (and I'm not saying that's an entirely bad thing!). He'd never put himself first, or even take his safetly into consideration, so maybe this is Dumbledore's way of doing it for him. Maybe Dumbledore has *always* been looking not to fulfill but to subvert the Prophecy by finding a way for Voldemort to die and Harry to live, even if he hadn't found it before he died. And maybe this task has been left to Snape, he-who- won't-harm-a-hair-on-his-most-detested-student's-head, even under the most aggravating circumstances (and, yes, I don't consider delivering a stinging hex to Harry's cheek "harm" in this definition). Maybe it will be Snape who will find a way to get that Voldemort soul piece out of Harry's head so Harry can defeat Voldemort and go on to live the life of a normal wizard. And won't Snape be happy for Harry ;-) Well, maybe not, but it's one way to atone for your sins against the father (and mother), and repay an old life debt. That's all *if* Harry does have a Voldemort soul piece in him. I'm not saying he does, or doesn't. That's for JKR to tell us. But I do feel it could go either way. Easily. IMO, Julie, apologizing for the length of this unedited post. From jennabell74 at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 21 22:58:14 2007 From: jennabell74 at yahoo.ca (jennabell74) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:58:14 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledor know he was going to die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164030 This is my first time posting. I must admit I am not always on top of the messages so please bear with me if this has already been discussed. I just finished rereading HBP for the 17th time. I am a firm believer that DD knew he was going to die. I think it is very significant that throughout the journey to the cave, the drinking of the potion and the time spent at the top of the astronomy tower, that Fawkes wasn't there at all. Any time DD has need of him or he is in danger Fawkes is always there...... jennabell From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Mon Jan 22 00:54:09 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:54:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164031 In a message dated 1/21/07 2:49:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk writes: > I think I'm about to launch a new society - IHHC, the I hate Horcruxes Club > :-) > > > > > Sandy: I joined your IWHTL club and I will certainly join IHHC if you decide to form it. I despise the things so much that I always delete the messages that have the word in the title. However, there are some posters who I read every message they post regardless of the subject, and you are one of them, which is how I saw this. Another element I wish JKR had never introduced in the books is Occlumency/Legilemency. I don't understand the concept at all and the members of this group seem to think everything is somehow attached to them. I can't understand how you can possibly concentrate on any task at hand when you have to go about the business of keeping someone from intruding into your psyche as you are doing it. No wonder Harry didn't get it; I couldn't have either. I don't like it on principle as well. I wouldn't want to live in a world where my thoughts were always subject to being intruded on. I wouldn't have my job for two minutes under those circumstances -- my apartment either, come to think of it. So, you form that club and I will join it. I can only hope that the bulk of DH won't be eaten up by the damned things. Sandy, who does not believe Harry is a Horcrux, accidental or otherwise. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dougsamu at golden.net Mon Jan 22 01:44:07 2007 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:07 -0500 Subject: Do you agree? Magical Theory... ( was: ...(Harry as Horcrux)) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164032 bboymin: > the existance of Magical Theory is > confirmed. We hear that it exists, even if we don't > actually get to hear the details of it. I've heard all shades and subtleties of both sides of this argument. They go around and around. But these things remain: Given that Blood/Body based explanations cannot answer the example of Annemehr: > the power of > possession which Vapor!Mort retained. In the graveyard, he explained > to his DEs that, while a vapor, he could not weild his other powers > because he could not hold a wand. And, acutally I would add he could > not speak Parseltongue because he didn't have a tongue. But Vapor! > Mort was nothing *but* soul -- albeit an incomplete one -- and he, as > a mere bit of soul, retained and used the power of possession. Then > at his rebirth he could once again weild the ones that required a > body -- i.e., they had remained latent with him during his stint as a > mere bit of soul, until his reembodiment. And that Soul based arguments cannot answer the case of bboyminn: > When he explains to Harry that Voldemort has transformed > and diminished himself by removing bits of his soul, he > warns Harry that this has not diminished Voldemort's power > in any way. While Voldemort may have greatly diminished > his humanitry and conscience, removing those soul bits > has not diminished Voldemort's magical power. These are the two unresolvable arguments. And Rowling does give the reader an example of Magical theory in Lupin's explanation of The Patronus. Lupin, PoA The Patronus, pg 176, Raincoast edition: "The Patronus is a kind of positive force, a projection of the very things that the Dementor feeds upon - hope, happiness, the desire to survive - but it cannot feel despair, as real humans can, so the Dementors can't hurt it." Basically, the happiest thought you can recall is focused and magically made manifest as the Patronus. It is propelled as an active energy/mass state doing the will of the magician. Is there another possibility, not-blood, not-soul, that answers both of the criticism above, can explain the connection, and respects at least a bit, the theoretical model we have in The Patronus? Mind? No one, no one is here. We stand in the Atlantic. We become panoramic. ____________________ From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 22 02:33:47 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:33:47 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH (WasNewbie theory - Harry at Godric's Ho In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Jen wrote: > > I found a hole in my logic, speculation passing as canon. I > said Dumbledore used time-travel extensively, meaning to get the > memories, but really there's no *proof* of that. It's odd how he > conveniently reached Bob Ogden, Morfin and Hokey right before each one > died, especially Ogden whom Dumbledore said died 'some time ago'. > > Carol responds: > > > Carol, agreeing that the two watches are intriguing but not that Time > Travel was required to obtain the memories from Hokey, Morfin, Ogden, > or Burke > Ken: RRRRIIIIIIPPP!!! A giant hole is ripped through the fabric of space-time as Ken and Carol agree for probably the first time since a long ago discussion about Figgy. I would go a little farther though. I would say that the just-in-time, lucky-to- have-got-them-at-all circumstances behind some of those memories would argue that DD was not time traveling. If you are time traveling why wait until the very last moment to get the memory? Why not go back to the *best* possible moment (whenever you figure that is) to get the memories? Of course time travel is extremely powerful. If you were using time travel you could also just go back to the incident you wanted more information about with some of the Twins extensible ears and listen in, no? On the other hand book 7 is looking to be quite a car chase, if time travel could be used to find the horcruxes in less than 100,000 words maybe I drop my objections to its reappearance. I mean if there is something in it for me.... Ken From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 22 02:54:46 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:54:46 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts plumbing/End of Book 7/The Problem of Evil/Hippogriff/Annoying TWT Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164034 Anne Squires wrote in : << Given the history of the "modern toilet" I do not believe that Salazar Slytherin, wizard or no, had anything to do with the construction of a girls' bathroom. As I stated in my previous post, Hogwarts must have undergone a renovation at some point to have bathrooms and accompanying piping installed. >> I always say, in the Potterverse, the wizarding folk had indoor plumbing with hot and cold running water and flush toilets ever since Atlantis. (I don't really believe in Atlantis, but I don't really believe in wizards either, and wizards exist in the Potter verse, so Atlantis can exist there, too.) All the various Muggles who 'invented' indoor plumbing (Minoans, Romans, 18th century, etc) were really trying to copy what they had seen when a guest in a wizarding home. The wizards didn't need to know any plumbing, hydraulics, metallurgy, stonecarving, or architecture because they made their bathrooms and castles by MAGIC! However, Muggles who visted wizards and saw the nice things the wizards had, had to invent all that technology in order to imitate the wizarding goodies. The problem I have is that I think the pipes in the walls must have been designed as basilisk highways, never designed as part of the plumbing system. Because wizards would think it easier for the materials (water in, sewage out) transported by the plumbing to be teleported, like travellers in the Floo Network, or the Knight Bus jumping from Wales to Scotland to Cornwall. << According to a website called The History of Plumbing - Roman and English Legacy http://www.theplumber.com/eng.html the first toilet ever built on English soil was constructed by Sir John Harington for his godmother, Queen Elizabeth I, in 1596 and installed for her use in Richmond Palace. >> That is news to me, and I suppose that Sir John Harington had visited a wizarding house. Julia Wilkes wrote in : << And I hope Harry doesn't die, that would be a shame and would firmly close the book series. Which I have always hoped that maybe in 5 or 10 years JKR would break down and write another book. Like the aftermath of a deadly fight. I would love to have it end with the fight between LV and Harry with them both lying on the ground and just as the movie goes to black out you see Harry move his hand or something. >> In , JKR said: << But this is the Final Chapter of book seven. Um ... [laughs] which I'm still dubious about showing you, I don't know what I feel like, the camera's gonna be able to see through the folder. So this is it, and I'm not opening it for obvious reasons. This is really where I wrap everything up, it's the Epilogue, and I basically say what happens to everyone after they leave school -- those who survive, because there are deaths, more deaths, coming. >> says: << Vhari Leishman for Bloomsbury.com - I was wondering at the end of the seventh book would we get into a glimpse of Harry and Hermione post-Voldemort lives, in an epilogue or accompanying book (assuming they live through the book 7)? JK Rowling: That is very good that, is assuming that anyone survives, I may kill the whole lot ? not really, don't write me letters. There is already a chapter written in which you find out about the survivors post Hogwarts fates, so, I will have to re?write it when I get there, because that was written years ago and it wasn't really written on the assumption that I would use it as it is written in the hooks, it is really an act of faith, it was me saying to myself "I will get here and this information is the end point and that is where I'm trying to get to. So yes, there will be. >> Betsy Hp wrote in : << That so many readers think Dumbledore *wanted* Harry to go through the trap door in PS/SS proves my point. There's no way to explain a Dumbledore willing to put a child to that sort of risk without allowing for a certain amount of monstrosity in his character. But that version of the events in PS/SS, Harry's version, still stands. JKR needs to shoot it down. IMO, anyway. >> Many readers perceive that many of Harry's experiences were set-ups, and some think it was Dumbledore who set them up. In general, I think it was Rowling who set them up, and some of the Puppetmaster!DD folks disagree with me by saying that Rowling is too good a writer to allow her authorial hand to be so clearly seen manipulating the characters. But actually it was that word 'monstrosity' that bit me. It's that old Problem of Evil again. If DD set it up, he has a monstrous streak. If the author set it up, she's cruel to the characters. *She* knows Harry's life will not be lost in the trapdoor quest, but she has already killed his parents and subjected him to those Dursleys. And if we view Real Life, its Author has supplied Famine, Pestilence, Tsunami, schizophrenia, and heartbreak (just as examples). Pippin wrote in : << Do we really think a man can outrun a hippogriff? >> Hippogriffs were designed for flying. I doubt those eagle front claws of theirs are good for running on. Magda wrote in : << 1. The entire set-up of the Triwizard Tournament in GOF. Why can't the champions and their headmasters simply apparate or portkey to Hogwarts a few times a year rather than stay on the property for months and months? Why have a team of judges made up of the very headmasters whose students are competing (plus one nutty former bureaucrat)? How exactly is international co-operation being promoted or enhanced here? >> International Magical Co-Operation *would* be being promoted if the visiting students (Champions and would-be Champions) were eating their meals and taking their classes with the already existing classes at the host school -- then kids who were taking classes together would have that chance to get to know each other and maybe become friends -- like Muggle exchange students. So I share your annoyance that JKR has them taking their classes and eating their meals, as well as sleeping, isolated in their ship and carriage. As the visiting Headmasters are the only teachers with the visiting students, I assume the Headmasters are teaching all their classes, so the visiting students miss out on the specialist knowledge of the specialist teachers at their school. It would be better for them to take classes from the specialist teachers at the host school. I don't have a problem with how can Durmstrang and Beauxton get along for almost a year without most of their Sixth Form students, but I do have a problem with them getting along for almost a year without their Headmasters -- isn't letting it be known that their Deputies are *that* good a grave risk to their job security? From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 03:38:20 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:38:20 -0000 Subject: Creating Horcruxes (Re: Harry as Horcrux) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164036 Let me start by saying that I have been focusing in on the Horcrux creating process to show that the accidental Horcrux theory is an entirely possible scenario. In that vein, I will start by making one last attempt to not only clarify my position but to also show how my reading of the books is just as "straight forward" as Carol's and Steve's. Buckle your seatbelts, this may be a bumpy ride. :-) < and Steve, please pardon the splicing of your post> *********************************************************** Let me start by answering some of your concerns. > > Carol: > > > > > > ... Simple logic: the murder has to precede the > > encasement. and Steve's question > > bboyminn: > There are however a few other logical flaws. Voldemort > has killed many people, far more people than he has > Horcruxes for. If the Horcrux object is pre-prepared and > ready to receive the Soul-Bit, then why doesn't one > of the many existing Soul-Bits just jump right into it? > > >>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<< > > > Based on that reasoning, I don't see any > need to rush the creation of any Horcrux. Anyone cold > enough to willfully create Horcruxes is not the type of > person who is going to have their soul heal quickly. > There was plenty of time for Voldemort to use the > murder of is Father and Grandparents to make Horcruxes > at a later time. Mike: I finally realized where Carol and I are not connecting, she encapsulated our wavelength interference in her one simple question above. Analogy time: 1) If you have a corral full of horses and want ot cut one of them out, how do you go about that? Would you cut out the horse first and then build the sluice and new corral to put it in? Or would you build those things first before you seperate the horse. 2) You have a bowl of potato salad. Would you take the scoop out first before you go to the cupboard to get the bowl? Or would you have the bowl ready to accept your portion? 3) The pet store wants to sell one bird out of a cage with many birds. Does the employee open the cage and shoo one bird out and then go get a second cage and attempt to recapture the escaped bird? Not reasonable is it? 4) You want to cut a piece of cake and send it off with your kid for lunch. Do I ask you to put it into his tupperware container before you cut it? No, I'm just asking you to have the container handy, the knife in your hand and a spatula to scoop it up with before you cut the cake. 5) Do I want Voldemort to encase his soul piece before he committs the murder which cuts the cake, ... I mean rips his soul? No, I want Voldemort to cast his spell which designates the recepticle and indicates that the soul piece is coming from himself (a critical part of the incantation which is overlooked, imo) before he commits the soul splitting murder. Number 5 is where I think part of mine and Carol's disconnect occured. I say part because, obviously as Steve points out, we are on opposite sides of the Harry!Crux front and that colors our perspective. As to Steve's two paragraphs above, I point to the 3rd analogy. If Voldemort doesn't have the spell pre-loaded, the bird flies away... the detached soul piece leaves the body without a hinderance to keep it around. How do I come to this realization? In part, through all of the posts I've read on this board and in particular some of the most recent ones by Geoff, Annemehr and both Steve and Carol. But I also take my cues from canon. What happened to Voldemort's soul at Godric's Hollow? When his soul was seperated from his body was there any restriction on where it could go? No, in his ethereal state it would have gone "beyond the veil" or crossed over, had he not had other soul pieces anchored to this plane of existance. But nothing restricted it's wanderings. So, what restricts a soul piece from escaping to "somewhere out there" once it's torn from the rest of the soul? This is our only example in canon of a soul being seperated from a body and not passing over. Please note how JKR used the same terminology. Killing *rips* the soul, as per Slughorn. I was *ripped* from my body, as per Voldemort. Therefore, my straight forward reading is that when a soul piece is *ripped* from the main piece it escapes, it goes away, there is nothing to hold it in proximity to it's former self. If a spell hasn't been cast before the *ripping* occured, it's too late after. How else should I be reading this? Have you discovered somewhere in canon that the soul piece, once ripped from the main, hangs around in the body, or even around the body? I have only seen one imperfect example of this phenomenon, LV at GH. I saw nothing to indicate that the soul was contained, after being ripped from the body, in such a way as to give one the chance to cast the spell at a later time. Granted, one must assume that the soul or soul piece must be programmed to depart the scene. Which I think JKR has indicated is the case. The soul "crosses over" if not anchored by Horcruxes (or by some nebulous manner which produces ghosts). Therefore, imo, any soul or soul piece has the natural programming to leave this world or this earthly plane, if you will. Whether seperated from the whole or seperated from the body, the soul or soul piece will naturally depart this earth and attempt to cross over. Isn't that why it is "against nature" to prevent the soul pioece from it's natural inclination to cross over? So, yes, I think a soul piece, once seperated from the whole, will depart the scene and attempt to cross over. Once that has happened, it's too late, time and space matter in magic, remember? Straight forward reading of how to make a Horcrux: You bring an object with you to encase your soul piece, enchant yourself and the object, then commit the murder which rips your soul. No "saving the ripped soul piece" for later encasement. How does that jibe with a straight forward reading? Where in Slughorn's limited explanation does one interpret the ability to create a Horcrux at some time in the future? This leads into another of Steve's points: > bboyminn: > As far as being able to very selectively chose which > torn piece of soul was encased, I suspect the most > freshly torn bit of soul is most available. That is, the > tear is still fresh and volitile, and therefore most > readily available. But beyond that I don't really think > Voldemort or anyone can chose. > >>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<< > I think they may be able to focus heavily on a particular > murder as to coax the soul-bit out, but I think for the > most part, any particular soul-bit is more symbolic of a > specific murder than literally associated with it. A > soul-bit is a soul-bit, for the most part. Mike: So how would you square this with Dumbledore's pronouncement that Voldemort seemed to save his Horcrux creation for significant murders? If, in your reading, there is no particular piece to be selected and you can wait until a later date to produce a Horcrux, Dumbledore's statement becomes nonsense, doesn't it? Voldemort isn't reserving a soul piece, nor reserving a time of murder. So, how can he be reserving his Horcrux creation at all? This is independent of whether Voldemort actually does reserve Horcrux creation. I want to make sense of Dumbledore's statement in light of your position. Let's move to the only reservation that Dumbledore told us Voldemort did make. How does this apply to Godric's Hollow? Let me first state my conviction that only an "innocent" murder will split the soul. That is, killing in combat between two witches/wizards does not a soul rip. Had Bella continued and killed the Longbottoms, there she would have split her soul. But her killing of Sirius (that is if he is dead, let's not go there now) would not be a soul ripping act. The murder of a helpless, defenseless "soul" is needed to trigger the soul splitting. JMO. So at GH, Voldemort killed Lily and thereby activated the *love protection*. He then brings out his valuable object (whatever he was intending to use as a Horcrux) and performs the Horcrux creation spell, designating himself as the soul piece donor and marking the object as the soul piece recepticle. When his AK rebounds off of Harry and *murders* his own self, his soul is split. (He wasn't in combat, he had no defense against his own AK). Was he intending to make *Harry* into a Horcrux? I'll answer that with the question: Was he intending to *kill* himself that night? Not just no, but Hell No. Why didn't the soul piece transfer into Voldie's designated object? **I Don't Know.** Maybe the object was destroyed, maybe the *mark* on Harry was a more powerful pull than the marked object. JKR has told us that the things that happened at GH had never happened before. Maybe this was one of those things. She has promised to enlighten us further on what happened that night. I can only extrapolate from that point forward and match what we know to what we think. Let's do that now. Back to Steve: > bboyminn: > Mike wants Harry to be a Horcrux, so he seeks out and > interprets available information to support that idea. > Others, don't want Harry to be a Horcrux, and so seek > out and interpret available information in a way that > supports that idea. The difference is that some of us > are stretching a little more in order to reach our > conclusions. > > I believe, and surely no one is surprised, that Carol > has stretched the least to reach her conclusions. Mike: Let's see if I'm stretching. - Parseltongue - Other than Salazar Slytherin and his direct decendants, we have two people in canon who have spoken Parseltongue; Ginny and Harry (we don't know if DD spoke it, understood it, or what). How did Ginny speak it? A bit of Tom Riddle's soul was occupying Ginny, undoubtedly using her to speak much like Voldemort used Harry in the MoM. So where did Harry get this ability? "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry, ... because Lord Voldemort ... can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure ..." "Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*? ... "It certainly seems so." (CoS pp. 332-3, US) Harry asked if Voldemort put a **bit** of himself into [me] and Dumbledore says yes. What is your straight forward reading of what this **bit** is, if it isn't a soul piece? Keeping in mind that Ginny speaks Parseltongue because she has a **bit** of Tom's soul in her. Is it more straight forward that the bit was some of Voldemort's blood that came from somewhere and happened to hit the cut on Harry's forehead that we don't have any reason for being there? Keeping in mind that we only know that Voldemort disappeared that night, nothing about his body blowing up into a bloody mess. And where do we have something in canon that tells us that receiving a Parseltongue's blood allows one to speak it themselves? So, which one of us is stretching here? Let's explore another related point. > bboyminn: > My first reason to support Carol is Dumbledore; directly > and tangentally, Dumbledore is the source of all > information on this matter, and he doesn't seem to > agree. Noted though, that Dumbledore is famous for > withholding information, and I'm willing to change > my preception when new information is revealed. But > give what we have, Dumbledore's apparent lack of > belief in 'Harry the Horcrux' settles it for me. Mike: Yes, and Dumbledore confirmed that Harry had a bit of Voldemort in him. But as to whether he should be telling Harry, in HBP, that the bit of Voldemort is a bit of soul, ... well, you answered that yourself when you noted Dumbledore's reluctance to release critical information. Not only is that perfectly in character for DD, but I can honestly see a reluctance to tell Harry that he has a guest soul piece especially if Dumbledore doesn't know how to get it out. Now you ask, what makes me think this of Dumbledore? "Is that where -?" whispered Professor McGonagall. "Yes," said Dumbledore. "He'll have that scar forever." "Couldn't you do something about it, Dumbledore?" "Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in handy. ..." (PS/SS p.14, US) Dumbledore knows that healing spell, he used it on himself in the cave. He also knows that Dittany will prevent scarring. So why can't Dumbledore do anything about that cut-soon-to-be-a-scar on Harry's forehead? Note that he starts his answer with "Even if I could,". He is admitting, in a very subtle way and later masking it with humor, that he can't do anything about a simple cut? But, if it is a piece of Voldie's soul that entered Harry there, and Dumbledore doesn't know how to safely remove that soul piece, now this short confession make sense. This last part may seem a stretch. Of course, I'd like to hear an alternate reason for Dumbledore's "Even if I could". ************************************************************* On a related but slight aside topic: > > bboyminn: > Further, as Carol points out in both explanations and > quotations, Tom Riddle has many murders under his belt > and has the Gaunt Ring, locket, and diary before he has > fully determined how to create Horcruxes. Tom has > objects that we know will eventually become Horcruxes > before, during, and after the time when he commited murder, > and they don't seem to be Horcruxes /yet/. Mike: I've hashed most of this out above. The argument over when Tom Riddle created his first Horcrux is beyond a dead horse, it's dog food by now. Beating it again would make a mess all over the kitchen ;-) One quick faut pas: Tom doesn't have the locket until after he leaves Hogwarts. > bboyminn: > > We are all following a twisted path to reach our conclusion > mostly because we have no choice. We simply don't have > enough evidence for a straight forward interpretation. Yet, > as will suprise no one, I think Carol's interpretation > follows the straightest possible path of logic and reaches > the most obvious conclusion. Sorry, Mike. Mike: No problem, Steve. You present a very coherent argument. I hope my response is just as reasoned. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 03:48:15 2007 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:48:15 -0000 Subject: the best played game of chess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164037 I, Ginger, had wondered how DD knew that Ron's game was "the best-played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years". > bboyminn answered: > > How do you know that Dumbledore was speaking with > absolute literal precision? Maybe, he was just making > a general statement that since Ron won, he must have > done pretty well. (snip well-reasoned arguments) > > I, Ginger, continued: > > > > Quirrelmort would have had to play as well. ... > > > > I discounted the silliest question of all: Didn't DD > > have to play through as well? ... No, I think DD had > > some sort of "back-door key". ... > > > > bboyminn responded: > > So, why would Dumbledore have a 'back door', a point on > which I very much agree, and not let the other teachers > protecting the Stone use it? Do, you think Dumbledore > made Quirrel fight his way through all the previous > challenges, just so he could place his Troll after the > chess challenge? I don't think so. (snip) I, Ginger, now say: I agree with you, Steve, and also with Bart (see his post) that DD had a "back door key". I also believe that he allowed the others to use it when they set up their challenges, or perhaps he had an order of set-up in which Snape set his first, the Quirrel, then McG, and so on so that none of them would have had to face any challenges, only empty rooms that the others would be using later. After all, the mirror wasn't in place at that time, so there was no danger of a traitor in their midst getting the stone. Frankly, I think that's why DD set up so many different challenges which were set by different people. Only he had the "key" to the final room. Any other person would have had to figure out the traps which the others had set. Had he shared the information or the "key" with anyone else once the stone was set, and someone would have gotten through, he'd have to wonder if his trust had been misplaced and investigate the person whom he had trusted, which would cause a waste of time if that person were not the real culprit. I had also deduced that Quirrelmort didn't have the "backdoor key" on the night that he went after the stone due to the fact that he had to grab the key in the challenge previous to the chess game (remember the wings were bent by someone grabbing it before Harry and Co.) and he also bothered with knocking out his own defense, the troll, in the challenge after the chess game. Had that not been necessary, it would have been prudent to leave it intact in case he was being followed by someone other than DD, assuming the back door key lets you out as well ;) So I concluded that he had also had to play across. Which leads us to my question: > >Ginger concludes: > > > > Who masterminded the game? Was it Quirrel or LV?... > > bboyminn: > > I'm completely baffled by this question? Perhaps I don't > understand what you really intend to ask, but McGonagall > was the one who created the enchanted Chess Set, and I > have always assumed it was against McGonagall's chess > skills that you played. > > Have I misinterpreted the question? Ginger: Actually, yes, you did. Sorry about that. Let me be clearer this time. Assuming that Quirrelmort did have to play a game of chess to get across, which one was the mastermind of that game- Quirrel or LV? One of them had to come up with the moves to beat the white side and get through the door and move on towards the stone. What I was asking was whether it was Quirrel or LV who was the brilliant strategist who beat McG's chess set. I asked because I wondered if LV was smarter than we had thought (and what we have been shown) or if Quirrel was the brains of the operation at that time, in which case, LV has lost an intellectually important ally. Not that it wouldn't serve him right. Being a bit snarky here, and this is not at all directed at you, Steve, but at my musings on the subject, the thought that first crossed my mind was how DD knew that Ron's game was better than Quirrlemort's when he said that Ron's was "the best". Ron is described as "dart(ing) about the chess board, taking almost as many white pieces as they had lost black ones". Wouldn't Q-mort's game have been "better" if he had won quickly with few losses to his pieces? You explained quite well that Ron was willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the WW. I now ask whether it would have been a better game had the player not put himself at risk in the first place. Perhaps Q-mort had the presence of mind to make himself the king, in which case he'd have only been in danger at the moment he lost. Or perhaps Q-mort was able to devise a strategy in which his piece was never in danger. That would have been an additional challenge. In fairness to Ron, he did have the added responsibility of making sure Harry and Hermione didn't come to harm as well, which he did admirably. Hmm, perhaps that is why DD thought his game was the best. Not only did he win, but he kept his friends safe. Definite point to ponder. Ginger, hoping that was clearer and sorry for the confusion. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 04:30:38 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:30:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: <20070121204559.77027.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070121204559.77027.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0701212030t5783ebacva55845d3a5510a4b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164038 Magda: Ginny being a budding Quidditch star because she borrowed her brothers' brooms and flew around the garden at home - and who threw bludgers at her? The garden gnomes? Or Bellatrix - of all people! - being able to impart occlumency skills to Draco. It kind of deflates the uniqueness of things. Lynda: It could for me as well...if I hadn't seen my four year old cousin play baseball by himself several years ago. There were times when there were no kids around and the adults weren't available to play with him, so he used to throw the ball up, grab the bat and bunt the ball, then run around all the bases. It was something else to watch that kid play. Usually, he had others to play with him, but he made a better than fair shot when he didn't. He played Little League Ball and then on his Jr. and Senior High teams, and now plays at his Jr. college. And I'm not generally surprised when reading any book to discover that whatever was rare or obscure is used more often than one might expect under normal circumstances because by default it has become part of the plot. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jan 22 04:56:18 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:56:18 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater who assists suicide?. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164039 .Lilygale, responding to the assisted suicide idea and who apologizes if this is a double post - Yahoomort ate a post earlier >So what is stoppered death, and how might it be similar or different to suicide? >To my mind (and I'm certainly no expert), suicide implies an intent to take one's death into one's own hand and voluntarily die despite having an opportunity to live. Stoppered death implies that death is inevitable but posponed. Of course, death is inevitable for us all. Is unstoppering death an act against nature? >Let's look at an analogy. What if your doctor tells you that you have metastatic cancer and have 3 months to live. But with radiation and chemotherapy, you could live for 12 months. As far as I know, there is nothing immoral in Judaism, Christianity or other moral systems if one chooses to avoid treatment and live out ones life span of 3 months. One is simply letting nature takes its course. >By lifting the stopper on death, is one actively committing suicide, or just letting nature take its course? I am of the opinion that, in the Potterverse, when Snape unstoppers Dumbledore's death on the tower upon Dumbledore's request, the men are letting the damage done by the Horcrux take its natural and final course. It is not suicide because, but Dumbledore is not actively choosing death. The death has already happened. He is using his death (he is *already dead*) to help Harry and Draco, and to defeat LV. >Another question about suicide: was drinking the potion in the cave an act of suicide? Or an act of bravery committed during wartime. Again, I don't think Dumbledore acted suicidally any more than a soldier, fighting in a war, can be said to be suicidal. Nikkalmati Certainly, I see your argument that removing an impediment to death is not the same as suicide and I guess, I would not consider it immoral to do so, if death were inevitable. Are you saying the potion in the cave was poisonous and DD drank it because he knew he was already dying, so that if it actually was the potion that killed him, it was not Harry's fault? I would find it hard to believe DD would take poison just to procure a Horcrux when there were so many others yet to be found and even less would he make Harry feed him poison - - - unless he thought for sure that Snape could save him. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jan 22 05:08:14 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:08:14 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164040 >Nikkalmat i> The purpose was to get in with Draco; there were no terrible easily forseeable consequences to what he thought he was going to promise; (I agree with Carol that once the process was started, he could not refuse or stop, or if he did, he, or even he and Narcissa, could die at once.) I don't know how long it took him to figure it out, but I don't think he had when he agreed to take the UV and clasped Narcissa's hand. > > Nikkalmati (maybe I'm wrong, but I think it is a viable theory; if he knew, for me, DDM goes out the window) Carol responds: >Anyway, I disagree that DDM!Snape is only possible if Snape didn't know what he was agreeing to do. Trapped!Snape, caught in the fiery ropes of the unanticipated third provision, is another possibility, especially if the DADA curse fell into place at just that moment (Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position on what appears to be the same night would make Snape the DADA teacher, whether he knew it or not). But even if he could somehow have escaped from Bella (standing over him with a wand as he knelt at her feet), Narcissa (desperate enough by her own admission to do anything to protect her son), and the vow itself (his wand hand was bound in ropes of fire), and refusal to take the third provision could have been interpreted as breaking the vow), he still could have chosen to agree to that last provision as a calculated risk, accepting the huge danger to himself and hoping to prevent the danger to either Draco or Dumbledore. Nikkalmati Yes, I see that Snape could still be DDM if he knew the general task set for Draco at the time of the UV, but was surprised by the third provision, yet took it never intending to fulfill it. If he thought he and DD could prevent the UV being activated in some way or intended to die himself instead of DD, he could be DDM. On the other hand, I would find that Snape somewhat OOC and a little bit foolish. I also find it insufficient for him to take the UV to impress Bella with his loyalty to LV or to please Narcissa. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Jan 22 05:45:47 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:45:47 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater./the best played chess game Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164041 >Magpie: I>n this scenario you're describing the biggest moment in Snape's arc in HBP goes nowhere. It doesn't fit anything strategic, since it doesn't help Snape find out what the task is (and the only place he actively tries to find out what the task is in some other way is off-screen), nor does it help him get in with Draco (with whom he should already be in), and it doesn't fit in emotionally, because JKR hasn't written anything pointing to that sudden recognition or the fallout from it. Nikkalmati I think the sudden recognition (or an inkling of it) is in the twitch and the fallout is the argument in the forest. Taking the UV was intended to help Snape get in with Draco and we do see him trying to find out the details on screen when he questions Draco. There is plenty of room in the next book for the arc of this story to be developed. . >Magpie: >snip> > Not only does no one in canon suggest that Snape killing DD can't ever be an option, several people in LV's camp state outright that it is. They don't say killing DD is *easy*--certainly it's not so easy a novice like Draco could do it. But there's nothing to indicate that LV wouldn't consider that his best man--the one who's been hoodwinking DD all these years--could give it a try. >Magpie: >Yes, she sees it as a suicide mission for Draco, and she would obviously sacrifice Snape in his place if somebody has to die trying. But everyone knowing that killing DD would be a huge challenge doesn't prove that LV couldn't ever have someone attempt it. Snape himself says he (Snape) has wanted Dumbledore alive for a reason that benefits himself. Nikkalmati Snape was only relying on DD for protection from Azkaban before LV returned. There was no reason not to kill DD after LV was back, except that LV didn't want to lose Snape in a futile attempt to destroy the greatest wizard alive. If it is a reasonable possibility for Snape to kill DD, why doesn't LV order him to do it? Nikkalmati >Magpie: >But Snape can get all of these things without taking the Vow. Snape's already an important figure in Draco's life--probably someone he would be more likely to go to for help than Narcissa at this stage of his life. Snape could also agree to Narcissa's terms without taking the Vow. He's the one with the power here. He's gotten all the information you described already. He doesn't have to put his life on the line for it after the fact. Even if he'd only sworn the first two parts he's taking quite a risk--but then there's that third Vow. Nikkalmati It isn't clear to me he can get all the details from Draco without agreeing not only to protect him but to swear to do so where Narcissa could tell Draco not to confide in Snape, if she wanted. As it turns out Bella does that, but Snape could not anticipate Bella would interfere. Nikkalmati >Magpie >That, [ Part 3} as was said elsewhere, seems to take a lot of explaining and "he didn't know what he was vowing to do" falls comically flat to me because what a silly thing to do! Nor am I comfortable with the magical explanation which says, "Once you've got the ropes you have to agree to everything a person might say" because it robs the Vow of the free will of the person making it. The Vow, to me, seems to just add a magical component to an actual Vow. Snape's hand-twitch, to me, indicates that he doesn't want to take that third Vow, but that he's covering that up. I think if he didn't know what he was vowing to do, we'd get more than that (I don't recall more, but I don't have the book with me), a pause where Snape would have to weigh whether this was a wise idea or not. There also tends to be a lot of reference to the third part of the Vow being a big surprise, but it's not a total shock. It is what Narcissa was asking him for all along. Nikkalmati Well, I assume you agree, based on what little we know about the UV, it is possible it was too late to back out. In any case, you seem to say he was surprised he was asked to kill DD, but he was able to conceal his reaction to that, but if he was asked to do some unspecified but difficult task, he should not be able to conceal his reaction? Nikkalmati >>Magpie: >>So after he lets go his golden opportunity to find out what he wants >>to know (sacrificed to his more important motivation of making sure > that Narcissa has nothing to be reported to LV for...except coming > to Snape at all and the request of Snape she's about to make), he > now thinks that if he pretends to know he can get information out of > Draco later. Why Draco later? If he pretends to know he can get > information out of Bellatrix and Narcissa *now* with the same > protection to Narcissa. > > Nikkalmati I am not sure how he could get the task out of Narcissa and Bella without exposing his own ignorance. Perhaps you could supply some sample dialogue? Nikkalmati >Magpie: >None of these stages are indicated by anyone's behavior. In fact, the scene is really written along totally different lines. Bellatrix is already deep in by following Narcissa to Snape's house, she's already in a precarious position. Snape never shows any signs of these different motivations shifting around. It's again a similar problem that I have to many of the interpretations of Draco's arc in HBP--it comes down to lots of complicated changes of DE priorities that are invisible in the text that seem to work backwards from the theory that's being proven instead of deducing from what's there. This just seems completely at odds with the way Rowling writes as I've read her. It's not that Snape can't want to protect Narcissa as much as he can in the scene. But it imo needs to fit into the whole scene smoothly, not just be incredibly important--importanbe incredibly important--important e his top priority, and then disappear a second later when it's not needed to explain any more lines. Nikkalmati It seems written in the scene there to me, particularly when he gets up and looks out the window to give himself time to think. When the ladies come in, he is not choosing protection of Narcissa above any other goal; he doesn't know yet that there is something that he needs to find out, there is nothing he can do about Bella's presence, but he can prevent Narcissa from saying something dangerous in front of Bella. BTW I have no particular opinion on the Draco/ Vanishing Cabinet issue. Nikkalmati Nikkalmati:> > Lets turn this around. If Snape knows all about Draco's task, when > Narcissa > turns up on his doorstep all upset, he would deduce why she was there at > onc> e. In that case, what possible reason does he have for telling her > to be > quiet? He can turn immediately to Bella and admonish her that Narcissa > is not > betraying a confidence. Why stop her in the first place? Magpie: That particular turnaround turned up a pretty weak flaw there. Snape's playing the part of the loyal DE throughout the scene, and shutting Narcissa up (out of loyalty) is an easy, perfectly in character thing for DE!Snape to do. It's exactly in character with the persona he has on that side. Snape is the authority figure in the scene. Admonishing Bellatrix is "siding" with Narcissa. He's not siding with her. He's establishing himself as the loyal DE here before he offers her some hope. Unlike Clueless!Snape, Clued-in!Snape doesn't lose anything by putting off the discussion for a few seconds. He gets two things out of the moment instead of one (he can remind everyone of his DE loyalty and the power of his position). It's only Clueless!Snape who throws something away by shutting Narcissa up. Nikkalmati So the only reason to tell Narcissa to be quiet is to play the bully and lord it over the two women before he reveals his overwhelming position of power - the one who is in on LV's every plan? If he really plays that part with the DEs, I doubt Narcissa would have come to him for help. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kernsac at earthlink.net Mon Jan 22 06:39:43 2007 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:39:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... References: <20070121204559.77027.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <033f01c73df0$1c01e4c0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 164042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com , "Inge" wrote: > Anyone else who's annoyed by something "not logic"? Im sure > there must be :-) Peggy now: I don't know if "annoyed" is how I feel, but there's one thing that seems very illogical to me. In COS, after all the attacks, there's all this tightened security, and no one's supposed to go anywhere without a teacher. But when Professor McGonagall sees Ron and Harry sneaking off by themselves and they give her the story that they want to see Hermione in the hospital wing, she tells them to go ahead and go and let Madam Pomfrey know they have her permission. She doesn't offer to go with them or tell them off for going alone. It just seems illogical in light of the danger and the tightened security. Peggy From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jan 22 14:14:31 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:14:31 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Anyone who has been around a while and has been reading > opinions here will find it no surprise that Carol and I > are kindred spirits, or kindred-ish spirits. We > frequently hold similar opinions based on similar > analysis. > > First, before I address the issue, let me ramble a bit. > There are two ways to approach any problem or mystery. > The first is to rationalize and the second is to be > rational. To be rational means you gather evidence and > accept whatever conclusion the evidence tells you. > Rationalize means you start with a conclusion and seek > out evidence you can interpret to support it. > > How does that apply to us? Well to some extent, here in > this group, we are all rationalizing, but we have no > choice. We are dealing with a well crafted mystery in > which the most critical and revealing information is > withheld from us. Consequently, we are all force to > strike a balance between 'rational' and rationalize'. Brothergib; I just want to say that this was one of the best couple of paragraphs I've read in a long time. As a scientist, I take a slightly different view. I often start with a conclusion (a hypothesis really), so by your argument I am 'rationalizing'. However, my aim is always to do my utmost to disprove the conclusion that I believe to be true. If you fail to disprove your initial conclusion/hypothesis, then you can trust that your initial conclusion was sound! More on this below!! bboyminn again> > Mike wants Harry to be a Horcrux, so he seeks out and > interprets available information to support that idea. > Others, don't want Harry to be a Horcrux, and so seek > out and interpret available information in a way that > supports that idea. The difference is that some of us > are stretching a little more in order to reach our > conclusions. > > I believe, and surely no one is surprised, that Carol > has stretched the least to reach her conclusions. My > first reason to support Carol is Dumbledore; directly > and tangentally, Dumbledore is the source of all > information on this matter, and he doesn't seem to > agree. Noted though, that Dumbledore is famous for > withholding information, and I'm willing to change > my preception when new information is revealed. But > give what we have, Dumbledore's apparent lack of > belief in 'Harry the Horcrux' settles it for me. Brothergib now; Firstly, let me state that I am leaning towards Harry not being a Horcrux. I therefore try to find evidence to prove otherwise. You use DD to support your theory. However, in COS, DD directly tells Harry (or at least confirms Harry's comment) that Voldemort put a piece of himself inside Harry! It is possible that the 'piece' refers to something other than a 'Horcrux. The most obvious answer, however, is that this piece refers to a piece of soul. This is further supported by the fact that JKR would have known all about Horcruxes at the time of writing COS, so would have been very aware of what the interaction between Harry & DD implied. This is also supported by the very strong link between Harry & LV. A shared piece of soul can explain this. A rebounded AK spell certainly cannot! This one piece of canon is what keeps me firmly in limbo on the subject of Horcrux Harry. Brothergib From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 22 15:10:20 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:10:20 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164044 > Nikkalmati > > Yes, I see that Snape could still be DDM if he knew the general task set for Draco at the time of the UV, but was surprised by the third provision, yet took it never intending to fulfill it. If he thought he and DD could prevent the UV being activated in some way or intended to die himself instead of DD, he could be DDM. On the other hand, I would find that Snape somewhat OOC and a little bit foolish. Pippin: Dumbledore has two alternatives if he doesn't want to let Voldemort murder him. He can die from some other cause, or he can fake his death. Naturally Dumbledore would prefer the second. Having decided to fake his death, would he enlist Snape as his supposed murderer? If Harry is done with school and Dumbledore himself is absent from Hogwarts, it hardly makes sense for Snape to be tied to his teaching post at Hogwarts when Voldemort's prime targets are elsewhere. Yet Voldemort finds it useful to have a spy at Hogwarts. Even with Dumbledore gone, Voldemort won't want Snape to quit -- but why not kill, as it were, two birds with one stone? Dumbledore will be safe from Voldemort because he's 'dead' and Snape as his 'murderer' can hardly be expected to stay at Hogwarts. I believe for these reasons that Snape and Dumbledore were already planning for a fake murder when Narcissa showed up at Snape's door. Snape may have even let Voldemort know that he would be eager for the opportunity once Draco has had his chance. In that case, turning down the third portion of the vow, or even hesitating over it, would certainly make Voldemort smell a rat, and it wouldn't be Peter Pettigrew. If Voldemort wasn't absolutely convinced that Snape hated Dumbledore and longed for a chance to kill him, Dumbledore's fake death wouldn't work. Its failure would endanger not only Dumbledore and Snape, but every other person the Order has managed to save in that fashion. I think Snape agreed to the vow in the first place because he was afraid of what Narcissa might do to try to save Draco if he didn't. She was already at the point of disobedience to the Dark Lord -- if Snape turned her down, she might have attempted to flee with Draco or worse. I think she was near suicidal, and if she killed herself, why not kill Draco too? Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 22 15:28:35 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:28:35 -0000 Subject: Creating Horcruxes (Re: Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164046 Ken: Mike, I agree with your position substantially if not in every detail but only to the extent that I believe your positions are allowed by canon. I have no strong feeling that Harry is or is not a horcrux but I have a very strong opinion that nothing in canon prevents him from being one. We do not know any details of the horcrux creation processes and I simply cannot see how Slughorn's words can be read to imply any sort of restriction on when the horcrux spell is cast. There are many examples in canon of spells cast at one time and taking effect at a later time. Cursed objects act in this way and and the spells that enable a quidditch broom to fly act in this way, to name just two. Slughorn's words do not *require* that the horcrux spell be cast in advance, they do not *disallow* it from being cast in advance either. This is very obviously a question whose answer has been reserved for the final book. Those who have guessed right will be vindicated by DH and will never be convinced that it was just a guess, but guess it is. We don't know. Everything I've seen quoted so far to answer these horcrux questions is too ambiguous to answer them and therefore I conclude that those who are *certain* of one answer or the other are injecting their personal convictions into their reading. In the end one opinion or the other will be right but no one so far has been able to demonstrate logically that their's and only their's is right. > > Mike: > > Was he intending to > make *Harry* into a Horcrux? I'll answer that with the question: Was > he intending to *kill* himself that night? Not just no, but Hell No. Ken: Maybe I've just seen too many visual allusions to Hamlet in which an actor in some movie or TV show happens upon a skull, holds it at arms length, and says "Alas poor Yorick, I knew him well." I know that is guilding the lily but that is in fact what most of them say. That image is so indelibly etched in my mind that I think is is possible, quite possible, that Voldemort intended to make Harry a horcrux that night. Not in the way that some feel he is currently a horcrux. Voldemort intended to murder the chosen one all right, he didn't want a *living* horcrux. I think he could have wanted to make the dead Harry's skull a horcrux. The skull of the one chosen to kill me is now the repository of a bit of my skull, the guarantee that I will never die. How grotesque, how arrogant, how like Voledmort! However much it appeals to my artistic sense, such as it is, it is only a possibility and one of many. I don't feel certain that Harry is a horcurx, only that he could be. > Mike: > > Why didn't the soul piece transfer into Voldie's designated object? > **I Don't Know.** Maybe the object was destroyed, maybe the *mark* on > Harry was a more powerful pull than the marked object. Ken: If Harry's skull *was* the designated object then all went as planned, didn't it? Ok, that nasty bit about Voldemort's death, that wasn't in the plan. > > Mike: > > Harry asked if Voldemort put a **bit** of himself into [me] and > Dumbledore says yes. What is your straight forward reading of what > this **bit** is, if it isn't a soul piece? Keeping in mind that Ginny > speaks Parseltongue because she has a **bit** of Tom's soul in her. > Ken: I think this is a reasonably powerful argument from canon. It is not the only reasonable reading of this passage. The most one can hope to do I feel is enumerate the possible readings, combine them, and see where they lead. In the end you don't prove anything but you might list the entire menu of the author's possible choices by this means. > Mike: > Yes, and Dumbledore confirmed that Harry had a bit of Voldemort in > him. But as to whether he should be telling Harry, in HBP, that the > bit of Voldemort is a bit of soul, ... well, you answered that > yourself when you noted Dumbledore's reluctance to release critical > information. Not only is that perfectly in character for DD, but I > can honestly see a reluctance to tell Harry that he has a guest soul > piece especially if Dumbledore doesn't know how to get it out. Now > you ask, what makes me think this of Dumbledore? > > "Is that where -?" whispered Professor McGonagall. > > "Yes," said Dumbledore. "He'll have that scar forever." > > "Couldn't you do something about it, Dumbledore?" > > "Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in handy. ..." > (PS/SS p.14, US) > > Dumbledore knows that healing spell, he used it on himself in the > cave. He also knows that Dittany will prevent scarring. So why can't > Dumbledore do anything about that cut-soon-to-be-a-scar on Harry's > forehead? Note that he starts his answer with "Even if I could,". He > is admitting, in a very subtle way and later masking it with humor, > that he can't do anything about a simple cut? But, if it is a piece > of Voldie's soul that entered Harry there, and Dumbledore doesn't > know how to safely remove that soul piece, now this short confession > make sense. This last part may seem a stretch. Of course, I'd like to > hear an alternate reason for Dumbledore's "Even if I could". > Ken: I've never read that passage that way but combined with your other examples I have to say it is plausible. Not certain, plausible. You know there is one passage in GOF that has stuck in my mind much like Yorick's skull and its impostors. In the graveyard speech Voldemort says something like "one or more of my experiments succeeded". The thing that strikes me about that passage is that a horcurx isn't an experiment. Horrifying as they are they are known to work. It is entirely possible that Voldemort does not want to reveal that he has horcruxes and so he chose this ambiguous wording to hide his methods. The Deatheaters would naturally assume that he had one, they might not suspect that he has several. Still, I can't get the possibility out of my mind that he has something else besides. Something truly new. Something that will surprise everyone. Ken From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 22 15:32:37 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:32:37 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164047 Steve: > I believe, and surely no one is surprised, that Carol > has stretched the least to reach her conclusions. My > first reason to support Carol is Dumbledore; directly > and tangentally, Dumbledore is the source of all > information on this matter, and he doesn't seem to > agree. Noted though, that Dumbledore is famous for > withholding information, and I'm willing to change > my preception when new information is revealed. But > give what we have, Dumbledore's apparent lack of > belief in 'Harry the Horcrux' settles it for me. Pippin: Dumbledore might feel obligated to tell Harry if he knew. But Dumbledore himself does not need to know, at least not soon. Think about it: unless and until all the other horcruxes can be located and destroyed, Harry's horcruxity is a moot point. If Harry himself dies in that quest (from Dumbledore's point of view not an unlikely outcome, alas), it will be a *very* moot point. There has to be a reason why Dumbledore so studiously avoids the topic of how horcruxes are detected. Perhaps he was intending to demonstrate with the locket horcrux, and perhaps if Harry had been present at the detection process, Dumbledore would have had an opportunity to test the hypothesis without ever raising the issue with Harry. If it proved false, as Dumbledore no doubt hoped, then he would have had spared Harry some needless anxiety. I think the strongest piece of evidence no one has remarked on (unless I missed it) is Harry's fringe. His hair absolutely will not lie flat -- except to conceal his scar. Horcruxes hate to draw attention to themselves. There may well be a horcrux beneath the scar. If Harry is a horcrux, I don't think it means he will die. It just means that JKR had to think of a clever and meaningful way for him to survive. Six books of evidence say she wouldn't have any trouble with that! Pippin From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Jan 22 15:19:55 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:19:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... References: <20070121204559.77027.qmail@web53112.mail.yahoo.com> <033f01c73df0$1c01e4c0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: <010f01c73e38$c5a3b740$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 164048 > Peggy now: I don't know if "annoyed" is how I feel, but there's one thing > that seems very illogical to me. In COS, after all the attacks, there's > all > this tightened security, and no one's supposed to go anywhere without a > teacher. But when Professor McGonagall sees Ron and Harry sneaking off by > themselves and they give her the story that they want to see Hermione in > the > hospital wing, she tells them to go ahead and go and let Madam Pomfrey > know > they have her permission. She doesn't offer to go with them or tell them > off for going alone. It just seems illogical in light of the danger and > the > tightened security. Shelley responds: Although this scene seems illogical on it's face, I think it's supposed to be. It shows several things. First, the utter bewilderment on the part of the boys that they got away with it. They KNOW it shouldn't have happened. And secondly, the humanity of McGonagall. She didn't just give them permission willy-nilly, in defiance of the rules; rather, it was a touching sentimental moment where she was emotional for once, identifying with their loss and how they must feel. It showed the stress that she was feeling, proving to all the readers that McGonagall, for all her strictness, was really a kind and thoughtful woman, able to identify with the emotions and feelings of the students. JKR is trying not to show her as just this strict bitch; rather, she's the kind of teacher you have to admire. So, I don't think this scene is there by accident, but rather purposely added to show the inner character of McGonagall. The illogicalness is put there on purpose to illustrate a point Rowling wanted us to see: McGonagall has an emotional soft side. As usual, Rowling is prepping us for later: 1) The theme of friends needing to socialize and the emotional part of being separated: this shows up again with Harry and Sirius, and plays a role in Sirius's death. 2) Later, we would see McGonagall shamelessly attacked by wizards while Umbridge is in control of the school. We are supposed to feel more tenderness and outrage at this scene because we know that McGonagall is a kind soul that didn't deserve that. We would have had less sympathy for another teacher like Professor Binns, or Professor Sprout, but we feel it more for McGonagall because we've seen this soft, caring side of her. Thus, I don't think this scene is illogical at all in the grand scheme of the themes of this series- it fits right in with Rowling's style of giving us clues and hints, of presenting information that we need later. Shelley From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Jan 22 16:03:11 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:03:11 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: <29290995.1169481791805.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 164049 Pippin: >Dumbledore has two alternatives if he doesn't want to let Voldemort >murder him. He can die from some other cause, or he can fake his death. >Naturally Dumbledore would prefer the second. Having decided to >fake his death, would he enlist Snape as his supposed murderer? Bart: I believe that this has been pointed out before, but here it is anyway: IF (as many here believe), Dumbledore was dying from whatever was caused his arm to mostly die, and (as many here also believe) it is Snape's magic that is keeping him alive, then I can see at least a couple of ways out of the UV without having to resort to additional magic: 1) It would not be out of line to assume that Snape worked with Dumbledore to destroy the ring Horcrux. If so, then he can be considered, although there was certainly no intent and almost certainly no carelessness, that Snape had a hand in killing Dumbledore. It would be a fair assumption that there is no harm for taking an UV to do something that one has already done. 2) Eventually, Snape would have to lift the life support. Therefore, if nobody else kills Dumbledore, Snape will. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 22 16:12:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:12:59 -0000 Subject: the best played game of chess In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164050 > bboyminn: > > So, why would Dumbledore have a 'back door', a point on > which I very much agree, and not let the other teachers > protecting the Stone use it? Do, you think Dumbledore > made Quirrel fight his way through all the previous > challenges, just so he could place his Troll after the > chess challenge? I don't think so. > > > More likely each teacher who set up a challenge also > set up a 'by pass'. Individual teachers shared their > personal 'backdoor' with Dumbledore, and he in turn > shared them with the next person to set up the next > sbusequent challenge. > Pippin: Um, I'm sure you thought of this by now, but there's no need for the constructors of the puzzle to play through the previous challenges. Just set them up in reverse order! Snape's challenge first, then Quirrell's, etc, finishing with Hagrid and Fluffy. The only person who needs a 'backdoor' is Dumbledore, who uses it to place the mirror, and later to rescue Harry. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jan 22 17:11:07 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:11:07 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164051 > >Magpie: > > I>n this scenario you're describing the biggest moment in Snape's arc in HBP > goes nowhere. It doesn't fit anything strategic, since it doesn't help Snape > find out what the task is (and the only place he actively tries to find out > what the task is in some other way is off-screen), nor does it help him get > in with Draco (with whom he should already be in), and it doesn't fit in > emotionally, because JKR hasn't written anything pointing to that sudden > recognition or the fallout from it. > > Nikkalmati > > I think the sudden recognition (or an inkling of it) is in the twitch and > the fallout is the argument in the forest. Magpie: But surely the twitch would only be a recognition that he's going to be asked to do this deed, whatever it is. It doesn't give him any more information on what the deed is. The twitch sounds to me more like he's steeling himself already not to pull away. The scene in the forest months later is the fallout to his taking the Vow no matter what the circumstances were. He's not indicating that this was a mistake, that he wouldn't have made the Vow if he'd known what he was Vowing to. In that scene Snape's complaining about Dumbledore Nikkalmati: Taking the UV was intended to help > Snape get in with Draco and we do see him trying to find out the details on > screen when he questions Draco. There is plenty of room in the next book for > the arc of this story to be developed. Magpie: I'm not sure what you mean is going to be developed. The part of the story that was about Snape trying to find out what Draco was up to is over, and the UV didn't help that at all. In fact, that seems counterintuitive. If Snape is trying to find out what Draco is up to in order to stop it, as presumably he is in this scenario, he needs a very good reason to take that Vow--because how do you stop something from happening by agreeing to do it yourself? Snape could, of course, have no intention of actually doing the deed and be planning to die himself if he and DD can't think of another way out to whatever this is. But that doesn't make the Vow any more necessary for trying to get in with Draco. If the Vow is really supposed to be a way of getting in with Draco, I think it has to be set up that way logically beforehand. Spies, for instance, have been known to do bad things to prove themselves to the other side. But that doesn't work in this case, because the person Snape is trying to get in with is a boy we readers have seen him tight with for 5 years. We can't know yet that Draco's even being difficult about this, so it becomes like saying that Ron took a UV because he hoped that way Harry might consider him a friend. > >Magpie: > >snip> > > > Not only does no one in canon suggest that Snape killing > DD can't ever be an option, several people in LV's camp state outright that > it is. They don't say killing DD is *easy*--certainly it's not so easy a > novice like Draco could do it. But there's nothing to indicate that LV > wouldn't consider that his best man--the one who's been hoodwinking DD all > these years--could give it a try. > > > >Magpie: > >Yes, she sees it as a suicide mission for Draco, and she would obviously > sacrifice Snape in his place if somebody has to die trying. But everyone > knowing that killing DD would be a huge challenge doesn't prove that LV > couldn't ever have someone attempt it. Snape himself says he (Snape) has > wanted Dumbledore alive for a reason that benefits himself. > Nikkalmati > > Snape was only relying on DD for protection from Azkaban before LV returned. > There was no reason not to kill DD after LV was back, except that LV didn't > want to lose Snape in a futile attempt to destroy the greatest wizard alive. > If it is a reasonable possibility for Snape to kill DD, why doesn't LV > order him to do it? Magpie: That's a different question that I was answering. I brought up Snape's reasons for not killing Dumbledore earlier to argue against the proposition that everyone on the DE side considers Snape killing Dumbledore an impossibility because Dumbledore's invincible. Originally you said that Snape claimed he couldn't kill Harry because Dumbledore stood in his way, as if he was referring to Dumbledore made it impossible. That's why I brought up Snape's actual reason for not killing Dumbledore--he doesn't ever talk about Dumbledore as being invincible, just very powerful and in the past convenient to Snape alive. I can't explain why Voldemort hasn't done anything--that's proving a negative. You claim that the only reason for LV not to have ordered Snape to kill Dumbledore is that he doesn't want to lose Snape's life to an impossible task. But Snape himself gives a different answer. When he says that he thinks LV (if we assume that "he" is LV- -and certainly that's what he intends "he" to refer to to Narcissa and Bellatrix) expects him (Snape) to do it (Draco's task, which is to kill Dumbledore) he does not say anything about his own death. Snape says that in the unlikely event that Draco succeeds Snape can stay a useful spy at Hogwarts a little longer. Snape's just talked of Draco succeeding as an "unlikely" event--not an impossibility. If he's talking about Draco succeeding, however unlikely that would be, he's hardly talking about killing Dumbledore as impossible. And he's given a different reason for his own not killing Dumbledore--if he's the one to do it, he proably won't be able to stay on as a spy (which Voldemort would want him to do even if Dumbledore is dead, according to what Bellatrix and Narcissa are hearing here, and they don't disagree with it). So that's the reason Snape gives for LV not ordering him to kill Dumbledore. The premise that LV can not ever consider Snape killing Dumbledore is an assumption you are building your theory on, but it doesn't come from canon and no one in canon seems to agree with it. > Nikkalmati > > It isn't clear to me he can get all the details from Draco without agreeing > not only to protect him but to swear to do so where Narcissa could tell Draco > not to confide in Snape, if she wanted. As it turns out Bella does that, > but Snape could not anticipate Bella would interfere. Magpie: First, Snape can agree to help Draco and protect him without taking the Vow--and particularly without taking the Vow to do the deed instead of Draco if it seems he will fail. That's what Narcissa really wants him to do throughout the scene. That's why the stakes have to be really high--because it's a suicide pact. Second, if Narcissa is supposed to have this much of a hold over Draco, and Snape is supposed to have so little influence, we'd need, imo, to have seen that before, but we haven't. There's no indication Draco is so under his mother's control that she needs to tell him to confide in Snape (and of course the book goes on to show Narcissa has no such power, because Draco doesn't do what she says). Narcissa comes to Snape partially--she says--because she knows about the relationship Snape and Draco already have. The need to get Narcissa to tell Draco to confide in him, and the need for him to take the Vow to do that, just doesn't seem presented in the text at all. Even when Snape is arguing with Draco the Vow isn't his main leverage. It just seems made up to give Snape some pressing need to take the Vow. Bella does seem to tell Draco to not confide in Snape, but I think the story makes clear this only works because it goes along with Draco's own feelings on the matter. It's not like he wants to confide in Snape but doesn't because Bellatrix orders him not to. Draco ultimately can't confide in anybody. > Nikkalmati > > Well, I assume you agree, based on what little we know about the UV, it is > possible it was too late to back out. Magpie: It's certainly possible once you start the Vow you can't back out, but it seems very hard to believe to me. Not only does that undercut the metaphor of a Vow, which is supposed to be something one makes oneself, not something one is ordered to do, there's no indication of that in the scene. Seems to me the way it's written everyone is waiting on Snape to decide whether he'll do it or not: "There was a moment's silence. Bellarix watched, her wand upon their clasped hands, her eyes wide. 'I will,' said Snape. Bellatrix's astounded face glowed red in the blaze of a third tongue of flame, which shot from the wand, twisted with the others and bound itself thickly around their clasped hands, like a rope, like a fiery snake." The rope that binds Snape to do the deed doesn't exist until he agrees to the Vow, Bellatrix looks astounded that he agrees to it, and the ropes already there don't get threatening during the moment of silence. > Nikkalmati > In any case, you seem to say he was surprised he was asked to kill DD, but > he was able to conceal his reaction to that, but if he was asked to do some > unspecified but difficult task, he should not be able to conceal his reaction? Magpie: I think I was saying that I didn't think he was surprised he was asked to do the task, that he was prepared for it, and that's why he was able to stop himself from showing that his instinct was to pull away, reducing it to just a twitch. Thinking honestly about how different that would be if he didn't know the task, I suppose if the third Vow wasn't a surprise to him and he'd already decided to agree to it even without knowing what the task was, it wouldn't play much differently. > > >>Magpie: > >>So after he lets go his golden opportunity to find out what he wants > >>to know (sacrificed to his more important motivation of making sure > > that Narcissa has nothing to be reported to LV for...except coming > > to Snape at all and the request of Snape she's about to make), he > > now thinks that if he pretends to know he can get information out of > > Draco later. Why Draco later? If he pretends to know he can get > > information out of Bellatrix and Narcissa *now* with the same > > protection to Narcissa. > > > > > Nikkalmati > I am not sure how he could get the task out of Narcissa and Bella without > exposing his own ignorance. Perhaps you could supply some sample dialogue? Magpie: There are three people in the room discussing an important task the son of one of them has been given. One of those people doesn't actually know what the task is. If he lets the women talk, wouldn't they naturally start revealing information? For instance: Snape: As it happens, I know the task. Does Draco even have any ideas of how to go about it? Narcissa: He doesn't see how hard it will be. He's never killed anyone before. How is he supposed to kill someone so powerful? He thinks he can just slip something into Dumbledore's food at dinner. Or perhaps: Snape: I'd be glad to help Draco. What do you propose I do? Narcissa: You know Dumbledore better than anyone. You know his weaknesses. etc. It seems hard to have a conversation about an upcoming task without referencing the main points here: Dumbledore and kill. When I read the scene the first time, I couldn't think of anything else it would be. You yourself say that it takes Dumbledore and Snape little time to figure it out from the information they've already got. > Nikkalmati > It seems written in the scene there to me, particularly when he gets up and > looks out the window to give himself time to think. When the ladies come in, > he is not choosing protection of Narcissa above any other goal; he doesn't > know yet that there is something that he needs to find out, there is nothing > he can do about Bella's presence, but he can prevent Narcissa from saying > something dangerous in front of Bella. BTW I have no particular opinion on the > Draco/ Vanishing Cabinet issue. Magpie: The moment at the window is certainly a moment where he could be making whatever plan he's making, but don't you think there needs to be signs of his getting the information that there's something really important afoot and its being a nasty surprise for him (or does he think it's just a small thing he can take care of?), signs that he's completely talking blind here? Because as I said, it seems like Snape often takes the lead here--can he really be sure that this is a task that would assure Draco being honored above the rest? It would also help if there were a sign that he's actually worried about Bellatrix's presence in the scene for Narcissa's sake. And doesn't that last moment where Bellatrix is so shocked that Snape just agreed to kill Dumbledore become nothing for Snape? Bellatrix is thinking, "I can't believe he just agreed to kill Dumbledore." Narcissa is thinking, "I've saved my son by getting Snape to promise to kill Dumbledore." Snape's thinking, "I wonder what I just dramatically promised to do? Whatever it is, it's probably evil and I might be dead by the end of the year. Oh well." The man just made a suicide pact because he thought it might make the kid who's fanboyed him for 5 years maybe a little more likely to open up to him. I admit it pains me you have no opinion on the Vanishing Cabinet issue. It would probably pain me more if you held the opposite opinion of me, but it's still to me like somebody saying, "I have no opinion on the issue of whether it was Peter or Sirius who was the Secret Keeper. Canon and fan theory is totally equal. > Magpie: > That particular turnaround turned up a pretty weak flaw there. Snape's > playing the part of the loyal DE throughout the scene, and shutting Narcissa > up (out of loyalty) is an easy, perfectly in character thing for DE!Snape to > do. It's exactly in character with the persona he has on that side. Snape is > the authority figure in the scene. Admonishing Bellatrix is "siding" with > Narcissa. He's not siding with her. He's establishing himself as the loyal > DE here before he offers her some hope. > > Unlike Clueless!Snape, Clued-in!Snape doesn't lose anything by putting off > the discussion for a few seconds. He gets two things out of the moment > instead of one (he can remind everyone of his DE loyalty and the power of > his position). It's only Clueless!Snape who throws something away by > shutting Narcissa up. > > Nikkalmati > > So the only reason to tell Narcissa to be quiet is to play the bully and > lord it over the two women before he reveals his overwhelming position of power > - the one who is in on LV's every plan? If he really plays that part with > the DEs, I doubt Narcissa would have come to him for help. Magpie: Why does he need more of a reason (though he could certainly be making things a little better for Narcissa by doing it too)? He's lording it over Bella openly to bother her throughout the scene- -it's hard to miss. Playing this role is what keeps Snape alive-- here you seem to be suggesting he must be letting the mask slip to Narcissa. Why would you doubt Narcissa would come to him for help if he played his part with the DEs? She isn't put off by someone being a DE--mostly everyone she knows is. Being a loyal DE doesn't mean Snape can't still be someone she considers an ally, someone who might help her because he cares about Lucius and Draco. Narcissa knows that coming to Snape is a risk, a risk she's taking because she's desperate. She hopes he will help her because he cares about Lucius and Draco. All three of them still feel they all have to make gestures of honor to the Dark Lord. Seems to me that's a big theme of this story, that you've got these DEs who have better feelings and are having to work around their allegience because of them. The three of them are stuck in this life they've chosen--gestures of loyalty are probably regular occurrences. The moment of Snape shutting Narcissa up isn't that important in this scenario--it fits nicely in with his long explanations of his DE activities. It's important in the scenario where Snape is bluffing, trying to find out what's going on, because it goes directly against his goal. Even if I accept that Snape wants to keep Bella from thinking Narcissa just blabbed the plan to Snape he doesn't have to cut her off there. He fixes that in the next moment by saying he already knew and, as you said, Bellatrix isn't going to challenge LV on that. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 17:28:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:28:22 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore know he was going to die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jennabell74" wrote: > > This is my first time posting. I must admit I am not always on top of > the messages so please bear with me if this has already been discussed. > I just finished rereading HBP for the 17th time. I am a firm believer > that DD knew he was going to die. I think it is very significant that > throughout the journey to the cave, the drinking of the potion and the > time spent at the top of the astronomy tower, that Fawkes wasn't there > at all. Any time DD has need of him or he is in danger Fawkes is always > there...... > > jennabell > Carol responds: You're not alone in this view and it has been previously discussed. Many of us think that Dumbledore's behavior throughout HBP--informing the Dursleys that Harry needed to call 4 Privet Drive home for one more year, teaching Harry about the Horcruxes, hiring Snape as DADA teacher, and his general, uncharacteristic air of impatience all indicate that he knew he was going to die. Certainly, he knows that he would have died from the ring Horcrux curse if it weren't for Snape, and drinking a potion that won't kill the drinker right away (he doesn't say that it isn't deadly) seems like a desperate act unless he's already dying and knows it. Many posters believe that Snape "stoppered" Dumbledore's death to save him from the ring Horcrux and "unstoppered" his death nonverbally (under cover of a verbal Avada Kedavra) on the tower. At any rate, Dumbledore certainly knew that he would die on the tower--if not from Snape or Draco then from the poison or the DEs. I think he knew much earlier, maybe even from the time he defeated Voldemort in battle at the MoM, that he was doomed to die in the near future. He certainly seems to be preparing for his own death throughout the book. Carol, recommending a search for posts on this topic but not sure which search terms to recommend From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 22 17:51:51 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:51:51 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH & theory about Dumbledore's Watch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164053 > Carol, agreeing that the two watches are intriguing but not that > Time Travel was required to obtain the memories from Hokey, Morfin, > Ogden,or Burke Ken: > I would go a little farther though. I would say that the just-in- > time, lucky-to-have-got-them-at-all circumstances behind some of > those memories would argue that DD was not time traveling. If you > are time traveling why wait until the very last moment to get the > memory? Why not go back to the *best* possible moment (whenever you > figure that is) to get the memories? Jen: I read all the important memories again and agree now that time travel didn't have to be involved. My thoughts on when Dumbledore started investigating Riddle's history differ from yours though Carol, that portion is at the end of this post. First I have a theory about the watches, one that could tie up some loose ends and *might* explain more about the events of GH (although I can't reconcile two issues with the information we have so far). The MOM couldn't trace Dumbledore's comings and goings in HBP and Dumbledore mentioned jinxing Dawlish as a way to evade MOM interference. But Scrimgeour was head of the Auror office and was said to be clever, so there must have been other ways he attempted to locate Dumbledore besides a tail who kept getting jinxed out of action. Then I remembered Dumbledore's comment in PS, 'I don't need a cloak to become invisible.' Given the symbols on the two watches, the planets on Dumbledore's and the stars and odd symbols on Ron's, do the watches alter not time, but space and matter? If so, I wondered what the restrictions would be for such an event and decided the person might specify a certain amount of time in which their physical matter would dissolve, leaving them able to observe events but not act. I think this works for the Mirror of Erised scenes when Dumbledore was observing Harry and Ron, because on the night he actually spoke to Harry, he said: 'Strange how nearsighted being invisible can make you' indicating he was actually in the room on that particular night and Harry did pass by him unnoticed. I took this a little further to speculate about GH and wondered if Dumbledore could have been there but couldn't act. That might explain the cave scene, he was reliving the awful memory of GH: 'Make it stop....it's all my fault...don't hurt them, hurt me instead'. This even works with the Secret Keeper and why Dumbledore didn't attempt to help Sirius after Azkaban if he was told the location before the switch, proving to him that Sirius was the SK and the traitor. Plus JKR hasn't closed the door on the idea *someone* else was at GH that night, people have speculated Peter or Snape but it could have been an invisible DD who couldn't act and therefore has the painful memory of the events for Harry to see in the Pensieve. There are two pieces I can't reconcile though: 1) How did Dumbledore miss seeing Voldemort's wand? That's the most useful reason for saying Peter was the other person at GH that night. Sure Peter could have come later and scooped up the wand, but how could DD have missed this? I'm not a Manipulative!DD fan and therefore don't think he would see the wand, keep it himself and then arrange for its return *just* so the brother wand effect might happen at some point. That's way too risky, especially since at the time of GOF there was no certainty Voldemort would get his body back. Maybe if he were fully functional *maybe* Dumbledore would see the brother wand as less of a risk than a new wand, but I don't see this working for the story as written. 2) Why he didn't scoop up Harry himself once his physical body reappeared? If he ordered Hagrid to the scene then he was able to take action and could have taken care of Harry himself. Even if he wanted to investigate what happened to Voldemort, he would still have waited until Hagrid arrived. Hagrid said he was the one to resuce Harry himself, take him from the ruins, so Dumbledore was not there when he arrived. There are ways around this one--Hagrid was exaggerating, Hagrid didn't see DD b/c he was invisible again--but nothing I can come up with that's entirely plausible. (The part about Sirius being involved is easy to get around by saying DD disapparated before Sirius arrived.) All of the GH theory is speculation, but I do like the idea of the watches altering space and matter. The Trio has outgrown the Invisibility Cloak and while it's useful for wandering around the castle, the fact that you can hear and see a person under the cloak is a big detriment for stealthy detective work as we saw in HBP with Harry and Draco. **Back to Dumbledore's memories now** > Carol responds: > I don't see the oddity. Even if he didn't yet suspect Horcruxes, he > certainly suspected that Tom Riddle had killed his own parents and > framed his uncle, just as he knew that the Muggle, Frank Bryce, > suspected by the Muggle police (but fortunately not arrested) was > innocent. ("I read the Muggle papers, you see.") > As for Hokey, DD would again have suspected that Tom Riddle was > responsible. Jen: While reading the memories again it occurred to me Dumbledore probably didn't investigate the murder of Riddle's dad and grandparents until after the Hepzibah Smith murder at the earliest. He tells Harry this: "What I know, I found out after he left Hogwarts, after much painstaking effort, after tracing those few who could be tricked into speaking, after seaching old records and questioning Muggle and wizard winesses alike." ('A Sluggish Memory', p. 339 Bloomsbury) DD also went through a list of reasons why he believed Voldemort wanted the DADA position at 18 and then told Harry, 'I had advised Armando against the appointment--I did not give the reasons I have given you, for Professor Dippet was very fond of Voldemort and convinced of his honesty--but I did not want Lord Voldemort back at this school, and especially not in a position of power.' ('Lord Voldemort's Request, p. 404, Bloomsbury). At no point does he suggest that suspected murder was one of the reasons for advising against the appointment, though. Jen From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 18:24:23 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:24:23 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter (was) a Horcrux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701221024y3675f638j90697346556da161@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164054 Harry Potter was a Horcrux. Do you remember the 4th book/movie. Voldemort needed Harry's blood. Maybe the blood was the Horcrux. In the 2nd book/movie when Harry stabbed the diary, blood came out of the diary. Go To http://harry-potter-harry-potter-swicki.eurekster.com to find Harry Potter websites. (It is a Harry Potter Search Engine) hpcentaur ===================================== Jeremiah: I think I'm concfused on what you're saying about Blood and a Horcrux here. Harry's blood is imbued with his mother's love (aka: Harry's protection? though I'm sure there were many more, but this is the important one in this conversation)? His blood was needed by LV so LV could destroy Harry, otherwise LV could not touch Harry. (I guess you can't kill someone if you can't touch them even by magic). The Horcrux was the Diary and the portion of LV's soul inside the Diary was LV's alone. Nothing of Harry Potter existed inside the Diary due to the simple fact that when the Horcrux was created Harry's parents hadn't even met and weren't even born. (If Lily and James were in their 30's when LV killed them that would make them have birthdates around 10 years after the Diary was transformed into a Horcrux? yeah, I just geeked-out). I'm not sure, but I think the blood on Harry down in the Chamber is from the Basilisk. I think I remember the Diary just had black gooey stuff coming out... ink... but that could still be a type of "blood" for the Diary. I think the two things you mentioned are related but only because the idea of blood can be gross and/or shocking to many people. The loss of ink from the Horcrux-Diary should not require gaining blood for LV fifty years after he created that Horcrux. Harry's blood was necessary (as I stated above) so LVwould be able to kill Harry. LV was not looking for one of his Horcruxes in Harry's blood (not just because I don't think Harry is a Horcrux but because I think the plot distinctly shows that his mother's blood saved him, he resides in Petunia's house where his mother's blood dwells and Harry and Petunia are the only 2 with Lilly's blood line as an immediate next-of-kin. Dudley comes after that and may the gods help us if Harry has to rely on Dudley for help in that department). Maybe I'm missing the point of your question, but that's where I think things stand when it comes to Harry's blood and LV's Horcruxes. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 18:41:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:41:40 -0000 Subject: Creating Horcruxes (Re: Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164055 Mike wrote: Mike wrote: > Therefore, my straight forward reading is that when a soul piece is *ripped* from the main piece it escapes, it goes away, there is nothing to hold it in proximity to it's former self. If a spell hasn't been cast before the *ripping* occured, it's too late after. Carol responds: We don't know whether the soul bit(s) from Lily's murder (and any other murders that weren't used for Horcruxes) didn't remain with the main soul that was all that remained of Voldemort. They may have done so. There's no canon at all on that subject, so there's nothing to do a straightforward reading of. If, however, they did split away from the main soul, there was nothing to anchor them to earth, unlike the main soul, which is anchored to earth by the Horcruxes. The Horcruxes wouldn't anchor the loose soul bits, or it would be impossible to release soul bits from a Horcrux and de-Hocruxify it. Where would the loose soul bits go? Surely they wouldn't float around in the air seeking a person to possess, or they'd have gone into Harry and *possessed* him. And yet we know from OoP that he isn't possessed (except briefly and futilely in the MoM). We also haven't heard of anyone being possessed by a stray soul bit (the bit that possessed Ginny isn't stray). The logical place for a loose soul bit to go, whether its released from the main soul at GH or released from a Horcrux, is beyond the Veil, the eternal home of the soul as far as I can determine from the books. If a preparatory spell were required, it would have been performed on an object, not on Harry. The idea was to kill him, thwart the Prophecy, and use his death to create a last Horcrux, not make him into a Horcrux. (Had Voldemort cast any such spell on Harry, he would know it, and the last thing he'd want to do is kill his own Horcrux.) Your preparatory spell and Harry as accidental Horcrux just don't go together. Mike: I think a soul piece, once seperated from the whole, will depart the scene and attempt to cross over. Once that has happened, it's too late, time and space matter in magic, remember? Carol: Funny. That's what I think, too. Voldemort wasn't planning to be vaporized and release any soul bits. He was planning to stay alive and use the soul bit from Harry's murder, his most recent and therefore most easily accessible, to make his last Horcrux. But he was thwarted in that and much else by the deflected AK. (I don't see what time and space mattering in magic has to do with it. You kill a person, you split your soul. The soul bit remains with you until you have a proper receptacle, preferably something durable and powerfully magical, at which time you encase the soul bit. Time has nothing to do with it because the soul is eternal, and space isn't a problem because you have the object in sight when you cast the encasement spell.) > Mike: > Straight forward reading of how to make a Horcrux: You bring an > object with you to encase your soul piece, enchant yourself and the > object, then commit the murder which rips your soul. No "saving the > ripped soul piece" for later encasement. How does that jibe with a > straight forward reading? Where in Slughorn's limited explanation > does one interpret the ability to create a Horcrux at some time in > the future? > So at GH, Voldemort killed Lily and thereby activated the *love > protection*. He then brings out his valuable object (whatever he was > intending to use as a Horcrux) and performs the Horcrux creation > spell, designating himself as the soul piece donor and marking the > object as the soul piece recepticle. Carol: You keep calling your reading straightforward, but you're actually just assuming, based on your theory of Horcrux creation. Once again, there is no canonical reference to a preparatory spell. Mike: When his AK rebounds off of Harry and *murders* his own self, his soul is split. (He wasn't in combat, he had no defense against his own AK). Carol: I think that murder requires intention. Also, Voldie didn't die. I can see a stray soul piece from Lily's death, but not from his own. However, I've already stated that I think the stray soul piece(s) will have gone beyond the Veil or wherever the souls of the evil dead go in the Potterverse. Mike: Was he intending to make *Harry* into a Horcrux? I'll answer that with the question: Was he intending to *kill* himself that night? Not just no, but Hell No. Carol: If you substitute "vaporize himself" for "kill himself," I agree with you here 100 percent. Mike: > Why didn't the soul piece transfer into Voldie's designated object? > **I Don't Know.** Maybe the object was destroyed, maybe the *mark* on Harry was a more powerful pull than the marked object. Carol responds: Or maybe there was no such object. BTW, Dumbledore thinks that Voldemort made Nagini into a Horcrux with the murder of Frank Bryce. Had Voldemort already prepared her, expecting to kill Frank? Highly unlikely. Or had he prepared her expecting to use Harry's death and used Frank's instead? Why not wait until his body is restored, then prepare Nagini, then kill Harry? Surely, even LV isn't that illogical. Or maybe there's no preparatory spell. Carol, who thinks that Voldemort intended to obtain the Sword of Gryffindor to make it into his last Horcrux *after* killing Harry, Neville, and Dumbledore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 19:48:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:48:16 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164056 Carol earlier: I disagree that DDM!Snape is only possible if Snape didn't know what he was agreeing to do. Trapped!Snape, caught in the fiery ropes of the unanticipated third provision, is another possibility, especially if the DADA curse fell into place at just that moment (Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position on what appears to be the same night would make Snape the DADA teacher, whether he knew it or not). But even if he could somehow have escaped from Bella (standing over him with a wand as he knelt at her feet), Narcissa (desperate enough by her own admission to do anything to protect her son), and the vow itself (his wand hand was bound in ropes of fire), and refusal to take the third provision could have been interpreted as breaking the vow), he still could have chosen to agree to that last provision as a calculated risk, accepting the huge danger to himself and hoping to prevent the danger to either Draco or Dumbledore. > Nikkalmati responded: > > Yes, I see that Snape could still be DDM if he knew the general task set for Draco at the time of the UV, but was surprised by the third provision, yet took it never intending to fulfill it. If he thought he and DD could prevent the UV being activated in some way or intended to die himself instead of DD, he could be DDM. On the other hand, I would find that Snape somewhat OOC and a little bit foolish. I also find it insufficient for him to take the UV to impress Bella with his loyalty to LV or to please Narcissa. Carol responds: I agree that he didn't accept the third provision to impress Bella or please Narcissa, but I think the danger they posed to him may have been one factor in his decision. I'm quite sure that he took the UV, including the third provision, primarily to protect Draco. But I don't see how it's foolish to hope that he can get out of the unanticipated third provision--certainly less foolish (IMO) than agreeing to do an unknown yet obviously dangerous and probably evil deed for Draco just to find out what that deed was! I lean toward his being trapped already by the ropes of fire around his wrists. In that position, he would weigh the risks of refusing the third provision (Would it kill him to refuse? Would he remain bound to Narcissa by ropes of fire until he agreed to the third provision? Could he pull away and reach for his own wand if Bellatrix tried to hex him, using his left hand since his wand hand was bound by ropes of fire? Even if he could safely refuse, could he risk revealing his loyalty to DD by refusing to take it? What excuse could he possibly make without sabotaging what he had already accomplished?) against the advantages of agreeing (staying alive, retaining Narcissa's trust, allaying Bellatrix's suspicions, protecting Draco--at the cost of his own life if need be). He would know that Dumbledore, if anyone, could avoid being placed in a situation where Snape would be forced to choose between dying or killing him (or one where Draco would be endangered for failing to complete his mission). Dumbledore, after all, was powerful and wise. If anyone could help Snape out of this predicament, it was Dumbledore. All they had to do was to avoid a situation that would trigger the UV, and at all costs, keep Draco away from Dumbledore. The wording, after all, was not absolute. There's an escape clause: "If it appears that Draco will be unable to do the deed." All they have to do is make sure that set of circumstances never happens. It was a calculated risk, like many such risks that Snape had taken before. Unfortunately, this one didn't work out as he hoped because of the DADA curse, which doomed him to exposure as a DE from the beginning. Or that's how I read it. But at least he and DD succeeded in their primary objective--preventing Draco from becoming a killer or being killed. Carol, noting that DDM!Snape would never have agreed to the UV if Narcissa hadn't withheld the third provision from her request From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 22 20:14:57 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:14:57 -0000 Subject: It was ink (Re: Harry Potter was a Horcrux) In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701221024y3675f638j90697346556da161@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jeremiah LaFleur" wrote: > Jeremiah: > I'm not sure, but I think the blood on Harry down in the Chamber is from the > Basilisk. I think I remember the Diary just had black gooey stuff coming > out... ink... but that could still be a type of "blood" for the Diary. Geoff: In message 164027, which I posted yesterday, I quoted all the relevant canon to show that what came out of the diary was simply ink. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 21:16:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:16:06 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: <033f01c73df0$1c01e4c0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164058 Peggy wrote: > I don't know if "annoyed" is how I feel, but there's one thing that seems very illogical to me. In COS, after all the attacks, there's all this tightened security, and no one's supposed to go anywhere without a teacher. But when Professor McGonagall sees Ron and Harry sneaking off by themselves and they give her the story that they want to see Hermione in the hospital wing, she tells them to go ahead and go and let Madam Pomfrey know they have her permission. She doesn't offer to go with them or tell them off for going alone. It just seems illogical in light of the danger and the tightened security. Carol responds: What about the mixed classes like Potions and Herbology? Is Professor Sprout supposed to escort the Hufflepuffs or the Gryffindors? That's the only class they have together, so they'd have to be going different directions. And, IIRC, there's a scene in which Snape escorts the Gryffindors. What happened to the Slytherins? Did he leave them on their own? Carol, who tries to "compartmentalize" the logical part of her brain and not let such moments annoy her From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 21:15:34 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:15:34 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater who assists suicide?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164059 Nikkalmati: > Are you saying the potion in the cave was poisonous and DD drank it because > he knew he was already dying, so that if it actually was the potion that > killed him, it was not Harry's fault? I would find it hard to believe DD would > take poison just to procure a Horcrux when there were so many others yet to be > found and even less would he make Harry feed him poison - - - unless he > thought for sure that Snape could save him. zgirnius: Ah, but then there is the Vow. Perhaps Dumbledore was confident that Snape could save him, in the sense that he had the skills and know- how to provide an antidote if Dumbledore got himself to Snape before the potion finished him off. This could be why Dumbledore's first thoughts upon returning to Hogsemade were to get Snape. However, the Dark Mark over the castle took precedence in Dubledore's mind over his own health and well-being, because it meant that his students might be in danger. And when Snape finally showed up, he literally could not save Dumbledore: the third clause of the Vow was in play, and an attempt by Snape to save Dumbledore rather than kill him would have caused Snape's own death by the Vow. (I presume saving Dumbledore is not something Snape could do in an instant). From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 21:24:00 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:24:00 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] It was ink (Re: Harry Potter was a Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470701221024y3675f638j90697346556da161@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470701221324x1ccb4574g47ec84c55e53895e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164060 > Jeremiah: > I'm not sure, but I think the blood on Harry down in the Chamber is from the > Basilisk. I think I remember the Diary just had black gooey stuff coming > out... ink... but that could still be a type of "blood" for the Diary. Geoff: In message 164027, which I posted yesterday, I quoted all the relevant canon to show that what came out of the diary was simply ink. ================ jeremiah: Thank you Geoff. then we are in agreement. There is no reason to assume that LV is going "Blood for Blood" in his quest to destroy Harry. Blood taken from Harry at the gravesite during GoF has nothing to do with Horcruxes as far as we know at this time. And further more, it has nothing to do with the Diary. However, I was speculating that if a Diary (any diary, for that matter... and, I know, I wasn't being specific) had a substance that gave it life (other than just a soul in it, like Tom Riddle's) then ink would be the blood/life-force. Also, I would never assume that someone's post will ever *fully and completely* clarify something for me unless it was JKR herself. But thanks for the Heads up on your earlier post. I'll look it up. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 21:47:46 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:47:46 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: References: <033f01c73df0$1c01e4c0$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> Message-ID: <948bbb470701221347id7c00fbh8059f4cb193681f4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164061 Peggy wrote: > I don't know if "annoyed" is how I feel, but there's one thing that seems very illogical to me. In COS, after all the attacks, there's all this tightened security, and no one's supposed to go anywhere without a teacher. But when Professor McGonagall sees Ron and Harry sneaking off by themselves and they give her the story that they want to see Hermione in the hospital wing, she tells them to go ahead and go and let Madam Pomfrey know they have her permission. She doesn't offer to go with them or tell them off for going alone. It just seems illogical in light of the danger and the tightened security. Carol responds: What about the mixed classes like Potions and Herbology? Is Professor Sprout supposed to escort the Hufflepuffs or the Gryffindors? That's the only class they have together, so they'd have to be going different directions. And, IIRC, there's a scene in which Snape escorts the Gryffindors. What happened to the Slytherins? Did he leave them on their own? Carol, who tries to "compartmentalize" the logical part of her brain and not let such moments annoy her ==================================== Jeremiah: I would assume that in the case of Gryffindor and Hufflepuff being in a class together that Prof. Sprout would escort them both to their next class, but it still has a glitch. If Professors are escorting their classes to other parts of the castle then who is watching the students when they get to a classroom with a professor who is escorting their previous class to another part of the castle... It's a vicious cycle and I agree will Carol. I have to allow the fiction to be fictitious sometimes. As far as Ron and Harry going off to see Hermione with McGonagall's approval... I would think that McGonagall would be under the impression that Harry and Ron are purebloods (though Harry really isn't, as we realize through DD's discussions on the subject in subsequent books) and aren't in any immediate danger but it may also be due to the fact that McGonagall would have know how close Harry Ron and Hermione are and was touched to see them wanting to go to Hermione's side (even if it isn't true) and be near McGonagall's favorite student (I say favorite because Hermione is such a good student that McGonagall must have a special place in her heart for her). I like that JKR would allow McGonagall to do something so emotional given that this tight-bun wearing, severe-looking, straight-laced woman would be moved my the two little boys asking to go and see their best friend. It gives McGonagall some charm and warmth. I can sacrifice complete and utter accuracy for a scene that furthers a character's development. I also don't htink that an author needs to rise to the levels Tolkien went to as far as being specific and accurate. In fact, that was what made the reading of his books tedious for me and I can gloss over the obvious mistakes by Rowling if they don't have anything to do with the actual plot. (Ok, I raise an eyebrow from time to time, but move on). I don't hink this one will ever be completely answered. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 22 21:56:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:56:56 -0000 Subject: Harry as a "Horcrux"--my view (long!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164062 Julie wrote: > > Reasonably solid conjecture based on canon: > > We've heard no direct canon on what happens to the separate soul pieces when a soul is "torn" and the wizard doesn't encase one of them in a Horcrux. Still, it doesn't seem likely they leave the body and "float" about, so if one doesn't removed the piece and place it in a Horcrux, then the torn piece remains within the body. (Presumably this is what happened with Snape, if he has in fact killed before Dumbledore, or he did actually kill Dumbledore thus tearing his soul. Not to mention the state of all the other DEs who've committed murder for Voldemort). Carol responds: This part I agree with. > Julie: > We also have no direct canon on what happens to a soul piece after a Horcrux is destroyed. Is the soul piece destroyed along with it? Can a soul piece be destroyed? Canon only mention the destruction of the Horcruxes, not the soul pieces, so I would assume the soul pieces do survive, and in this case "float" off somewhere, beyond the veil or into some other plane where they remain in some sort of waiting mode. Carol responds: I would think that a soul, and consequently a soul bit, is immortal and indestructible. (I mistakenly thought that DD referred to destroyed soul bits, but the reference was to destroyed Horcruxes; consequently I'm reposting and deleting the old post.) The whole idea of a soul is that it's the part of a person that has eternal life, even after the body dies, which is what makes the idea of a Dementor sucking out someone's soul so disturbing. So the question is, what happens to a soul bit when a Horcrux is destroyed? Is the soul bit, in contrast to the damaged main soul, which will presumably go beyond the Veil when Voldie dies, somehow mortal? Are the soul bits from the destroyed Horcruxes now dead, gone, nonexistent? To me, it seems more likely that they've gone beyond the Veil, where the main soul would already be because of the AK if it weren't for the Horcruxes "anchoring" it to the earth. Clearly, the soul bits themselves aren't "anchored" like the main soul, or there would be no point in destroying the Horcruxes. Dumbledore says, "[A] withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul" (HBP Am. ed. 503). So The soul bits from the two destroyed Horcruxes are clearly gone, if not necessarily destroyed themselves. They're not floating around looking for a host. And if a soul bit that's been detached from the main soul and placed in a Horcrux to anchor the main soul is not itself anchored by other Horcruxes (if it were, DD would not speak of the soul bits from the destroyed Horcruxes as if they'd been destroyed along with the Horcrux), I don't see how a loose soul bit (if the soul bit is actually detached by the murder and not merely perforated, so to speak, so that it can be detached later) could do anything other than what the soul bits released from the Horcruxes appear to do, seek their eternal home beyond the Veil. I don't think, for example, that it would seek a host, e.g., the nearest wizard, to possess. We know, for example, that Harry wasn't possessed by a loose soul bit at GH since OoP extablishes that he's not possessed (except briefly in the MoM), and the soul bit in the diary was a special case. It had the *memory* of sixteen-year-old Tom as a body to reanimate him, and it had Ginny's soul to leech out and be absorbed into him. The soul bit itself could not reanimate him, nor did it turn Ginny into a Horcrux, or a Voldemort in a female body, by permanently possessing her. If all the Horcruxes had the power to possess a person interacting with them, there could conceivably be seven Voldemorts in seven different bodies, one of them the real Voldemort and the rest Horcrux!morts. Instead, the other (nondiary) Horcruxes merely "anchor" a soul bit, and, if the ring is any indication, attack the person who tries to destroy them with a powerful curse. I seriously doubt that a soul bit can normally possess a person or float around aimlessly waiting (for what?). IMO, a soul fragment remains with the murderer, as you say, until and unless it's encased in a Horcrux. Only in the special case of the interactive diary could a soul bit possess anyone, and in that case, it drained the person's soul to "feed" Diary!Tom and bring him to life with someone else's soul. I doubt whether even Voldemort himself anticipated that outcome. (What would have happened if Diary!Tom met Vapormort, or the real Voldemort in any form? Could he have planned or hoped for such an encounter?) Carol Trelawney, who correctly predicted that it would snow in Tucson last night but didn't anticipate how that would effect subsequent events or the prematurely posted original version of this message From kaleeyj at gmail.com Mon Jan 22 22:44:08 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:44:08 -0000 Subject: Did Dumbledore know he was going to die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164063 jennabell: > > I am a firm believer that DD knew he was going to die. I think > > it is very significant that throughout the journey to the cave, > > the drinking of the potion and the time spent at the top of > > the astronomy tower, that Fawkes wasn't there at all. Any time > > DD has need of him or he is in danger Fawkes is always there... > > Carol's response: > Many of us think that Dumbledore's behavior throughout HBP all > indicate that he knew he was going to die. He certainly > seems to be preparing for his own death throughout the book. > Blitz now: Welcome to the list, Jennabell! You are not at all alone, as Carol said - I personally think that Dumbledore knew his days were numbered after the prophecy was lost. Voldemort had no way of getting it, so he has to get Harry and hope that the other half isn't something like "and the One shall defeat the Dark Lord with a well-placed wand up the nose when The Dark Lord tries to attack the One at the end of the One's seventh year...." Obviously, getting Harry's biggest protector - Dumbledore - out of the way is a big priority. My guess is that Voldemort *thinks* that Dmbledore did something to force him out of Harry's head at the MoM. We may wind up seeing some more possesion going on in the new book. (And I do think Harry should have a better handle on Occlumency, not so that he can lock out his emotions, but so that he can have a LV- free head. But that's another post.) I agree that the Dursleys speech is like a "last wish" speech - it has that feel of Dumbledore adding at the end, ".... because I won't be there to *make* you take him back." He is getting his affairs in order, telling Harry about the Horcruxes, and hoping the boy has enoughy sense to buck up and work on his skills for the year ahead. That was a good point about Fawkes, too - I hadn't thought of that - he should have been there by all rights.... Out of curiosity, does anyone else think that that last evening, with the cave and the tower, just plain reeks of Felix? (If not the entire year - there *was* a whole cauldron of it in Sluggy's possession.) The moves, the language, the risks? I think that Dumbledore had some Felix in him because, among other things, he tells Harry to get his cloak, knowing full well he has it with him - he knew Harry would want to handle any extra business with his friends before they set out. And he says exactly the right things to give Draco some props for his work (even if he didn't come up with the Protean charm or the Mead himself, he did have to pull it off), get him off the adrenaline high and thinking clearly, and get him to lower his wand. Rather lucky, wouldn't you say? ~Blitz, thinking out loud. From kjones at telus.net Mon Jan 22 23:14:04 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:14:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Game of "Clue" PS/SS-(Was Harry Horcrux) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45B5453C.4060102@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 164064 > Carol responds: > Actually, and oddly, dumbledore does refer to at least one soul bit as > "destroyed": KJ writes: We have excellent clues and pieces of evidence in all the books and in many posts. I would like to enumerate as many as I can think of or find, and perhaps other posters can add to what I have missed. Perhaps if it is all laid out in chronological order, it may point in one direction or another. Good hunting. PS/SS 1. "It certainly *seems* so" Dumbledore's answer to whether Voldemort was really gone. 2. "We can only guess, we may never know" DD answer to McGonnagall as to how Harry survived. 3. "Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in handy" 4. It is interesting that not one straight answer did McGonnagal get from DD. He as much as asked her how she knew he would be there. She flinches at the sound of Voldemort's name and DD pretended not to notice. 5. Harry remembers a blinding flash of green and a high, cold, cruel laugh as he listens to Hagrid tell his story. 6. "Most of us reckon he's still out there somewhere" Hagrid 7. Voldemort killed the McKinnons, the Bones, and the Prewetts 8. Hagrid mentions three times that it would be mad to rob Gringott's. Does DD know that there is about to be an attempt? 9. Single wand on a purple cushion in Olivander's shop 10. Harry's wand - need say no more 11. Hat describes courage, good mind, great talent, thirst to prove himself. Either Slytherin or Gryffindor 12. Pain in his scar-first direct contact with Voldemort-warm and sleepy 13. Dream-he was wearing Quirrel's turban-memories or mental connection? Green light, and high cold laugh 14. Hagrid hiding what he knows about Snape-hiding what he knows about what was in the vault. 15. Hagrid defends Snape "hotly" 16. Dumbledore gives Harry his father's invisibility cloak 17. First appearance of the Room of Requirement 18. DD doesn't need a cloak to become invisible. Knew about Harry and Ron seeing the mirror. Is he watching Harry or the mirror? 19. Nightmares-flash of green, high cold laughter-memories or mental connection? 20. Keeps running into Snape wherever he goes 21. Snape and DD at the Quidditch match-to protect Harry or to catch Quirrel? 22. Snape white-faced and tight-lipped when Harry nearly hit him chasing the snitch. Is he afraid of Harry? DD was right there when Harry landed. What did they think was happening? Are they afraid of Harry? 23. Snape applies pressure to Quirrel 24. "That wasn't no werewolf and it wasn't no unicorn neither," said Hagrid grimly. Does Hagrid know what it is? How much does DD tell him? 25. Pain in Harry's head-scar on fire-2'nd direct contact with Voldemort 26. Firenze already knew about the sorcerer's stone. Was he keeping watch for DD? 27. Bane angry at Firenze for interfering-sworn not to set themselves against the heavens. Foreshadowing? 28. "Good luck Harry Potter. The planets have been read wrongly before now, even by centaurs. I hope this is one of those times." Foreshadowing? 29. Scar keeps hurting 30. Quirrel says Snape suspected him before the troll incident. 31. Harry's scar did not hurt speaking to Voldemort, only when Quirrel touched him. His scar also hurt while he was touching Quirrel. It was touching Quirrel that nearly killed Harry. So knowing what we know now, it appears that Dumbledore had already been investigating horcruxes because he knew that Voldemort was not dead. He knew what Voldemort would have to do to get some kind of a body back and there were two choices, the stone and unicorn blood. Hagrid mentions three times that it would be mad to steal from Gringott's which leads me to believe that he was in on a part of the plan to perhaps trap Voldemort. I don't think Dumbledore let him in on any information about Harry. Hagrid couldn't take it. Dumbledore often does not tell the truth or even part of the truth. He did not give McGonnagal any information, about whether Voldemort was alive or dead, or the truth about why Harry was left with the Dursleys. He did not offer his guess about what happened, and I find McGonnagal's flinch suspicious. He admits that he can't do anything about Harry's scar, and says that he would not, even if he could because scars can come in handy. He did not say whether it would be handy for him or for Harry. Three times we see Harry with memories of the night that his parents were killed. I think that Harry's memories will be an important part in DH, and may be what JKR refers to as going back in time. The Sorting Hat is willing to put Harry in Slytherin or Gryffindor indicating that there are recognizable influences of both houses. The Sorting Hat undoubtedly talks to Dumbledore about its findings. Harry's wand is the brother wand to Voldemort's wand. Both have cores of Fawke's tailfeathers. We also know that Fawkes is going to be much more disposed toward Harry than Voldemort which may be important later. Dumbledore can be invisible without a cloak and he has been observing Harry on more than one occasion. Harry also bumps into Snape wherever he goes. Obviously these two are keeping a very close watch on Harry. Is it for their own protection or Harry's. When Harry flew past Snape without warning, Snape was "white-faced and tight-lipped." Is Snape afraid of Harry at this point in time? If so, I would suggest that Dumbledore and Snape are both involved together in determining whether Harry is susceptible to Voldemort, whether he is in possession of a piece of Voldemort, or whether he might be bait to lure Voldemort. After the Quidditch match, when Harry frightened Snape, Dumbledore was right there when Harry's broom landed. He must have been moving pretty fast to pull that off. Firenze was also aware that Voldemort was in the forest and undoubtedly has informed Dumbledore. Four times, Harry suffers from pain in his scar, once when Voldemort was looking at him under the turban when Harry was sleepy, once again when Voldemort flew at him over the body of the unicorn, when he was awake and alert, during the day or so prior to his attempt to steal the stone, and again when Quirrel touched him. Why did Harry not feel any pain when he was talking to Voldmort in front of the mirror? This does not seem consistent. Harry also suffered pain when he grabbed Quirrel. That was what nearly killed Harry. The physical contact with the body that was holding Quirrel was nearly fatal. We know that Quirrel was damaged by the touch because of the blood protection of Harry's mother, but we do not know why Harry feels pain when he touched what was Voldemort. Bane was angry that Firenze took Harry away from Voldemort in the forest, in direct opposition to the reading of the stars. Firenze wishes Harry good luck, and says that even centaurs make mistakes sometimes. This is much like Dumbledore saying "I hope it helps you to survive." We also see that Hagrid knows all about Snape and trusts him for his own reasons other than just Dumbledore's trust. He knows Snape doesn't like Harry for some reason and accepts that it must be about Harry's father. I wonder if Snape feels anything in his dark mark when Harry is around. That could explain a lot. It might explain why he suspected Quirrel so early in the game as well. We are also shown the difference between Harry's memories and the influence of Voldemort on his mind, which at this time is quite weak. His scar was hurting just about the time that Dumbledore was leaving on his broom for London, and Voldemort had the opportunity to go after the stone. Anybody want to add, object, or take on CoS? KJ From dreamofwriting at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 02:10:25 2007 From: dreamofwriting at yahoo.com (dreamofwriting) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:10:25 -0000 Subject: Creating Horcruxes (Re: Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164066 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Let me start by saying that I have been focusing in on the Horcrux > creating process to show that the accidental Horcrux theory is an > entirely possible scenario. In that vein, I will start by making one > last attempt to not only clarify my position but to also show how my > reading of the books is just as "straight forward" as Carol's and > Steve's. Buckle your seatbelts, this may be a bumpy ride. :-) I hope I don't make an arse of myself but here goes: For some odd reason I am under the impression that JK Rowling has already stated that Harry is not a Horcrux....I could be mistaken, but that is what I understand ..if I am wrong I am sorry, I don't want to ruffle other's beliefs. I would also like to add: If Voldemort were attempting to make a horcrux with Harry's death, which backfired,wasn't it Voldemort's soul that was ripped from his body and wandered the Black Forest etc. for 10 years until he showed up at Hogwarts in Philosopher's Stone? So how could his soul also be in Harry making him a horcrux? Well, those are my thoughts. Dreamofwriting a.k.a. Karen From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 03:42:52 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:42:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, a Deatheater who assists suicide?. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0701221942n2e57a30fkc0f42c82b3dcca5c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164067 Lilygale wrote: By lifting the stopper on death, is one actively committing suicide, or just letting nature take its course? I am of the opinion that, in the Potterverse, when Snape unstoppers Dumbledore's death on the tower upon Dumbledore's request, the men are letting the damage done by the Horcrux take its natural and final course. It is not suicide because, but Dumbledore is not actively choosing death. The death has already happened. He is using his death (he is *already dead*) to help Harry and Draco, and to defeat LV. Another question about suicide: was drinking the potion in the cave an act of suicide? Or an act of bravery committed during wartime. Again, I don't think Dumbledore acted suicidally any more than a soldier, fighting in a war, can be said to be suicidal. Debbie: My view is the same regardless of whether Dumbledore was dying -- either before or after drinking the potion in the cave or begging Severus. Dumbledore's death was a sacrifice, not a suicide. Dumbledore always looks at the very big picture, not at episodes as ends in themselves. He understands that victory against Voldemort cannot come through him, and he understands that the critical actors (Harry and Snape but especially Harry) will not fully understand themselves as long as he is around. Snape's arrival on the Tower backs Dumbledore (and Snape) into a corner. (I believe that the potion in the cave weakened Dumbledore but that he probably could have been saved with effective magical medical assisance.) There is a way to spring Snape (who is needed to help Harry) from the trap but Dumbledore must sacrifice himself to make it work. Accordingly, he asks Severus to do the deed. I don't see this as any different than if the HP cast was on a boat and there was a fire in the engine room, threatening to spread to the entire ship. The ship's only hope is if the engine room door is closed to contain the fire, but closing the door would doom the crew members in the room. If the crew member (say it was the captain) begged the next ranking officer to close the door, killing the captain but saving the ship, would that be suicide? I think not, whether or not the captain was already dying. In other words, I give Dumbledore 150 points for cunning, resourcefulness, and above all, patience and fortitude. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 23 06:50:54 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:50:54 -0000 Subject: Snape, a Deatheater who assists suicide?. In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0701221942n2e57a30fkc0f42c82b3dcca5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote: > Debbie: > My view is the same regardless of whether Dumbledore was dying -- either > before or after drinking the potion in the cave or begging Severus. > Dumbledore's death was a sacrifice, not a suicide. Dumbledore always looks > at the very big picture, not at episodes as ends in themselves. He > understands that victory against Voldemort cannot come through him, and he > understands that the critical actors (Harry and Snape but especially Harry) > will not fully understand themselves as long as he is around. > > Snape's arrival on the Tower backs Dumbledore (and Snape) into a corner. (I > believe that the potion in the cave weakened Dumbledore but that he probably > could have been saved with effective magical medical assisance.) There is a > way to spring Snape (who is needed to help Harry) from the trap but > Dumbledore must sacrifice himself to make it work. Accordingly, he asks > Severus to do the deed. > > I don't see this as any different than if the HP cast was on a boat and > there was a fire in the engine room, threatening to spread to the entire > ship. The ship's only hope is if the engine room door is closed to contain > the fire, but closing the door would doom the crew members in the room. If > the crew member (say it was the captain) begged the next ranking officer to > close the door, killing the captain but saving the ship, would that be > suicide? I think not, whether or not the captain was already dying. > > In other words, I give Dumbledore 150 points for cunning, resourcefulness, > and above all, patience and fortitude. > > Debbie Quick_Silver: Here's the thing...when I read this post I get the impression that there's two "trains" of thought if you will (not necessarily contradictory). One is that Dumbledore was not in fact fatally wounded and the other is that Dumbledore sacrificing is a brilliant strategic move. I don't really have an opinion on the first part but the second part...troubles...me. I mean I know on one level that you're correct because I believe that Harry must deal with Draco, and more importantly, Snape on the road to victory (and of course Harry must survive to travel that road). On the other hand Dumbledore on the Tower is a man that's been gravely hurt (and seems to be on the way out from the potion...although perhaps that could be reversed) and is facing a bleak outlook...Harry is on the Tower with him, Snape's under that blasted Vow, and Draco is in grave danger. So the Tower almost looks like a fighting retreat (is that the right military term?) to me...Dumbledore loses but he loses while maintaining his principles (Draco) and his players (Snape and Harry). But at the same time Voldemort did get what he wanted...Dumbledore is dead (perhaps there is a parallel to the end of GoF...Harry wins by surviving but Voldemort gets most of what he wants too). It's just that before I start praising Dumbledore's sacrifice (too much) I need to know what was lost with him (information, a restraint on Voldemort, etc) and whether it was worth the trade-off. Especially because, from my point of view, the things that Dumbledore seems to have been angling for at the end of HBP, mainly, Harry and Snape forming some sort of working relationship and his ability to outwit Tom Riddle are the two things that I'd want him to gamble the least on. Quick_Silver (who gambles but with loaded dice) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Jan 23 08:37:59 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:37:59 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164069 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 29, The Phoenix Lament Chapter Summary: Ginny pulls Harry away from Dumbledore's body, and he follows her past the main staircase where Gryffindor rubies glisten on the floor like drops of blood. Harry remembers the bodies he stepped over in chapter 28 and asks her who else is dead. Ginny says no one, but Bill has been attacked by Greyback, and is a bit of a mess; Ginny suspects that if they hadn't had Harry's Felix Felicis they'd all be dead. In the hospital wing, Bill's face is unrecognisably grotesque; Madam Pomfrey dabs at his wounds. Harry recalls how easily Snape fixed Malfoy after the sectumsempra and asks Madam Pomfrey if she can cure Bill with a charm. She says there is no cure for werewolf bites. Lupin doesn't think Bill will be a full werewolf because it isn't full moon, but the wounds are nonetheless cursed, and may never fully heal. Ron asks where Dumbledore is, Ginny tells them he's dead. Lupin collapses into a chair with his hands over his face; Tonks asks in a whisper how it happened. Harry explains how Dumbledore immobilised him on the Astronomy tower before Malfoy arrived, then more Death Eaters arrived, and Snape killed Dumbledore. Madam Pomfrey bursts into tears, but Ginny shushes her, and tells them to listen. They hear a phoenix singing a stricken lament of terrible beauty somewhere outside. They listen in silence, lost in their grief until McGonagall enters, breaking the spell, saying that Mr and Mrs Weasley are on their way. Harry tells McGonagall that Snape killed Dumbledore, McGonagall sways alarmingly; she can't believe it: Dumbledore *always* trusted Snape. Lupin reminds her that Snape was an accomplished Occlumens, Tonks says Dumbledore *swore* Snape was on their side, McGonagall says Dumbledore hinted that he had an iron-clad reason to trust Snape. Tonks wants to know what Snape told Dumbledore to gain his trust. Harry says he knows, that it was Snape who passed the information to Voldemort which made him hunt down the Potters, that Snape told Dumbledore he hadn't known what he was doing, but he was really sorry they were dead. Lupin is astonished that Dumbledore believed that because Snape *hated* James. Harry adds that Snape hated Lily too, because he called her `mudblood', but nobody seems to be listening. McGonagall decides it was her fault for sending Flitwick to fetch Snape. Lupin insists it's not her fault, they *all* wanted Snape there. McGonagall says that Dumbledore told them to patrol the castle; the secret passages were covered, nobody could fly in, and there were enchantments on every entrance. Harry explains about the Vanishing Cabinets, how the Death Eaters got in through the Room of Requirement. Ron says he, Ginny and Neville kept watch for about an hour before Malfoy came out, but as soon as he saw them he used Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder. Malfoy guided the Death Eaters out with his Hand of Glory, while Ron, Ginny and Neville didn't dare use any curses in case they hit each other. Once out of the darkness, they ran into Lupin and the others, and minutes later found the Death Eaters heading for the Astronomy tower. A fight broke out, the Death Eaters scattered and they gave chase. Lupin tells how Gibbon came down from the tower, presumably after setting off the Dark Mark, and was hit by a Killing Curse that just missed Lupin. Hermione explains that she and Luna waited outside Snape's office until Flitwick arrived just before midnight; Snape came hurtling out, saying that Flitwick had collapsed and they should look after him. Hermione covers her face in shame, admitting that it's now obvious that Snape Stupefied Flitwick, but they didn't realise, and let him go. Lupin insists it's not their fault, that Snape would probably have killed them if they hadn't obeyed him. Tonks explains how Malfoy vanished, presumably up the tower, then more Death Eaters ran after him, one of them blocking the stairs behind them with a curse that none of them could break through. Lupin saw Snape run through the cursed barrier, McGonagall supposes he knew a spell they didn't ? after all, he was the Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher. Harry reckons you had to have a Dark Mark to get through. Then the Big Death Eater broke the ceiling and the curse, and Snape and Malfoy emerged from the dust. Tonks says they let them pass, then the Death Eaters returned and they were fighting again. They all fall silent. Then Mr and Mrs Weasley burst into the ward with Fleur close behind them. Molly takes over from Madam Pomfrey, tending Bill's wounds. McGonagall confirms that Dumbledore is dead. Ginny is looking shrewdly at Fleur, who is gazing at Bill. "Dumbledore gone," whispers Arthur, but Molly sobs over Bill that it doesn't matter how he looks, but he was very handsome and he was going to be married. Fleur erupts, demanding whether Molly thinks Bill won't want to marry her now; it would take more than a werewolf to stop him loving her. She doesn't care how he looks, she is good- looking enough for both of them, and all these scars show is that her husband is brave. She snatches the ointment from Molly and tends his wounds herself. Harry is expecting an explosion from Molly, but instead she says that she's sure she could persuade Great Auntie Muriel to lend Fleur a very beautiful goblin-made tiara for the wedding. Fleur thanks her stiffly, and then they both burst into tears and hug each other. Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione exchange startled looks. Tonks glares at Lupin and bursts out that Fleur still wants to marry Bill, even though he's been bitten. Lupin looks tense and says it's different, because Bill will not be a full werewolf. Tonks seizes the front of his robes and shakes them, saying she doesn't care either. Harry suddenly understands that the changes he's seen in Tonks are because she's in love with Lupin. Lupin insists that he's too old, too poor and too dangerous for her. Molly says he's being ridiculous; Lupin insists that Tonks deserves someone young and whole. Arthur points out that young, whole men do not necessarily remain so. Lupin says that this is hardly the time but McGonagall says that it would have made Dumbledore happy. Hagrid enters, shaking with tears. He has moved Dumbledore's body, the students are back in bed, Flitwick will be all right, and the Ministry's been informed. McGonagall asks him to come with the heads of house (Slughorn representing Slytherin) to her office, but she'd like a quick word with Harry first. They head for Dumbledore's office, which is now McGonagall's. Harry is surprised to see that the room looks much as it did when he had left with Dumbledore a few hours previously, except that Fawkes's perch is empty. Harry notices Dumbledore's portrait has joined the others, slumbering, looking peaceful and untroubled. McGonagall asks Harry where he went with Dumbledore, Harry says he can't tell her. She presses him, he still refuses, she glares at him. She says that since Dumbledore is dead, the situation has changed, but Harry doesn't see it that way: Dumbledore never told him to stop following orders if he died. He does tell her that it was Rosmerta under the Imperius Curse who was helping Malfoy. Sprout, Flitwick, Slughorn and a still-weeping Hagrid traipse in. Slughorn looks the most shaken - pale and sweating. McGonagall is not convinced that the school should reopen next year. Sprout says that it should if a single pupil wants to come. Slughorn says he wouldn't blame parents for wanting to keep their children at home, though personally he doesn't think they're in any more danger at Hogwarts than elsewhere. Hagrid says he's staying whatever happens. McGonagall says she'll ask the governors to make the final decision. She suggests the students be sent home the next day, but Harry insists that they'll want to say goodbye at Dumbledore's funeral, and should be allowed to stay. Flitwick, Sprout and Hagrid agree; Slughorn seems agitated and less enthusiastic, though he agrees too. Harry asks to leave before the Minister arrives, and he doesn't bother to retrieve his Invisibility Cloak from the tower. The Gryffindor common room is packed, but Harry ignores everybody and goes up to the dormitory where Ron is waiting. Harry tells him that someone had already taken the Horcrux, and shows Ron the locket. Ron reads the note and wonders aloud who R.A.B. could be. Harry feels no curiosity at all and doubts that he will ever feel curious again. He suddenly becomes aware that the grounds are silent, that Fawkes has stopped singing, and he realises that Fawkes has left Hogwarts for good, just like Dumbledore. Discussion questions: 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) In this chapter, McGonagall and Tonks ask the same questions that fans have been asking for years, namely: what did Snape tell Dumbledore to make him trust him? Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked Dumbledore? How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could have convinced him? What themes that the books have already visited would Snape's tale (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, and how could his ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's story? 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Since Ron, Neville and Ginny weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have known a spell we didn't [ ] After all, he was the Defence against the Dark Arts teacher?" We all know Snape had been teaching potions for fifteen years before that, so what do you make of this sudden respect for his knowledge of DADA? Do you think the teaching posts confer something special on their holders? Does this give us any clues as to why Voldemort particularly wanted to have the DADA job? Or do you think McGonagall could be alluding in some way to the curse? 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all right; she only has eyes for Bill. Do you find that surprising? How do you interpret her different reactions to the dramas at the ends of CoS, GoF and HBP, and how do they reflect upon her assertion in OotP that Harry is as good as her son? 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with Ginny? 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is sleeping peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? If so, what do you think it signifies, and if JKR had wanted to signify the opposite, how do you think she would have done it? 8. What do you make of McGonagall's statement about closing the school: " I must say that Professor Dumbledore's murder is more disturbing to me than the idea of Slytherin's monster living undetected in the bowels of the castle " Do you find this statement surprising? Do you agree with it? Do you think it might reflect the fact that she was a student at Hogwarts the first time the Chamber opened? Do you think it reflects JKR's opinion? 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay for the funeral? How does this compare with his manner with Dumbledore in chapter four? If the school reopens, do you think he will stay on as potions master and head of Slytherin, and do you think Dumbledore's death will affect his decision? 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he went with Dumbledore? Would you have had the courage (or stubbornness) to do the same at his age? Do you think that he did what Dumbledore would have wanted? McGonagall will almost certainly ask Dumbledore's portrait where he took Harry when it wakes up; what do you think it will tell her? Since all the portraits are sworn to help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to turn into an Umbridge, or worse? 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry & co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? Harry didn't tell her what he knows about the Unbreakable Vow either (despite the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the Horcruxes). Do you think she will find out, and if she did how do you think she would react? What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to piece together from the information he has? 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is conspicuous? Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school opens or not, because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has just been burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of Grawp, or do you think he might have another reason that we don't know about? 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Do you think that JKR ought to tell us one way or another before book 7? 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's death suspicious? Do you think that we may find out something in book 7 which will make us view this hospital-wing scene in a different light (even if you can't imagine what it is yet)? 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? They've often been vocal in the past when Harry and Dumbledore were alone together; is their silence in this scene conspicuous? How do you think Phineas Nigellus, for example, reacted to news of Dumbledore's death, and when did he hear? 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left the school, had left the world had left Harry." Did you find this ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Punctuation kindly supplied by Susan (the Siriusly Snapey one). From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 11:15:53 2007 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:15:53 -0000 Subject: Do you agree? (Harry as Horcrux) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164070 > Geoff: > > Ever since I read HBP and the long drawn-out threads began to analyse, > dissect and theorise over these objects, I have increasingly found them > annoying. We have talked recently about the wizard soul and, in message > 163780, I posed the rhetorical questions "However, if a person is made > into a Horcrux, where does the soul piece reside? Indeed, what form > does a soul fragment take? Where does our own soul reside for that > matter? Can we see it, touch it?" > > As a Christian, I ponder over where my soul is. I suppose that many of > us think of it as being inside our heads, like thoughts and feelings etc. > But the fact is that I, along with other believers like myself, consider that, > although it is an intangible, it covers more than our thoughts and > feelings. It is the essential 'me' which I believe will go into the afterlife. > > The fact that JKR is manipulating something which is intangible rather > like a specific object is what both puzzles and annoys me. Neri: I definitely agree that the whole discussion about Horcruxes has become way too mechanistic. Probably much more mechanistic than JKR herself had meant in the first place. Potterverse magic isn't very mechanistic to begin with, especially in its deeper levels, and Potterverse souls are based on a deep moral and religious concept. Therefore I doubt there is any meaning in asking "where in the body is the Potterversian soul located?". It's a question that arose largely out of good intentions: the hope that it would be possible to de-horcrux Harry like getting rid of a brain tumor or something. But I'm pretty certain that if Harry will have to get rid of Voldemort's soul bit in Book 7, it won't be a mechanical process. Yes, it is possible that Harry will lose his scar together with the soul-bit, but it will only be a symbol. It doesn't mean that the soul-bit resides *in* the scar, and you could get rid of it by erasing the scar from Harry's forehead with Mrs. Scower's All-Purpose Magical Mess Remover, or something of that sort. It is true that encasing souls inside objects sounds mechanistic, but who does such things in the Potterverse? Only super evil wizards like Voldemort. And as Slughorn explains, it is an act against nature. The soul was never meant to be manipulated, cut to pieces and encased, and Voldemort is going to pay dearly for treating it that way. So, if Harry has a Voldemort soul-bit in him (as a Horcrux or not) the reasons for it will be thematic, and the method of removing it (assuming it is removed at all) will be thematic too, not mechanistic. My current top three guesses are, in no particular order, are: 1. Harry will make a choice to sacrifice himself, therefore making it impossible for the Voldemort soul-bit to reside in him (this was already foreshadowed in the way Harry banished Voldemort in the Ministry in the end of OotP). 2. The soul-bit itself, after many years of living inside Harry, makes a choice to redeem itself by departing. 3. The soul-bit becomes a part of Harry, therefore severing its connection with the rest of Voldemort's soul parts and no more functioning s a Horcrux. Neri From dmicgal at juno.com Tue Jan 23 08:22:57 2007 From: dmicgal at juno.com (Michelle) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:22:57 -0000 Subject: HBP Questions: Harry/Ginny relat., Fleur's presence, and spell on locket Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164071 Hi, I'm Michelle from Reno Nevada(and a first-time poster), and I wanted to throw out some questions from Half-Blood Prince for comments and speculation. 1) Of all the girls at Hogwarts, why did JKR choose Ginny to have a relationship/love interest with Harry at this crucial point? I assume Ginny will be used by LV to hurt, distract, or summon Harry. The Weasley's, and now esp. Ginny, are Harry's beloved "family". I don't think this relationship is haphazard. 2)I also don't think it's meaningless that JKR has kept Fleur around. Even though she was disappointing in the Tri-Wizard Cup, she still is considered skilled. Any predictions about why she was kept around?? 3)Close to the end of HBP after Harry and DD had gotten the locket, crossed the lake, and climbed out of the boat, DD says, "The protection was, after all, well designed...one alone could not have done it." Yet, the boat was designed to carry only one across the lake, and DD commented on Harry's age and skill not registering. Who was R.A.B.'s companion, and therefore, also knows about at least one horcrux. This really has me intrigued! Any other comments about that scene? Michelle in Reno From lill_baby_peach at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 06:45:15 2007 From: lill_baby_peach at yahoo.com (Sages Baby) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 06:45:15 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164072 I just read the Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince again and I had a question. While reading a few things stood out this time that didn't the first time. Like when Harry was at Grimmauld Place he and Sirius were looking over the Black Family Tree, Sirius was talking about his brother Regulus Black. This was one of the things that made me read an re-read the paragraph. (forgive me I am new at this) "Oh no" Said Sirius. "No he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on his orders, more likely, I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person. From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried to back out." The note left inside the locket was addressed "To the Dark Lord". Hasn't it been said in the books that only the Death Eaters refer to Voldemort as "The Dark Lord" Could Regulus have been R.A.B.? Has this discussion been brought up already? If so I would love a link. Thanks. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 23 15:09:51 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:09:51 -0000 Subject: Why a Time-Turner won't work for GH & theory about Dumbledore's Watch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164073 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > First I have a theory about the watches, one that could tie up some > loose ends and *might* explain more about the events of GH (although > I can't reconcile two issues with the information we have so far). > > The MOM couldn't trace Dumbledore's comings and goings in HBP and > Dumbledore mentioned jinxing Dawlish as a way to evade MOM > interference. But Scrimgeour was head of the Auror office and was > said to be clever, so there must have been other ways he attempted to > locate Dumbledore besides a tail who kept getting jinxed out of > action. Then I remembered Dumbledore's comment in PS, 'I don't need > a cloak to become invisible.' > > Given the symbols on the two watches, the planets on Dumbledore's and > the stars and odd symbols on Ron's, do the watches alter not time, > but space and matter? If so, I wondered what the restrictions would > be for such an event and decided the person might specify a certain > amount of time in which their physical matter would dissolve, leaving > them able to observe events but not act. Ken: Those are interesting observations. The watches could just be there for atmosphere or they could be significant. I agree that the most natural function of a magical watch would be time traveling (the time turners look like time keeping devices, hourglasses, after all) but we've seen no evidence that Dumbledore was time traveling so far. As you say, his watch might have some other effect on space-time that could be the key to some of his activities. The Weaselys also have a very special magical clock but its function has nothing to do with time so there is precedent there in canon. > Jen: > > I took this a little further to speculate about GH and wondered if > Dumbledore could have been there but couldn't act. That might > explain the cave scene, he was reliving the awful memory of GH: 'Make > it stop....it's all my fault...don't hurt them, hurt me instead'. Ken: Again that is interesting. I never attached any significance to those utterances but Dumbledore doesn't actually get much chance to speak in the novels so perhaps we should think more about what those words could mean. Much of what he does say is significant, it could be unwise (not that we are in any danger here!) to dismiss these words as random ravings. You might have hit on the right idea. Throughout the series we've seen that Dumbledore holds back on what he knows. I would not be surprised if DH reveals that he knew details about that night at Godric's Hollow that he *still* hadn't told Harry. It's Dumbledore's major failing isn't it? Secrecy is important to what he does but he seems too secretive even with his close advisers. They can't give good advice if they don't have the information they need to reason from. Paradoxically Dumbledore encourages Harry to share his information with his "team". One only wishes that Dumbledore had followed his own advice in this respect. Ken From ibchawz at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 16:06:02 2007 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:06:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164074 Thanks for the excellent summary and thought provoking questions. > 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety > of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - > Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire > sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is > that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? ibchawz responds: I would have to say that Fawkes' reactions to the situation had the most profound impact on me. It provided the strongest hint that Dumbledore's death was final. On a personal level, I have experience something similar. My cousin died at age 36 from cancer. She had 3 dogs. The dogs seemed to "know" that she was gone and appeared depressed for quite a while after this happened. > 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) In this > chapter, McGonagall and Tonks ask the same questions that fans have > been asking for years, namely: what did Snape tell Dumbledore to > make him trust him? Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and > Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really > has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must > have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked > Dumbledore? How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could > have convinced him? What themes that the books have already visited > would Snape's tale (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, > and how could his ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's > story? ibchawz responds: I really don't have to take off my "DDM!Snape (or any other flavor! Snape) hat. I am "on the fence" about what Snapes true loyalties are. As far a convincing or hoodwinking Dumbledore, Snape was a superb Occlumens. He was able to hide his betraying thoughts from the greatest Legilimens (Voldemort). Certainly he would be able to hide his true thoughts from Dumbledore as well. If someone is a liar, and you know that they are, do you really know when (or even if) they are telling the truth? > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is > accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you > annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had > stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Since Ron, Neville and Ginny > weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness > Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix > Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? ibchawz responds: I did not see Hermione and Luna as gullible. I saw them as trusting a teacher and doing what they were told. All through the series Hermione has tried to discount Harry's suspicions about Snape. I never saw the DA as a training ground for future Aurors. I saw the DA as rebelling against Umbridge and her lack of teaching practial, hands-on DADA. Many of the students were either 5th or 7th years who needed the practice for their OWLs or NEWTs. > 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have > known a spell we didn't [ ] After all, he was the Defence against > the Dark Arts teacher?" We all know Snape had been teaching potions > for fifteen years before that, so what do you make of this sudden > respect for his knowledge of DADA? Do you think the teaching posts > confer something special on their holders? Does this give us any > clues as to why Voldemort particularly wanted to have the DADA job? > Or do you think McGonagall could be alluding in some way to the > curse? ibchawz responds: McGonagall was certainly aware of Snape's interest in the DADA post was probably aware of his history in the Dark Arts. I don't really think that being in the postion of DADA professor confers any additional abilities to the professor. > 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that > Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur > that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all > right; she only has eyes for Bill. Do you find that surprising? How > do you interpret her different reactions to the dramas at the ends > of CoS, GoF and HBP, and how do they reflect upon her assertion in > OotP that Harry is as good as her son? ibchawz responds: I really think that Molly is in shock. Her son has been disfigured and has an uncertain future. When she finds out about Dumbledore, she is emotionally "numb" already. > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the > same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and > centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out > against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find > this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has > lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, > or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his > behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with > Ginny? ibchawz responds: I didn't really think of this until you asked the question. I always equated this to Harry' feelings for Sirius and the way that Voldemort used this against Harry. He does not want this to happen with Ginny. Now that I think about it, the Lupin-Tonks relationship is probably foreshadowing what will happen with Harry and Ginny. Even though Harry has told Ginny that he wants to break up, he still has feelings for her. These feelings will still be readable by Voldemort unless Harry can quickly master Occlumency. My guess is that Harry won't be able to do this. > 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is sleeping > peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? If so, what do you > think it signifies, and if JKR had wanted to signify the opposite, > how do you think she would have done it? ibchawz responds: When have the other portraits ever been sleeping as important things happened in the headmaster's office? Does this mean the Dumbledore's portrait is really sleeping or is it faking it like most of the other portraits usually do? > 8. What do you make of McGonagall's statement about closing the > school: " I must say that Professor Dumbledore's murder is more > disturbing to me than the idea of Slytherin's monster living > undetected in the bowels of the castle " Do you find this statement > surprising? Do you agree with it? Do you think it might reflect the > fact that she was a student at Hogwarts the first time the Chamber > opened? Do you think it reflects JKR's opinion? ibchawz responds: I don't think the school will close. With all the signs that the school houses must unite, this will not occur if the school is closed. Closing the school has been mentioned as a possibility on several other occasions (Myrtle's death, COS re-opened, etc). With the number of times that it has been threatened and not occurred, I treated as I would "the boy who cried wolf". > 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, > his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school > reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay > for the funeral? How does this compare with his manner with > Dumbledore in chapter four? If the school reopens, do you think he > will stay on as potions master and head of Slytherin, and do you > think Dumbledore's death will affect his decision? ibchawz responds: I don't think Slughorn knew of Snape's history as much as some of the other characters. He remembered Snape's excellent potion making abilities. I think that Slughorn's main reason for retiring was to hide from Voldemort. He felt that he was probably the only one that knew about Voldemort's horcruxes and did not want to give the real memory to Dumbledore. With Dumbledore gone, Slughorn is the only other adult character the we have seen display knowledge of Horcruxes. I really think that Slughorn will give Harry some critical info on finding and destroying the remaining Horcruxes. > 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he > went with Dumbledore? Would you have had the courage (or > stubbornness) to do the same at his age? Do you think that he did > what Dumbledore would have wanted? McGonagall will almost certainly > ask Dumbledore's portrait where he took Harry when it wakes up; what > do you think it will tell her? Since all the portraits are sworn to > help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the > horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to > turn into an Umbridge, or worse? ibchawz responds: I do think Harry was right not to confide in McGonagall. Her personality is not one that invites it. On the other hand, I do not think she will become another Umbridge. Her character never struck me as being power hungry like Umbridge. > 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry & > co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? Harry didn't > tell her what he knows about the Unbreakable Vow either (despite the > fact that it didn't have anything to do with the Horcruxes). Do you > think she will find out, and if she did how do you think she would > react? What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to > piece together from the information he has? ibchawz responds: I don't really find this surprising. Harry had already expressed his suspicions about Malfoy to her when Katie Bell was cursed by the necklace. She may have been feeling guilty about not taking Harry more seriously. > 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to > Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of > Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is > conspicuous? Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school > opens or not, because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has > just been burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of > Grawp, or do you think he might have another reason that we don't > know about? ibchawz responds: Hogwarts is the only home Hagrid has had since his father died. I can understand his reluctance to leave. Also knowing Dumbledore's view of death as the next great adventure, Hagrid probably believes that the school should remain open as that is what he feels Dumbledore would want. I do think that Hagrid knows more about Dumbledore trusting Snape than he has let on and this will come to light in DH. > 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the > governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing > whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Do you think that JKR ought to > tell us one way or another before book 7? ibchawz responds: I think the school will open. See #8 above. While it is fun to speculate and propose theories on this board, I do not what to know what is in the book until I read it for the first time. > 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's > death suspicious? Do you think that we may find out something in > book 7 which will make us view this hospital-wing scene in a > different light (even if you can't imagine what it is yet)? ibchawz responds: Since JKR has indicated that HBP and DH are essentially the first and second parts of a larger book, I expect twists along the way. In looking back at the first five books, Harry's (and others') suspicions half way through the books are proven wrong in the end. This response actually applies to many of the questions asked. > 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the > Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall > asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? They've often been vocal in > the past when Harry and Dumbledore were alone together; is their > silence in this scene conspicuous? How do you think Phineas > Nigellus, for example, reacted to news of Dumbledore's death, and > when did he hear? ibchawz responds: I was not surprised. The portraits frequently pretend to be asleep even though they are very attentive to what is happening. In addition, the portraits may be "feeling out" McGonagall to see how she will react to thier inputs. > 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix > had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left > the school, had left the world had left Harry." Did you find this > ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- > read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to > know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be > associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? ibchawz responds: If we see Fawkes in DH, I think it will be a situation similar to COS. Harry will show loyalty to Dumbledore and Fawkes will come to aid him. ibchawz From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 17:08:32 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:08:32 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164075 > dungrollin's Discussion questions: > > 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety > of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - > Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire > sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is > that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? zgirnius: Hagrid and McGonagall's reactions inspired the most sympathy. Especially Hagrid's... My reaction was not similar to that of any of the characters, because I, as a reader, was shown more than any other character except Harry. Enough to be scratching my head at this point. > 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) zgirnius: Hee hee. It must have been jinxed by some pesky student...it won't come off! > Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and > Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really > has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must > have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked > Dumbledore? How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could > have convinced him? What themes that the books have already visited > would Snape's tale (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, > and how could his ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's > story? zgirnius: I can answer the first part, anyway. Snape could have, either on his own initiative, if he's OFH!, or on LV's orders if he's ESE!, leaked information which was actually useful to the Order, which would have created the impression he was truly spying *for* Dumbledore. > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is > accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you > annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had > stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? zgirnius: No, I am not annoyed by them. Hermione had made no secret of the fact that she believed Snape trustworthy. She acted based on her own instincts/opinions in obeying a teacher she trusted in a crisis. > Since Ron, Neville and Ginny > weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness > Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix > Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? zgirnius: I don't think the usefulness of the DA was ever to make schoolkids into better fighters than adult, exprienced Death Eaters. So no, it did not change my opinion. > 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have > known a spell we didn't [ ] After all, he was the Defence against > the Dark Arts teacher?" We all know Snape had been teaching potions > for fifteen years before that, so what do you make of this sudden > respect for his knowledge of DADA? zgirnius: I think McGonagall is simply observing the fact that Snape is very good at DADA. She might have known this from his schooldays (that very long OWL exam with the tiny handwriting...), or surmised it based in his involvement with the DEs, or from his occasional (recular?) attempts to secure the DADA position. Even if she had not, she saw evidence of it in HBP - he dealt with the curse that affected Katie Bell. > 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that > Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur > that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all > right; she only has eyes for Bill. Do you find that surprising? How > do you interpret her different reactions to the dramas at the ends > of CoS, GoF and HBP, and how do they reflect upon her assertion in > OotP that Harry is as good as her son? zgirnius: I did not find Molly's reaction odd. Bill's situation was muddym adn she naturally cares about him. > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the > same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and > centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out > against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find > this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has > lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, > or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his > behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with > Ginny? zgirnius: Assuming that Lupin is indeed attracted to/in love with Tonks (which I sort of feel I need to take on faith) I agree with Molly. It should be Tonks' choice whether the complications of a life with Lupin are worth it to her, once he has clearly communicated his concerns. > 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he > went with Dumbledore? Would you have had the courage (or > stubbornness) to do the same at his age? Do you think that he did > what Dumbledore would have wanted? McGonagall will almost certainly > ask Dumbledore's portrait where he took Harry when it wakes up; what > do you think it will tell her? Since all the portraits are sworn to > help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the > horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to > turn into an Umbridge, or worse? zgirnius: I think Harry was right. It might be wise for him to eventually take some adult member or members of the Order into his confidence to some extent if he finds he needs resources to complete his quest (even McG herself), but secrecy about this subject is a wise policy. He should do so on a 'need to know' basis. At that point, as far as Harry can tell, she does not need to know. At Harry's age (just about to turn 17) I was working full time and getting ready to move away from home to attend college. So yes, I find it quite credible that he could make this decision on his own, and stick to it. I don't think McGonagall has much in common with Umbridge. It is my opinion that she asked with the intent to help Harry, and further the work of the Order in Dumbledore's absence. The extenmt to which the portraits must obey the current head is unclear to me. I'll be curious to see what other people think. > 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry & > co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? Harry didn't > tell her what he knows about the Unbreakable Vow either (despite the > fact that it didn't have anything to do with the Horcruxes). Do you > think she will find out, and if she did how do you think she would > react? What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to > piece together from the information he has? zgirnius: I imagine Harry will see matters Draco's way - that Draco was given the assignment, and Snape wanted a piece of the action, which he eventually got when Draco made his decision on the Tower not to kill Dumbledore. It fits the facts, and Harry's opinions of what motivates Snape. To see events differently, I think he would need to get, somehow, some doubts about his evaluation of Snape as a person. > 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to > Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of > Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is > conspicuous? Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school > opens or not, because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has > just been burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of > Grawp, or do you think he might have another reason that we don't > know about? zgirnius: I have harbored a suspicion that Hagrid knows something more about Dumbledore and Snape's realtionship. We'll see, However, aside from Grawpie, Hogwarts IS Hagrid's home. He has lived there since he was 11, he has no relatives outside there, where else would he go? > 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the > governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing > whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Do you think that JKR ought to > tell us one way or another before book 7? zgirnius: I expect school to be open. However, Rowling could have her reasons for not saying, one way or the other. It depends what she plans to *do* in DH. > 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's > death suspicious? Do you think that we may find out something in > book 7 which will make us view this hospital-wing scene in a > different light (even if you can't imagine what it is yet)? zgirnius: Yes. If there is an ESE character who appeared in that scene. > 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the > Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall > asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? zgirnius: I would guess the portraits will be learning to know the new Headmistress (assuming she stays on, the Governors could appoint someone else). > 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix > had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left > the school, had left the world had left Harry." Did you find this > ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- > read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to > know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be > associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? zgirnius: Yes, it was moving. Though, I was pretty emotionally wrung out by the time I got to that point. For be, the last 5 chapters had been this incredible emotional roller coaster. It still is, as are some of the scenes in the final chapter. I do think we will see more of Fawkes. He's already sort of his own character, to me. I don't think he will get more so, though. He can't talk. And I trhink he retains his loyalty to Dumbledore and what he stood for. From liadain76 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 15:30:19 2007 From: liadain76 at yahoo.com (liadain76) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:30:19 -0000 Subject: HBP Questions: Harry/Ginny relat., Fleur's presence, and spell on locket In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164077 Michelle in Reno wrote: > 1) Of all the girls at Hogwarts, why did JKR choose Ginny to > have a relationship/ love interest with Harry at this crucial > point? I assume Ginny will be used by LV to hurt, distract, > or summon Harry. The Weasleys, and now esp. Ginny, are > Harry's beloved "family". I don't think this relationship is > haphazard. Liadain: A) I think it will have seemed bittersweet to JKR to let Ginny, after years of pining, finally get the guy, only to have him step out of the relationship for her own safety and his (for lack of a better expression) peace of mind so soon after the relationship began. Of course, LV will probably use her anyway. Draco will surely let LV know about their relationship. I'm curious to see how the two interact at Bill & Fleur's wedding, and if she will insist on accompanying the trio for any part of their horcrux hunting. I can't imagine her placidly sitting back in school while the others are neck-deep in danger; then again, she won't be of age. Michelle: > 2) I also don't think it's meaningless that JKR has kept Fleur > around. Even though she was disappointing in the Tri-Wizard > Cup, she still is considered skilled. Any predictions about > why she was kept around?? Liadain: A) Maybe (and this is a long shot) Fleur was kept around to avenge the attack on her husband, and in turn be the one who finishes Greyback. Possibly the fact that she's part Veela will come into play? I'm sure the reason goes much deeper than that, and I hope we find out what it is Michelle: > 3) Close to the end of HBP after Harry and DD had gotten the > locket, crossed the lake, and climbed out of the boat, DD > says, "The protection was, after all, well designed...one > alone could not have done it." Yet, the boat was designed > to carry only one across the lake, and DD commented on > Harry's age and skill not registering. Who was R.A.B.'s > companion, and therefore, also knows about at least one > horcrux? Liadain: Just a stab here - A) If RAB is in fact Regulus Black, it is possible that Kreacher was the other in the boat. He may even have had Kreacher drink the liquid. Kreacher wouldn't register, as he's not a wizard, and he would have had to obey Regulus. Kreacher would also have had to keep quiet about the horcrux on Regulus's orders. Maybe one of the goodies/baddies will perform Legilimancy on him to find the horcrux once they realize he was with Regulus, like Dumbledore did when he got the information out of Kreacher about Sirius's whereabouts in OotP? Liadain From hpcentaur at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 15:46:00 2007 From: hpcentaur at yahoo.com (hpcentaur) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:46:00 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter is not a Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164078 Harry Potter is not a horcrux because then it would be against JKR's religion (Christianity). In the real world if someone has a other soul in him then the person is possessed, by a demon for example. But if someone is possessed then the demon (other soul) takes control of the body where it is in. If Harry was possessed then don't you think that Voldemort would just take control of Harry without having to do a ritual to come back to live. If Harry Potter was a horcrux then Voldemort would have come back earlier in the body of a small boy. The muggles that posts things that Harry Potter is a horcrux doesn't think that it is basically impossible to put a soul in a scar. Why is it impossible, because the scar is part of Harry's body. If a other soul is in the body then Harry would have been Voldemort. The other soul would have taken control of Harry. And I think that it would be to risky to put a other soul in an alive person. The person's soul would fight with the other's soul. If it was a dead person then it would have been a different case. The body would not stand the other soul. Harry would go insane, and as far as I know Harry isn't insane. He just gets visions from Voldemort. In the bible Joseph got visions from God. But in Harry Potter, Harry gets visions from Voldemort. They say that the mind can't tell the difference between real and dreams. That is why he felt the visions so extremely real. The point here is that Harry can't be a Horcrux because two souls can't live in one body. Post from, HPCentaur Go To http://harry-potter-harry-potter-swicki.eurekster.com to find Harry Potter websites. From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Jan 23 17:16:24 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana Hoogland) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:16:24 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164079 Hi I am new and I have a question. I have been reading many posts in the archives and I have a question regarding the speculations about "Snape's Worst Memory". I have seen many suggestions that Snape removed these memories from his head to protect them from being seen by Harry. Can anyone tell me why so many think that the pensive is a memory elimination device? Although I have to admit that I only read the series once I cannot remember seeing anywhere that extracting the memory from ones head eliminates the memory from the head itself. Slughorn's memory was still there even though it was altered. In GoF Dumbledore talks about the memory Harry has seen when strolling around in it and of course Snape knows perfectly well what Harry has seen in his memory but that could not be if the memory wasn't there in the first place. To be able to understand what Harry has seen and what implications it would have shouldn't both people have placed the memory back first before reacting to it? If you have no recollection of it and if it can be used to be able to control once emotions by removing the memory than why did Snape react like he knows precisely what Harry has seen instead of only being angry at Harry for putting his nose into other people's business? Doesn't Dumbledore state in GoF that it is a device to sort out the memories to make better sence of them or to see if you might have overlooked something? I never got the impression that putting the memory into the pensive or store them into a bottle erases the memory from your head or that it can be used to hide memories to prevent anyone to see. Slughorn could have done that a long time ago and there would have been no reason from him to alter the memory. He could just have said the he lost it by removing it and throwing it away. Also Snape explains in OotP that the mind is not an open book so even if Harry was able to break through he would never be able to see the entire memory, only flashes of it which would make less sense to him than the pensive scene eventually did. Just my two cents of course. Dana From ibchawz at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 18:25:25 2007 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:25:25 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164080 Dana wrote: I have seen many suggestions that Snape removed these memories from his head to protect them from being seen by Harry. Can anyone tell me why so many think that the pensive is a memory elimination device? ibchawz responds: I see the pensieve memories working 2 different ways. First, one may make a copy of the memory to place in the pensieve. This works much like the "copy and paste" feature in many computer programs. The copying leaves the original intact and allows for multiple copies to pasted. The second way is to remove the memory from the mind and place it in the pensieve. This is the same as the "cut and paste" feature. For example, if you are typing a paragraph and want to move an entire sentence from the beginning to the end, you would use this method. ibchawz From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 18:36:39 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:36:39 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164081 > Dana: > I have seen many suggestions that > Snape removed these memories from his head to protect them from > being seen by Harry. Can anyone tell me why so many think that the > pensive is a memory elimination device? zgirnius: A number of reasons come to mind. First, why else would Snape remove memories and put them in the Pensieve before the lessons? Well, there is an arcane evil Snape theory that he did so to bait Harry into looking, so that he could end the lessons, but I don't buy it. First, because the lessons went on for weeks, and second, because I believe Snape does not own a Pensieve - he is using Dumbledore's. If Dumbledore loaned it to him to use during classes, this suggests there is a legitimate use for it when teaching Occlumency. Second, in GoF, Dumbledore explains the function of the Pensieve by first stating: "I sometimes find, and I am sure you know the feeling, that I simply have too make thoughts and memories crammed into my mind." Wording which suggests the possibility that placing the excess memories in the Pensieve relives the problem... > Dana: > Slughorn's memory was still there even though it > was altered. zgirnius: I like the 'word processor' explanation of this seeming paradox: when the user extracts the memory, s/he may "cut" or "copy" the memory. If giving a memory to someone else permanently, it would make sense to copy rather than cut, uhnless one truly wished to be rid of a memory. > Dana: > Snape knows perfectly well > what Harry has seen in his memory but that could not be if the > memory wasn't there in the first place. To be able to understand > what Harry has seen and what implications it would have shouldn't > both people have placed the memory back first before reacting to it? zgirnius: Yes, using the terminology I introduced above, if Snape's purpose in putting the memory in the Pensieve was to keep Harry from seeing it, then he would have "cut" the memory, knowing he could "paste" it back after the class was over. So why does he know what is in it? I think there are at least two types of memories. One is the full actual record of everyting excternal that happened in a particular event in one's life. That would be what Harry saw in the Pensieve. He did not, however, sense any of what Snape was thinking/feeling/remembering in that scene. But one can have secondary memories, memories *of* those memories. Snape may remember how, on many occasions after that memory, he thought about what had happened. He may remember his plans to remove that memory so Harry would not see it. These memories are not 'visual'. Or, perhaps, a better way to express my idea would be to say that if Harry did break into these secondary memories of Snape's worst memory, what he would see would be the external stuff that was going on when Snape had those thoughts. He might see young Snape staring at the ceiling in his dorm unable to sleep (as he remembers his humiliation). Or he might see Snape leaning back in his chair in his office as he takes a break from grading (and decides he will borrow the Pensieve to hide some memories from Harry). In this way, Snape can have a recollection of what the memory contains, without having an accessible visual record for Harry to see. I, after all, remember what happened to Snape. If there were wizards, and one stuck all my memories in a Pensieve, I don't think they would see what happened to Snape. They would see me reading and rereading "The Order of the Phoenix", and participating in online discussions. :D From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 19:08:00 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:08:00 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Discussion questions: > > 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety > of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - > Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire > sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is > that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? Alla: Harry. > 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) In this > chapter, McGonagall and Tonks ask the same questions that fans have > been asking for years, namely: what did Snape tell Dumbledore to > make him trust him? Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and > Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really > has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must > have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked > Dumbledore? How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could > have convinced him? What themes that the books have already visited > would Snape's tale (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, > and how could his ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's > story? Alla: Oooooo, I am happy to see a question for which I do not have to wear any hats. I honestly do not think that the Evil Snape or its varieties would have had that much trouble convincing Dumbledore. After all, unless plot requires him to do otherwise , Dumbledore always gives people second chances, looks for the best in people, etc, etc. I mean, I am just saying that Dumbledore IMO is not looking very hard to give the person second chance, he is IMO happy to do so if he sees smallest possibility that the person wants to be redeemed. We see Dumbledore offering a second chance to Malfoy, who tried to kill him, no less. We hear that he is ready to offer protection **not** just to Malfoy, but to his mother and father and I doubt that many people disagree that Malfoy Sr. is a hardened criminal. So, in comparison to this wonderful family, what did Snape do to Dumbledore? ( well, he killed him, but that happened much later, lol) As far as we know, nothing. Oh, he gave prophecy to Voldemort, oh he is a member of DE, but in my view in Dumbledore's eyes Snape would not look any worse than any DE who came to "spin a tale of deepest remorse". I think Dumbledore is always ready to eat it up with the spoon. IMO of course. Was there more than "remorse" to tell DD about? I have no clue and as many of us would love to know obviously. But what I am trying to say that even if Snape came to Dumbledore **only** with the tale of the deepest remorse, I doubt that he would have problems convincing Dumbledore of his sincerity. Oh, I am soooo sorry, Headmaster that I helped Voldemort to target Potters, I am so very sorry that their son is now an orphan. Please forgive me. Right. Okay, after I read it ? it does sound sarcastic, but I truly think that it is very possible that this was all that Snape told DD, with different tone of course ? the sincere one. As to your question about themes Evil Snape and its varieties would have resonated with ? betrayal of course. It could be sort of twist on Peter's fate ( how they different or similar). It could also be the comparison of Snape and other DE who got free ( Karkarov, Lucius, etc) What influence Evil Snape story would have had on Harry? I would say forgiveness of course. Yes, I think Harry would have to forgive Snape, but for Harry to make it hard to forgive Snape, Snape should be the horrible person, someone who committed G-d knows how many wrongs and hero still has to forgive him. > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is > accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you > annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had > stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Since Ron, Neville and Ginny > weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness > Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix > Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? Alla: I am definitely not annoyed with Hermione and Luna. Why should they expect that Snape would stupefy Flitwick? I do not hold it against them that they did not see it coming right away. > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the > same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and > centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out > against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find > this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has > lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, > or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his > behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with > Ginny? Alla: You know, I do go back and forth as to how well Lupin/Tonks were foreshadowed, but I definitely find him wanting to keep Tonks away to be very sweet, just as I found Harry breakup with Ginny to be sweet. Stupid, but very understandable in light of what you wrote Remus had been through. > 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is sleeping > peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? If so, what do you > think it signifies, and if JKR had wanted to signify the opposite, > how do you think she would have done it? It signifies that Dumbledore is very happy that his great plan to make Snape the Superspy, Voldemort's most trusted man by asking Snape to rip his soul apart was executed successfully Did I just say that? And for another interpretation It is simply a dramatic effect, because the man like Dumbledore cannot meet death in a different way but peaceful. How else his portrait will look no matter how he died? I sincerely doubt that it would be screaming violently, simply because it is Dumbledore and he would look dignified regardless of what he felt before he died, IMO of course. Do portraits even know how the people in them died? Aren't they made beforehand and magical imprint of the memory is taken earlier? > 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, > his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school > reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay > for the funeral? How does this compare with his manner with > Dumbledore in chapter four? If the school reopens, do you think he > will stay on as potions master and head of Slytherin, and do you > think Dumbledore's death will affect his decision? Alla: Slughorn's thoughts on Snape? I think he really said it - I thought I knew him to me signifies shock and dissapointment. I hope Slughorn stays, I think he does grow because of DD's death and I hope we will see him if not being the fighter in the battle, but at least protecting his students somehow. > 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he > went with Dumbledore? Would you have had the courage (or > stubbornness) to do the same at his age? Do you think that he did > what Dumbledore would have wanted? McGonagall will almost certainly > ask Dumbledore's portrait where he took Harry when it wakes up; what > do you think it will tell her? Since all the portraits are sworn to > help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the > horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to > turn into an Umbridge, or worse? Alla: Yes, I do. Harry is blamed when he does listen to Dumbledore and when he does not, lol ( Not saying that you are blaming him in this question, just that I read it often enough and not disputing anybody's right to blame him either). He did exactly what Dumbledore wanted and I wrote about it in the past, but I will say it again ? despite the fact that it would be nice if Harry shared it with the Order, first there are could be unwanted eyes and ears and second and IMO most important reason it is the device for kids (teens now, almost adults) to be front and center without adults interference. After all that is what great Albus Dumbledore wanted. And I am not sure what you mean about Mcgonagall turning into Umbridge? You mean that she would beat it out of DD portrait or coerce it in some way? For some reason I just do not see it. > 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to > Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of > Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is > conspicuous? Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school > opens or not, because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has > just been burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of > Grawp, or do you think he might have another reason that we don't > know about? Alla: Yes, I think Hagrid will stay because of Hogwarts is his home. No, I do not think that he would be the contact point for Snape, whom he secretly still trusts. > 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix > had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left > the school, had left the world had left Harry." Did you find this > ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- > read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to > know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be > associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? > Alla: I think it is very poignant. I did cry when I read it first couple times. I still find it very touching. Well, JKR said Fawkes will play a role. We shall see, I guess. Thanks Dung :) I truly enjoyed your questions. They are spectacular. I may come back even to those that I already answered briefly. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 19:07:07 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:07:07 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] R.A.B. ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701231107k28de782ct281487ff4f59c535@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164083 Sages Baby: Could Regulus have been R.A.B.? Has this discussion been brought up already? If so I would love a link. Thanks. -------------------------- Jeremiah: Yes, it has, but I don't have the link. I do love speculating on what Regulus' middle name would be. I vote for Aberforth but I think that would be too close of a relation to DD's brother and not JKR's style. (IMO) But Regulus Aberforth Black sounds so good! I think a lot of this has been re-hashed, but I would like to throw my hat in the ring for some choices. I think JKR will use an ancient name with some interresting meaning and a few tha ti like are: Actaeon: Greek mythological hunter who was torn apart by his own dogs. He was transformed into a deer and then became the hunted. (lol... gruesom!) Adrastos: Greek mythological name of the king of Argos meaning "he who stands his ground" or "courageous." Agamemnon: (not my first choice but a good one if you know the story) Greek meaning "very resolute." Aineias: Greek, meaning "praise." Aiolos and Aison: Greek, meaning "nimble, quick-moving." Alexnadros/Alexander/Alexios/Alexis: Greek, menaing "defender of Mankind." Alphaios: (latin: Alphaeus) Greek menaing "changing." Ammon: (Egyptian: Amun) Greek menaing "the hidden one." (However, this is my very, very favorite:) Antigonos: Greek, meaning "Against the ancestor." -- I love this because I love Antigone (the play) and this meaning fits so well into the story. Appolinaris/Apollon/Aplollonios: Greek, meaning "destroyer." Aristodemos: Greek meaning "excellence of the people." (How very noble... especially for the Noble House of Black). Asklepius: Greek, meaning "gives well-being." Athanas: greek meaning "immortal." Atreus: King of Mycenae; Greek meaning "fearless." (I like this one, too). I think that there are loads of possibilities but JKR has a tendancy to run with old names. There's a rumor out there that some translator has a copy of Book 7/DH and has confirmed that Regulus is the RAB in HBP and even goes as far as to give a middle name that starts with an "A" but I think it's bogus. (Doesn't make sense to start translating a book that's noy yet written and edited. too much wasted motion). So, it's anyone's guess and I hope it's one of my favorites I listed above. If not, I'm very curious to find out what the name is and what it means. (Unless it just sounds good and means nothing relevent, what-so-ever). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 19:25:44 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:25:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164084 dungrollin wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 29, The Phoenix Lament > 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? Carol responds: I must confess that I was also in shock and felt betrayed, not so much by Snape as by JKR. How dare she set up DDM!Snape and then blow him away? But still, by the time I read this chapter, I was beginning to get my hopes up again and to see holes in Harry's story. So I suppose the character I sympathize with most in his reactions is Hagrid, who clings to his belief in Snape's loyalty right up to the moment he sees Dumbledore dead and never says a word against him after that. I also sympathize with Mr. Weasley, who expresses shock at Dumbledore's death but says nothing against Snape. I sympathize less with McGonagall, who immediately after her initial shock states that she only trusted Snape because of Dumbledore's faith in him (I think she trusted him until she learned of his background at the end of GoF and then began having doubts despite his having just helped Dumbledore deal with Crouch!Moody before her eyes.) I sympathize even less with Lupin, who mentions Snape's Occlumency skills and seems completely hardened against him. Mrs. Weasley's reaction is interesting--she's only interested in her son's injury and seems oblivious to Dumbledore's death. I understand that but I'm torn between sympathy and irritation at her behavior. Slughorn's "I taught him. I thought I knew him" is also interesting because it resembles Lupin's "Yes, I knew him. Or I thought I did" with regard to Sirius Black in PoA. I don't normally *empathize* with any of these characters but I normally feel some *sympathy* for Molly and Lupin, and I like Mr. Weasley. The only thing I really like about Hagrid is his steadfast belief in Snape. I like him more and McGonagall and less after this scene. Needless to say, I'm a DDM!Snaper and I should have more sympathy for these characters than I do because my own faith in him was temporarily shaken. (Blame the Harry!centric pov. :-p!) > 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) Carol: What? I'm not sure that I can. Dungrollin: In this chapter, McGonagall and Tonks ask the same questions that fans have been asking for years, namely: what did Snape tell Dumbledore to make him trust him? Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked Dumbledore? How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could have convinced him? What themes that the books have already visited would Snape's tale (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, and how could his ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's story? Carol: Let me just say that I do think there's more, much more, than a tale of remorse behind DD's complete trust in Snape, including Snape's saving Harry in SS/PS, watching over him throughout the books, reporting faithfully to DD on numerous occasions (some of which we know about or can deduce from canon) and repeatedly risking his life for Dumbledore. And I'm sure there was something else, possiblty Regulus Black's death, that caused young Snape to go to Dumbledore and persuade DD that he rejected Voldemort completely. And we can suppose with Lupin that Snape's Occlumency could somehow fool Dumbledore, all of which would "resonate with" and corroborate Harry's story. (At any rate, Lupin's Occlumency remark and his comment that Snape hated James make Harry's story more plausible to the hearers, as does the fact that Harry was an eyewitness to DD's death.) I can see how the hearers would believe in ESE!Snape, not realizing that Harry's version has Snape's supposed remorse coming after GH, which is inconsistent with his spying "at great personal risk" before GH. I can see why the hearers would conclude from Harry's story that Snape is ESE. His version of Snape's belated and fake remorse makes the story credible and fits with DD's belief in second chances. Unfortunately it also makes Dumbledore look like what Draco calls him, a stupid old man. (I can't see Snape as ESE! myself, but I can certainly understand why McGonagall, Lupin, et al. would think so given Harry's story.) > > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is > accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Carol: But *can* we make this assumption? Flitwick has a bruise on his forehead and has to stay in the hospital wing until after the conversation at Bill's bedside. Unless you're seventy-something mcGonagall hit with four Stunning spells at once, the spell usually requires only a countercurse (Ennervate!) and a few moments to recover from disorientation. And wouldn't a Stunning spell fired at someone's head or chest cause them to fall over backwards, not forwards? Maybe Flitwick really did faint? As for gullibility, they weren't gullible at all. True, Harry distrusted Snape, but he wasn't doing anything to help Draco, and he was a member of the Order of the Phoenix and a teacher. Flitwick did need their help. It made perfect sense to do exactly what Snape said (which also kept them out of danger for awhile). Nothing gullible about it. Hermione *thinks* after the fact that it's gullible, but she's doing exactly what McGonagall does, blaming herself for trusting Snape. Whether it was her own instinct or the Felix Felicis that made her do it, it was the right thing to do. And, on the off-chance that Lupin is right that Snape would have killed them rather than merely Stunning them if they disobeyed him, it also saved their lives. (But why bother to give them an order if he's ESE? Why not just Stun them as he Stunned Flitwick? Killing them would take too much power and energy and unnecesarily complicate matters. He didn't yet know what he would find on the tower.) Dungrollin: Are you annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had > stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Carol: Heavens no! Then he *would* have Stunned them. He couldn't have two kids trying to duel him or following him. Hermione and Luna duelling Snape? Impossible and ridiculous, whether he's DDM! or ESE! Besides, as I said above, I'm not even sure that he *did* Stun Flitwick though I do understand that he would want Flitwick and everyone else out of the way in case he had to go through with the UV. (BTW, I still think the Flitwick-as-duelling-champion idea is absurd, a joke or silly rumor circulated among the students that we hear of only once with no corroborating evidence--skill at Charms is not skill at DADA. Incapacitated by a Stunning spell if it is one? And he's so light that a simple Summoning or Banishing Charm sends him zooming across the classroom. Best to keep him out of harm's way.) Dungrollin: Since Ron, Neville and Ginny weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? Carol: Hm. I agree that the kids weren't much use in the battle and it might have been even worse if others, unprotected by the Felix Felicis, had shown up. I never thought very highly of the DA, to tell the truth. Four of the five DA members who accompanied Harry to the MoM were incapacitated, and all of them would have died if the Order hadn't shown up. Also, it's not much use to teach the kids to cast a Patronus without a Dementor!Boggart (and they'd already learned Expelliarmus from Snape in CoS). Facing a real Dementor is much different from casting a Patronus for fun in the RoR. Protego, Stupefy, and Impedimenta are better than nothing, but not enough in themselves to protect against a crazy DE casting AKs in every direction, especially backed by his friends. The main purpose of the DA was to undermine Umbridge, in which it succeeded despite Marietta's snitching, and it allowed kids from three of the four Houses to work and learn together and enabled Ron and Harry to at least become acquainted with a few Ravenclaws and a few more Hufflepuffs. That will come in handy in DH, I'm sure. So, no. HBP didn't alter my view of the DA. It confirmed it. > > 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have > known a spell we didn't [ ] After all, he was the Defence against > the Dark Arts teacher?" We all know Snape had been teaching potions > for fifteen years before that, so what do you make of this sudden > respect for his knowledge of DADA? Do you think the teaching posts > confer something special on their holders? Does this give us any > clues as to why Voldemort particularly wanted to have the DADA job? > Or do you think McGonagall could be alluding in some way to the > curse? Carol: It's an odd remark given that just being the DADA teacher would hardly confer special abilities on Snape given the string of incompetent or corrupt DADA teachers in the last few years. Lockhart, for example, was completely inept and fled in disgrace when he was supposed to deal with the monster in CoS, and if being the DADA teacher means Snape knows spells that the rest of them don't, why wouldn't Lupin, a former DADA teacher, know the same spell? Maybe she realizes that Snape is the first really qualified DADA teacher they've had, at least when it comes to duelling rather than minor Dark creatures. Certainly, she trusted him earlier to deal with the cursed opal necklace (and a good thing, too, since he saved Katie's life). I don't think that Mcgonagall's words have anything to do with Voldemort or the DADA curse, only, IMO, with her recognition that Snape really does know DADA. (BTW, we aren't told who's right, Harry or McGonagall.) > > 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that > Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur > that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all > right; she only has eyes for Bill. Do you find that surprising? How > do you interpret her different reactions to the dramas at the ends > of CoS, GoF and HBP, and how do they reflect upon her assertion in > OotP that Harry is as good as her son? Carol: I commented on this reaction earlier. I'm sure that she'd have reacted much like Madam Pomfrey or maybe McGonagall to DD's death if her son hadn't been injured, but for Molly, her family takes precedence over everything. (Remember her Boggart.) Bill is probably her favorite son, the oldest, handsome, intelligent, good at everything. Dumbledore, in contrast, is an old man and unrelated. Any sadness she feels for his death, any anger at Snape's supposed treachery, is forced to the back of her mind by her son lying unconscious and mutilated in front of her. It's natural and human and to be expected. It has nothing to do with Harry, who was part of her Boggart, too. After all, Harry is alive and uninjured. If he'd been mauled by Greyback, she'd be as concerned for him as she is for Bill, IMO. > > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the > same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and > centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out > against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find > this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has > lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, > or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his > behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with > Ginny? Carol: First off, I can't reconcile Molly's remark about eloping right after Hogwarts with the earlier remarks on Ogg and Apollyon Pringle, but, oh, well. It fits with the Potters, anyway. But Remus Lupin, like Sirius Black (and PP), appears to be a loner except for his small circle of male friends. Lupin would see himself as an Untouchable, not suited for love and marriage because of the danger he would present to a wife and children, and probably steeled himself against romantic feelings long before. And, certainly, Tonks would seem an odd match for him, some fifteen or so years younger and temperamentally opposite (when she's her normal self as presented in OoP). Losing his close friends would, as you suggest, add to his sense of isolation and his fear of making--and losing--new friends, much less falling in love and losing the loved one. It's different from Harry, however. Harry craves normality. He wants to be Just!Harry, to have a family and a girlfriend and not have the burden of being the Prophecy Boy, the boy with the scar, the Chosen One. He envies Ron as much as Ron envies him, or at least, he envies Ron's way of life. So giving up Ginny is a sacrifice, a duty. He's setting aside his attraction and affection for her (not yet mature love) before it's too late in hopes of protecting her. (Of course, such protection is somewhat condescending and probably futile, but he's doing what he thinks is right for Ginny.) Lupin is preventing, or trying to prevent, any such bond from forming in the first place, and ignoring or repelling Tonks's feelings for him without allowing any such feelings in himself, or at least not recognizing and acknowledging them if they exist. I don't know who's right, Lupin or Molly, but I do think his treatment of Tonks is harsh. He seems to be placing his own doubts and fears above her love. He could take measures to protect her (surely there's some way to obtain Wolfbane Potion is he's really too hopeless at potion-making to brew it himself), and she's at as much risk of dying in battle as he is. So I'd say that if he really does care about her, if there's really a chance that he could love a younger woman with pink or purple hair and no domestic skills and completely different tastes and sensibilities, he ought to give the relationship, and Tonks, a chance. He ought, for once in his life, to make someone else happy for her own sake and forget about himself and his failings. > > 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is sleeping > peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? If so, what do you > think it signifies, and if JKR had wanted to signify the opposite, > how do you think she would have done it? Carol: Absolutely. Portrait!Dumbledore is untroubled by his own death and by Snape's supposed treachery. He's sure that Snape has done what was right rather than what was easy. He knows that only Snape could have gotten Harry safely off the tower without being detected and killed by the DEs, saved Draco, and gotten the DEs off the Hogwarts grounds. He knows that his time is up; that he's made all the necessary arrangements, from informing the Dursleys about 12 GP to placing Snape with the DEs and providing a substitute for him as Head of Slytherin. He's instructed Harry about Horcruxes and Voldemort and knows that Harry will do what he has to do without him. Peacefully sleeping Dumbledore reinforces the image of dead Dumbledore looking as if he's asleep (not at all the usual expression on the face of an AK'd person). There's more to DD's death than meets Harry's eye, and it's not nearly as horrendous as Harry thinks it is. Death, we're reminded, is merely the next great adventure. Harry desperately needs to talk with Portrait!Dumbledore and hear what he has to say about Snape and death (and just possibly about Horcrux locations). If JKR had wanted to indicate otherwise, she would have had dead!Dumbledore looking horrified and bewildered, with open eyes, and Portrait!Dumbledore awake and warning Harry against Snape. Just my reading of the canon, but it's pretty clear to me that wise old dumbledore retained his wisdom and serenity to the end because his death was unavoidable and occurred in the best possible way, the way he wanted it to, given the potion and the DADA curse and the UV and whatever he wants Snape to do in DH. > > 8. What do you make of McGonagall's statement about closing the > school: " I must say that Professor Dumbledore's murder is more > disturbing to me than the idea of Slytherin's monster living > undetected in the bowels of the castle " Do you find this statement > surprising? Do you agree with it? Do you think it might reflect the > fact that she was a student at Hogwarts the first time the Chamber > opened? Do you think it reflects JKR's opinion? Carol: I hadn't thought about McG's being a student the first time the Chamber opened, but that certainly didn't deter her from continuing to attend the school or teaching there or becoming deputy headmistress. I think that closing the school is both her greatest fear and her instinctive reaction to protect the students, but I think she's wrong and Sprout and Hagrid and Slughorn are right. The school is at least as safe, probably safer than most homes (McG herself listed the protections they'd placed on it). All they need to do is destroy or disable the Vanishing Cabinet and, if necessary, reinstate the anti-flying protection. Certainly, the school is the best place for people like Theo Nott, whose mother is dead and whose father is in Azkaban, and who might be in danger of joining the DEs if he's not in school. It's also the best place for Crabbe and Goyle, who will be at loose ends without Draco but can be kept out of trouble at Hogwarts. It's the best place for Muggleborns, who'll be out of touch with the WW at home. It's the best place for Hannah Abbott, whose mother has been murdered. And so on. I think Hogwarts will be open and Ginny Weasley will be there. It's the only hope for the future of the British WW; it's a sanctuary; it's the place where the four houses can learn to work together at last. McGonagall is as wrong about Hogwarts as she is about Snape, IMO. > > 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, > his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school > reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay > for the funeral? How does this compare with his manner with > Dumbledore in chapter four? If the school reopens, do you think he > will stay on as potions master and head of Slytherin, and do you > think Dumbledore's death will affect his decision? Carol: I prefer his reaction ("I taught him. I thought I knew him") to McGonagall's. He doesn't claim to have trusted Snape only because of Dumbledore; he trusted him for himself. He overcomes his ambivalence about the students staying for the funeral, and he himself points out that Hogwarts is as safe as anyplace in the (British) WW. I think the whole point of DD's hiring him as Potions master (aside from protecting him and getting that memory) was to replace Snape in that post and as HoH of Slytherin after Snape's inevitable departure (and his own anticipated death). So, yes. Slughorn will stay. We won't see a new Potions master, and who else can they find to be Head of Slytherin House? > > 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he > went with Dumbledore? Would you have had the courage (or > stubbornness) to do the same at his age? Do you think that he did > what Dumbledore would have wanted? McGonagall will almost certainly > ask Dumbledore's portrait where he took Harry when it wakes up; what > do you think it will tell her? Since all the portraits are sworn to > help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the > horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to > turn into an Umbridge, or worse? Carol: I think that Harry was right to remain loyal to Dumbledore, and if DD had wanted McGonagall to know where he was going, he would have told her. She worries too much, and she wouldn't approve of Harry's taking such terrible risks. She might be captured and tortured and reveal too much. Best that she keep to her important job of running Hogwarts and keeping it safe without too much knowledge of what Harry is up to, or up against. ("Oh, well, Professor, we went up to this seaside cave on a cliff and crossed an underground lake full of Inferi. I forcefed Professor Dumbledore this horrible potion on his Orders so we could retrieve one of Voldemort's Horcruxes, which turned out to be a fake. . . ."). Nope. I can see why Dumbledore wouldn't want McGonagall, of all people, to have any idea what happened in the cave or any hint of the Horcrux hunt to come. (Now Snape is another matter; he almost certainly knows about the Horcruxes and what Harry will be facing, but there's no need to warn Harry not to confide in him.) > > 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry & co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? Harry didn't tell her what he knows about the Unbreakable Vow either (despite the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the Horcruxes). Do you think she will find out, and if she did how do you think she would react? What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to piece together from the information he has? Carol: I didn't think about McGonagall not being told how Harry knew about the RoR. Maybe the Order members will put their heads together and figure out the holes in Harry's story. But, no, it's not surprising that she didn't ask that particular question. Her head was full of Snape's "betrayal" and the future of Hogwarts. Portrait!DD will probably tell her as much as he thinks she needs to know (assuming that a portrait has full knowledge of its subject's past) and reassure her that keeping Hogwarts open is the right decision. As for what story about Draco and Snape Harry should be able to piece together from the information he has, give me a whole day to write that post! > > 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to > Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of > Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is > conspicuous? Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school > opens or not, because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has > just been burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of > Grawp, or do you think he might have another reason that we don't > know about? Carol: I'm not sure that I found his reaction moving considering how often he cries in the books. But, yes, the omission of a condemnation of Snape, following on the heels of his earlier defense of Snape, is both conspicuous and significant. Maybe Hagrid will tell us the real reason that DD trusted Snape (and why he still does). He can mourn for DD without condemning Snape. The only person with a similar reaction is Arthur Weasley, who is also dealing with the injuries of his son. Hagrid's hut hasn't actually burned down; I think it can be magically restored (as he expected DD to do). I think he wants to stay at Hogwarts because it's his home; his job is there; the Forbidden Forest is there; Grawp is there. What else does he know and what else can he do? He's not a fully qualified wizard. He could run off and marry Madame Maxime and take care of her horses, but I don't think he'd want to do that. He has to stay and do what he can for the Order, take care of the Hogwarts grounds, and teach COMC if they'll let him. > > 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the > governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing > whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Do you think that JKR ought to > tell us one way or another before book 7? Carol: The only canon we have is the fact that Hogwarts has never closed down in the past despite two sets of Basilisk attacks and VW1, and the numerous statements by DD, snape, and McGonagall about how safe it is (or would have been if not for the Vanishing Cabinet). I'm quite sure that it will reopen, if not in DH thn the following year so that HRH (I predict they'll all live) can continue their education. > > 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's > death suspicious? Do you think that we may find out something in > book 7 which will make us view this hospital-wing scene in a > different light (even if you can't imagine what it is yet)? Carol: Oh, certainly we'll read it in a new light after DH when we learn what was going on with Snape and DD, just as we read the Three Broomsticks scene in PoA differently after learning that Sirius Black wasn't the SK and isn't out to murder Harry. The only person whose reactions I find suspicious is Lupin, who is trying to find as much reason to blame or suspect Snape as possible. I don't want him to be ESE, but he certainly seems to be the most likely candidate. Everyone else is either preoccupied by Bill, grieving for DD, examining their own behavior and reactions, or (in the case of Tonks) sidetracked by Lupin himself. Of course, ESE!Tonks is also a possibility, but I think her OoC behavior throughout the book has been sufficiently explained by her unrequited love. Lupin, though, ought to know Snape will and ought to know better than anyone present about the DADA curse. I was disappointed by his reactions. Either he'll notice the gaps and inconsistencies in Harry's story and get him to fill them in so that he can reexamine them, or he's ESE. I don't think he's just deluded or distracted like the rest of them. He's too smart for that. > > 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the > Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall > asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? They've often been vocal in > the past when Harry and Dumbledore were alone together; is their > silence in this scene conspicuous? How do you think Phineas > Nigellus, for example, reacted to news of Dumbledore's death, and > when did he hear? Carol: The portraits are probably stunned and may have the same reaction as McGonnagall--but Dumbledore trusted him! They haven't heard anything like the whole story yet, not even as much as McGonnagall has heard. However, they've been privy to conversations between Snape and Dumbledore that the teachers and Order members haven't heard, so I expect Phineas Nigellus, at least, to speak up, especially since he defended Snape to Harry twice in HBP (or called him impertinent for questioning Snape) and he has a portrait in both Hogwarts and Harry's house/Order HQ at 12 GP. I'll be very disappointed if Phineas Nigellus doesn't speak his peace in defense of Snape in DH, even if Harry isn't yet ready to hear it, after Portrait!DD has given him the facts of the matter--or given them to McGonagall in the protraits' hearing. > > 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix > had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left > the school, had left the world had left Harry." Did you find this > ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- > read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to > know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be > associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? Carol: Yes, it was poignant and it's still poignant. It reminds me of a line from Shelley, "Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought," and of the James Baldwin story, "Sonny's Blues," which is about turning the darkness in our lives into music, sorrow into beauty. Fawkes's song transforms grief into beauty, making it bearable and giving it new meaning, just as poetry and music have always done. So, no, Fawkes's lament will never stop being poignant to me. For me, Fawkes is already both a character and a symbol, but if he acts to protect or aid Harry, unprompted by Dumbledore (who set up the protections in CoS before he was sent away in case Harry opened up the Chamber), he may become more of a character in other readers' minds. (I think he healed Harry's injury on his own initiative in GoF, but it's not as memorable as the similar moment in CoS. Whatever he does in DH will probably be tied in with the brother wands, which have been foreshadowed since SS/PS. We haven't heard the last of Phoenix song. Carol, who has spent the entire morning on this post, thanking dungrollin for her interesting and thought-provoking questions, which actually reinforced rather than countered her DDM!Snape perspective From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 20:07:49 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:07:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HBP Questions: Harry/Ginny relat., Fleur's presence, and spell on locket In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701231207u10159252i43df510dc95f7120@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164085 Hi, I'm Michelle from Reno Nevada(and a first-time poster), and I wanted to throw out some questions from Half-Blood Prince for comments and speculation. 1) Of all the girls at Hogwarts, why did JKR choose Ginny to have a relationship/love interest with Harry at this crucial point? I assume Ginny will be used by LV to hurt, distract, or summon Harry. The Weasley's, and now esp. Ginny, are Harry's beloved "family". I don't think this relationship is haphazard. --(Jeremiah) Because Ginny is a bad-ass young lady. She's strong and (now) confident. She has experience with LV and doesn't love Harry because he's famous. Also, since ginny has so much experience with Fred and George's antice, I think she'd be a great asset in any situation. 2)I also don't think it's meaningless that JKR has kept Fleur around. Even though she was disappointing in the Tri-Wizard Cup, she still is considered skilled. Any predictions about why she was kept around?? --(Jeremiah) Besides letting Fleur possible seek vengance on Greyback, Fleur can do some pretty good magic. Sure, she totally screwed up at the Tri-Wizard tournament, but she was chosen as the best from her school. She didnt' have the stamina or courage to succeed at that time but she loves Bill very much... and DD says love is a very powerful force... it is even enough to shut Mrs. Weasly's mouth when she's givin Fleur some lip about the wedding. And I think that anyone who can stand up to Mrs. Weasly can face anything ferocious and upsetting... lol... (I love Molly Weasley! but she can be very intimidating). 3)Close to the end of HBP after Harry and DD had gotten the locket, crossed the lake, and climbed out of the boat, DD says, "The protection was, after all, well designed...one alone could not have done it." Yet, the boat was designed to carry only one across the lake, and DD commented on Harry's age and skill not registering. Who was R.A.B.'s companion, and therefore, also knows about at least one horcrux. This really has me intrigued! Any other comments about that scene? --(jeremiah) Liadain has a very interresting theory. I don't want to say "I Agree" but I like where it is heading. It is a great question and can open a huge can of worms like: How many Death Eaters knew about LV's Horcruxes and how many of them were going to try to get rid the Horcruxes... how many had children who could help, how many had House Elves who would be sworn to secrecy... the possibilities are endless. Also, there is the thought that if LV made the Horcrux in the locket with Regulus present ('cause Regulus knows about it at some point so why not before its creation) then it is possible that Regulus aided in the formation of the Horcrux and was asked to place it in the basin for LV and did a little switch-a-roo on LV. Meaning, the Horcrux never got into the basin and Regulus tricked LV to begin with. I guess we'll find out. I'm sure it has something to do with Lucius Malfoy having the Diary but not really knowing what it was (a Horcrux). The double-cross by Regulus would have placed LV in a vrey difficult position assuming LV knew the Horcrux was destroyed. Michelle in Reno =========================== Jeremiah: BTW, Michelle. I'm in San Diego, Ca and my parents were married in Reno. (they eloped because my Grandmother refused to let her daughter marry a Catholic.. i.e. my dad. LOL... ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 20:17:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:17:28 -0000 Subject: McGonagall vs. Umbridge (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164086 dungrollin: > > 10. Since all the portraits are sworn to help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to turn into an Umbridge, or worse? > zgirnius responded: > I don't think McGonagall has much in common with Umbridge. It is my opinion that she asked with the intent to help Harry, and further the work of the Order in Dumbledore's absence. The extenmt to which the portraits must obey the current head is unclear to me. I'll be curious to see what other people think. Carol adds: Thanks for calling my attention to this part of the question, which I missed in my own (already overly detailed) response. I agree that McGonagall will never turn into an Umbridge. She's strict (except for occasional favoritism related to Quidditch), but she also has a kind, compassionate side concealed by her stern expression and prim, proper, schoolmarmish air. (Don't we twice see her brushing away a tear?) In contrast, Umbridge pretends to be sweet and treats the students like little children. Instead of teaching them difficult and dangerous magic, like McGonagall (and Snape), Umbridge "protects" them by teaching them theory and only theory, supposedly expecting them to pass their DADA OWLs without ever having learned, much less practiced, a DADA spell. And Umbridge punishes Harry's "lies" with a vicious, blood-drawing punishment that leaves his hand scarred; McGonagall scolds Fake!Moody for using Transfiguration as a punishment. Even if she agreed with Umbridge's pro-MoM, anti-Dumbledore stance, as she clearly doesn't, she would never approve of her teaching methods or her disciplinary tactics. One of McGonagall's finest moments is in OoP when she stands up to Umbridge, literally and figurative, when Umbridge tries to interfere in Harry's career counseling session. No, McGonagall, whatever her faults (and she does have them, as do all of JKR's characters) will never become an Umbridge. In fact, she seems to be the antithesis of Umbridge in every way. What McGonagall would do if the portraits refused to defer to her, I don't know, but I think it's a moot point. They closed DD's office to Umbridge, or it sealed itself off, and Everard informs her that Scrimgeour is coming, tacitly acknowledging her authority as headmistress. I doubt that the board of governors would choose another headmaster/mistress under those circumstances. I think that part of her job description would be to assume the office in the event of DD's death, and she was hired because she had the qualifications to do so. The office's and the portraits' acceptance of her seals the bargain. Besides, a new headmaster or headmistress unfamiliar with the Hogwarts students and the events of the last six years (at least) would be a disservice. The students need a firm, familiar authority figure who knows them and will put their welfare before everything else. Also, of course, Harry needs a headmistress who knows him and cares about him so he'll be allowed to revisit Hogwarts to use the RoR or the Pensieve or to talk to Portrait!Dumbledore, so for plot reasons, I think that JKR will retain McGonagall as headmistress at Hogwarts, which I believe will--and should--remain open. Carol, who thinks that McGonagall will be too busy as headmistress to play much of a role in helping the Order in DH but that she'll aid Harry in small but necessary ways From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jan 23 21:05:19 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:05:19 -0500 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: <1169564364.1107.53808.m20@yahoogroups.com> References: <1169564364.1107.53808.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C90D4952C8FD9F-1378-2D5D@MBLK-R03.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164088 Thanks for the great overview and questions, Dungrollin! 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? Hagrid inspired sympathy, he was so broken up. And Harry, of course. I can't say there's one character I normally identify with, since I identify with several for different reasons. 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) In this chapter, McGonagall and Tonks ask the same questions that fans have been asking for years, namely: what did Snape tell Dumbledore to make him trust him? Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked Dumbledore? How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could have convinced him? What themes that the books have already visited would Snape's tale (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, and how could his ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's story? I'm trying to keep my DDM!Snape hat off, but it keeps trying to jump back on my head! It's magical, I suppose ;-) Really, you bring up the biggest reason I can't buy an ESE!Snape--I can't see any way Dumbledore could have been tricked or hoodwinked. Dumbledore is too powerful a wizard and he's known Snape in one manner or another since Snape was 11 years old. ESE!Snape (and its variations) means Fool!Dumbledore, and that's the real stumbling block for me. I just can't buy into him, no way, no how. Sorry (okay, not really!) 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Since Ron, Neville and Ginny weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? I don't think Hermione and Luna were gullible at all. They may think Snape a mean teacher, but they still trust him as a teacher and ally (even if Harry doesn't) so they have no reason here to suspect he's lying. As for the DA, this scene didn't really change my views. I don't expect the DA members to be more powerful than most adult wizards. Though I do expect they'll grow into it, especially if the DA is back for Book 7. 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have known a spell we didn't [?] After all, he was the Defence against the Dark Arts teacher?" We all know Snape had been teaching potions for fifteen years before that, so what do you make of this sudden respect for his knowledge of DADA? Do you think the teaching posts confer something special on their holders? Does this give us any clues as to why Voldemort particularly wanted to have the DADA job? Or do you think McGonagall could be alluding in some way to the curse? McGonagall knew Snape as a student, so I'm assuming she knew about his affinity for Dark Arts (as Sirius said, Snape knew more curses as an 11 year old than most adults). She's also worked with him for 15 years, and if she didn't know he'd pursued the DADA position during much of that time, she would know he's qualified for it. As far as teaching posts conferring something special on their holders, given the number of incompetent teachers we've seen at Hogwarts, I think NOT! 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all right; she only has eyes for Bill. Do you find that surprising? How do you interpret her different reactions to the dramas at the ends of CoS, GoF and HBP, and how do they reflect upon her assertion in OotP that Harry is as good as her son? I didn't find Molly's reaction strange at all. Harry isn't visibly hurt, nor anyone else, while Bill is severely injured for life. While I'm sure she's sorry Dumbledore is dead, understandably she's consumed at the moment by her concern for her injured son. 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with Ginny? I do understand Lupin wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, as he's been doing that with people all his life, to protect himself and from his POV to protect others. He's been doing that to Harry all along too. It's selfish behavior though. If Tonks (or Harry, or whoever) knows who and what he is and is willing to assume the risk of loving him, then the courageous thing for Lupin to do is to honor that risk by taking the same risk back. I'm still waiting for Lupin to show his true Gryffindor colors and do this :-( 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is sleeping peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? If so, what do you think it signifies, and if JKR had wanted to signify the opposite, how do you think she would have done it? I do consider the portrait sleeping peacefully to be significant. To me it signifies that Dumbledore died equally at peace with himself (as his expression when Harry found him also signified). If it had truly gone pear-shaped in the end--Snape killed him without Dumbledore's tacit agreement to that act--then I think we wouldn't have been shown this peacefully sleeping Portrait! Dumbledore. As for what JKR would have done to signify the opposite, maybe not show the portrait at all? But since she clearly intended Snape to be on the side of good and Dumbledore to die having accomplished what he wanted to accomplish all along, it's really a moot point ;-) 8. What do you make of McGonagall's statement about closing the school: "? I must say that Professor Dumbledore's murder is more disturbing to me than the idea of Slytherin's monster living undetected in the bowels of the castle?" Do you find this statement surprising? Do you agree with it? Do you think it might reflect the fact that she was a student at Hogwarts the first time the Chamber opened? Do you think it reflects JKR's opinion? I do agree with the statement, more because of the circumstances of the moment than anything else. Voldemort wasn't back during the CoS incident, so the threat to Hogwarts and its students is much greater with Dumbledore gone than it was even with a monster in the bowels of the castle. 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay for the funeral? How does this compare with his manner with Dumbledore in chapter four? If the school reopens, do you think he will stay on as potions master and head of Slytherin, and do you think Dumbledore's death will affect his decision? I suspect Slughorn will make the decision to stay on, at least partly in response to Dumbledore's death, which has made the school much more vulnerable now. Of course he may take some persuading, as sticking his neck out isn't really his natural instinct. And Hogwarts will reopen. 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he went with Dumbledore? Would you have had the courage (or stubbornness) to do the same at his age? Do you think that he did what Dumbledore would have wanted? McGonagall will almost certainly ask Dumbledore's portrait where he took Harry when it wakes up; what do you think it will tell her? Since all the portraits are sworn to help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to turn into an Umbridge, or worse? I think Harry was right, as he was following Dumbledore's orders. As for what information Portrait!Dumbledore and the other portraits might tell McGonagall, that depends. I don't really see McGonagall as another Umbridge, but I'm starting to get a more than sneaking suspicion that she may well turn out to be another Peter Pettigrew. If so, all bets are off... 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry & co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? Harry didn't tell her what he knows about the Unbreakable Vow either (despite the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the Horcruxes). Do you think she will find out, and if she did how do you think she would react? What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to piece together from the information he has? McGonagall...well, I have more to say about her in another, upcoming post. In the meantime, see my answer to #10. 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is conspicuous? Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school opens or not, because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has just been burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of Grawp, or do you think he might have another reason that we don't know about? I was moved by Hagrid's reaction. I also suspect we didn't get what Hagrid thinks of Snape's treachery because JKR is still hiding something about Hagrid and Snape's relationship. After all, Hagrid is the LAST person to hide his feelings. If he thought Snape was the evil, murdering bastard everyone else has come to accept, he'd hardly hesitate to say so. Very suspicious this omission, I think. As for why Hagrid wants to stay at Hogwarts, it is his home in every sense. That's the main reason to me, and it encompasses everything else, his caring for Grawp, whatever secrets he may carry about Snape or Harry, etc. 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Do you think that JKR ought to tell us one way or another before book 7? Hogwarts will reopen. No canon to provide, but JKR has said the books are about Harry's seven years at Hogwarts, so how could the school *not* play a role in Book 7? As for whether JKR should tell us or not, I don't think there's any reason why she should. 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's death suspicious? Do you think that we may find out something in book 7 which will make us view this hospital-wing scene in a different light (even if you can't imagine what it is yet)? 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? They've often been vocal in the past when Harry and Dumbledore were alone together; is their silence in this scene conspicuous? How do you think Phineas Nigellus, for example, reacted to news of Dumbledore's death, and when did he hear? The silence, suspicious...uh huh. I do wish we had gotten a reaction from Phineas over Dumbledore's death though. I very much hope Phineas has some words to say about that in Book 7. And I'm looking forward to the prospect of Portrait!Dumbledore and Phineas having a conversation or two. Hope it happens! 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left the school, had left the world ? had left Harry." Did you find this ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? It was a poignant ending. I'm sure we'll see Fawkes again in Book 7, and while he'll certainly always be associated with Dumbledore, it would be nice to see him as a character in his own right too. I hope we will. And zeroing in on the words "had left Harry," I'm suddenly wondering again if Fawkes may end up with...Snape. Hmm. Thanks again for the questions, Dungrollin! ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Jan 23 19:52:13 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:52:13 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164089 > ibchawz responds: > I see the pensieve memories working 2 different ways. First, > one may make a copy of the memory to place in the pensieve. > This works much like the "copy and paste" feature in many > computer programs. The copying leaves the original intact > and allows for multiple copies to pasted. The second way > is to remove the memory from the mind and place it in the > pensieve. This is the same as the "cut and paste" feature. Dana Now: Maybe you're right; I just read the chapter of the first lesson with Snape again and after it Snape puts the memories back. There would indeed be no reason to put them back if there are a mere copy. I still think it is fishy but have to re-read it again before I can make up my mind. Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 21:17:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:17:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's portrait (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164090 Alla asked: > Do portraits even know how the people in them died? Aren't they made beforehand and magical imprint of the memory is taken earlier? Carol responds: Excellent question, and not one I think we can answer at this point. However, it seems to me that Dumbledore could have had a portrait painted (or made through whatever magical process creates one) as part of the many preparations he seems to have made before or during Harry's sixth year for his own death. Right before the trip to the cave, DD sends Harry for the Invisibility Cloak that he's ordered Harry to keep with him at all times (a ploy to get rid him if there ever was one, though I think he's intentionally allowing Harry to make his own preparations, too). Clearly, Dumbledore is up to something (a last-minute consultation with Snape, perhaps). Is it possible that DD could have activated the already-painted portrait during Harry's absence, so that it knows everything he's done to this point, or the gist of it? In that case, it would know why DD trusted Snape and what he planned for him and their contingency plans in the event that the third provision of the UV was activated. That would take of the problem Alla stipulated of the magical imprint of the memory being placed in the portrait too far in advance. Even supposing that's possible, the questions I have are 1) How much can a portrait know, regardless of when it's created and the memory (or whatever it is) implanted? and 2) As Alla also wonders, can a portrait know the details of its subject's death despite not being present at that time? (A portrait *can* learn and react new information, as we see with Phineas Nigellus's reaction to Sirius Black's death.) Carol, wondering how the portrait could appear in McGonagall's office so quickly if DD hadn't planned for that to happen From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 21:35:11 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:35:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] McGonagall vs. Umbridge (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701231335s66aa4c17le2ab9f861482b785@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164091 Carol: Also, of course, Harry needs a headmistress who knows him and cares about him so he'll be allowed to revisit Hogwarts to use the RoR or the Pensieve or to talk to Portrait!Dumbledore, so for plot reasons, I think that JKR will retain McGonagall as headmistress at Hogwarts, which I believe will--and should--remain open. Carol, who thinks that McGonagall will be too busy as headmistress to play much of a role in helping the Order in DH but that she'll aid Harry in small but necessary ways ========================================== Jeremiah: Absolutely. I have 2 ways of thinking about this but it requires one item to be true: that McGonagal is Headmstress. I believe this is passed down, not by ministry decree (possibly with their approval) but my the previous Headmaster. But, honestly, I don't know. Ok, IF Hogwarts stays open: I am positive McGonagal would allow Harry full access to the books, archives and other niceties (like the Head Boy/Girl baths... 'cause we know he may need them if he's out adventuring...). However, I think she might be stingy with DD's portrait and want to know what is going on. And I'm sure we can all agree that McGonagal would be offended (and already is a little) that Harry woun't tell her what was going on before DD died. (And, yes, I'm in the DD's Dead camp). But, Carol, you are right, I, too, believe that she will do less with the Order if she is Headmistress and Hogwarts stays open. the other one: IF Hogwarts closes (unbearable thought that it is... but we must press on) I see no reason for McGonagal not to hang around the castle to do adminstrative things, guide the houseleves and fix the grounds with Hagrid. So, i think Hagrid and McGonagal will allow Harry full access to the castle. What would they have to lose when there aren't any classes? No snooping students, no awkward questions from parents who might blow their cover... I think that Hogwarts will still be a source of information because of a few reasons. It's so close to Hogsmead that anyone from the WW would be traveling there for any number of reasons, so Harry can hide out at Hogwarts and go back and forth. (though he has other journeys to make, clearly). Hogwarts has so much information to offer and can hid Harry in many ways. Hagrid is there and if Hagrid doesn't die in the first few pages then he'll have things to do with the plot... DD's body and portrait, LV has things he wants to do there... la la la la... the list goes on. As for Unbridge (from the origional post) I hope she gets eaten up by a Horkle-crunked-snorkack... or whatever that damn thing is Luna keeps going on about. Her caharacter made me so angry that I wanted Hagrid to carve TOAD onto her forehead and slap her around a bit. (ooop, sorry, got in touch with my inner-serial killer, I guess). But, yes, McGonagal will be Harry's-Little-Helper . (HLH!McGonagal ?) LOL. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cuimedono at gmail.com Tue Jan 23 21:42:03 2007 From: cuimedono at gmail.com (cuimedono) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:42:03 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164092 > 1.<...>Did any of their reactions particularly inspire > sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is > that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? sarah: I identify most with Ginny and see her reaction as the most realisticly portrayed of any character (taking into account the different circumstances for each). She has two issues to deal with: 1) Harry, and 2) Bill. She was never very close to DD, and so her care is not for his death, per se, but for the effect it has on those she loves. I have always been kind of uncertain about DD. I do not think he is evil by any means, but I dislike many facets of his personality that we have been shown and cannot feel connected to him in the same way I do with the other characters. I think it is somewhat similar for Ginny, as she never knew DD in the way Harry did. Her reaction to Bill is also similar to how I believe I would respond: She is sad, and in shock at the situation, but she is able to take comfort in her family and even is able to look at the scene with Fleur and Molly with humor and surprise. I think this is normal when one is confronted with something so out of one's control. > > 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) <...> sarah: It won't come off, not until I read DH and am proven otherwise. > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is > accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility?<...> sarah: Hermione is the one who relates the story. I would have liked to have read Luna's version of it, even if it were similar to Hermione's. It struck me as remarkably in-character for Hermione for HBP. She says: "I was so stupid, Harry!" and "...and, oh, it's so obvious now, Snape must have Stupified Flitwick, but we didn't realize, Harry, we didn't realize, we just let Snape go!" (US, harback 619). I think Hermione's been rather clueless throughout HBP, as evidenced by the Ron and Lavender issue. So, while I do not think Snape did anything to Flitwick that he did not need to do in order to help (yes, help) DD and his mission, I am very disappointed in Hermione's behavior. It is, perhaps, her growing up some, too. Instead of questioning Snape or Flitwick as I imagine she would have done back in PS/SS in order to know everything possible about the situation, she trusts them, in her eyes makes a mistake by doing so, and then takes the responsibility therefore. As for the DA, they're kids. I'm not much older than they are, and I can scarcely imagine being in a battle like the one described. I think the DA had much more potential than was used, because it did not unite the houses, and so given that, the job the kids did was above and beyond what could be expected. > 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have > known a spell we didn't [ ] After all, he was the Defence against > the Dark Arts teacher?"<...> sarah: This is one of those times when we need to hold an author to task for his or her writing. I do not think there is anything more behind that statement than the implication that Snape knows his DADA. However, it is not written well. I think JKR is human and she does the best she can, but sometimes a thought isn't expressed well and I see this as one of those cases. > > 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that > Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur > that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all > right; she only has eyes for Bill.<...> sarah: She's in shock, as others have said. It doesn't surprise me at all. > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the > same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and > centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out > against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. <...> sarah: Lupin's always struck me as the less impulse-driven of his friends. He's always been different because he is a werewolf, and I think his fears of relationships are well-founded. he has always had to be very careful about his change, and we know how vicious the wolf is. I would be surprised if he had run off with Tonks (or anyone) without much consideration. > 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is sleeping > peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? <...> sarah: I think the final stage in DD's master plan has been set in motion, and he is content. If death is the next adventure, then what remains of him in this world deserves a chance to rest. The portrait's quiescence also forces the other characters (McG., Harry, etc.) to take control of the situation and rely on themselves, not on him. > 8. What do you make of McGonagall's statement about closing the > school: " I must say that Professor Dumbledore's murder is more > disturbing to me than the idea of Slytherin's monster living > undetected in the bowels of the castle " <...> sarah: I think this is in character for the head of Gryffindor. They're known for their loyalty and bravery, and here McGonagall shows how much DD meant to her in almost foolish proportions. Note that she does not say "A Death Eater raid is more disturbing..." --> it's DD's murder that is. Then you have the statement about Slytherin's monster -- so many hints with that! While it is clearly refering to the basilisk, it could be read as referencing Tom Riddle himself, or even Snape (or at least how they view Snape). > > 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, > his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school > reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay > for the funeral? <...> sarah: I really like Slughorn. He has his problems, of course, but I love reading his scenes. We see him making a mistake with Tom, and we see him again admitting a mistake with Snape. There is a lot more to him than a candied-pineapple eater. I hope he stays on for Book Seven, and don't see any reason why he would not. He is vital to Horcrux info, to filling Potions and Head of House for Slytherin. Getting rid of him would be pointless. He's changed a lot from the wizard we met at the beginning of the book. > 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he > went with Dumbledore? <...> sarah: Yes, I think Harry was very much in the right not to say anything. It was so... Gryffindor of him, too, in ever sense of the word. I have noticed that people seem to be coming into the characteristics of their Houses more and more as the books go on, and I think that this will allow for a united front in Book Seven that will be the strongest possible. I hope that the portraits do not betray Harry's secret, and I also hope that McGonnagal does not ask them. I could see them advising her in the right direction, but to come out and tell her directly about the Horcruxes would be disappointing. Harry has moved beyond needing someone in the Headmaster/-mistress roll to "help" him - this is his fight, now, and he must see to it himself. > 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry & > co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? <...> sarah: There are so many things going on right now, and she is trying her best to take some measure of control. She trusts Harry and his friends - why should she suspect there is some (suspicious) reason for them having the information? They wouldn't have been workign with Draco, and so it is safe for her to accept the information and let go of the how. > 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to > Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of > Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is > conspicuous? <...> sarah: It's moving in-character, but it didn't do too much for me. I think that Hagrid knows more than the others, especially in regards to Snape and DD. I think his tears are also for the fact that things are now in full-swing: This is It, there is no turning back now. I'm surprised, though, that he didn't let anything slip about Snape this time, as he tends to do. Hagrid is always letting some bit of information out that he was not supposed to. Of course, the timing would have been bad (at the end of the book), but it did seem a bit out of character. That said, the fact that he doesn't call for Snape's blood or offer to go hunt him in a fit of rage is super important. Hagrid is such an emotional being - and here he does not show any sign that he is displeased with Snape. > 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the > governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing > whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Do you think that JKR ought to > tell us one way or another before book 7? sarah: The only cannon I can think of is with COS (and the history of the basilisk), and GOF after Cedric's death. I think the school will reopen. It has to. There are so many characters involved that it would be impossible to unite them in another venue: not everyone involved is part of the Order, there are so many relics and items at Hogwarts that they will need for the next book, etc. I do not want JKR to reveal her plans. > 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's > death suspicious? <...> sarah: The one I find most suspicious is Hagrid's. See above. > 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the > Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall > asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? <...> sarah: The portraits always seem to be able to sense when they need to help, and do so no matter how unenthusiastically. I think they realize this is a time for everyone who is still alive to take control and work things through. > 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix > had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left > the school, had left the world had left Harry." Did you find this > ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- > read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to > know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be > associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? sarah: I cried when I first read this. I don't think it is true, however. DD has not "left" Harry, not really, but it does show that now Harry will have to make his own choices. I hope than some of those decisions will be ones completely uninfluenced by DD, but that is unlikely. Fawkes will come back, I believe, to help Harry in the final battle, or if Harry dies, then to mourn him, too. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 22:07:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:07:40 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164093 Dana wrote: > > I just read the chapter of the first lesson with Snape again and after it Snape puts the memories back. There would indeed be no reason to put them back if there are a mere copy. I still think it is fishy but have to re-read it again before I can make up my mind. > Carol responds: I agree that the memories have been "cut" rather than "copied" in this case (though Slughorn's may be different). I think the suggestion that zgirnius made up thread about some shadow of a memory remaining even when the detailed, objective memory is removed is also applicable. IOW, even if Snape couldn't remember the details of his humiliation because the memory is in the Pensieve (and he certainly didn't those details to rise to the surface of his mind when he was teaching Harry Occlumency), he would remember that the incident happened, just as Harry would have remembered that Cho had kissed him if he could have put that memory in a Pensieve to protect it from Snape. He would just be protecting the objective details, the image of what happened, from Snape's Legilimens spell. Snape probably doesn't have to worry about Harry using the Legilimens spell, which he hasn't practiced and which may be beyond his skill level, but he does have to worry, as we see later, about Harry using a Shield Charm (Protego), even an accidental one. When the (accidental) Protego sets up an invisible wall around Harry to protect him and his memories from Snape's intrusion, it deflects Snape's Legilimency spell back onto its caster, revealing random snippets of Snape's own memories--the shouting man and cowering woman, for example. Just by teaching Harry Occlumency, Snape was risking the exposure of various memories, none of which he particularly wanted Harry to see, if Harry happened to use a Protego (intentionally or not). After all, he had told Harry to use any spell he could think of to protect himself, and Protego is the logical defensive spell to use under the circumstances. And while he would no doubt have preferred that Harry not see *any* of his memories, there were a few that he particularly wanted to protect. So I think that Snape protected himself against the deflection of his own powerful Legilimens spell by placing that humiliating memory and two others that were possibly even more important (the eavesdropping incident and the "tale of deepest remorse"?) into the Pensieve, which would store them temporarily until it was safe to put them back inside his head. Although the primary use of the Pensieve is presumably to "sift" (sieve) various thoughts and memories and study them to see their connections or implications, the use to which DD puts it in GoF, it can also be used to temporarily store a memory that a wizard wants to revisit to see it objectively (as opposed to the subjective, emotion-tinged version that he would experience by simply remembering it as a Muggle or a wizard untrained in Legilimency would). Snape, being a Legilimens like DD, can remove memories from his own head just as DD can, though I doubt that he habitually studies them in a Pensieve. (He's more concerned with keeping them compartmentalized and inaccessible to Voldemort.) I think that he agreed to teach Harry Occlumency only if he could borrow DD's Pensieve to remove any memories that he didn't want Harry (or LV, through Harry) to see in case Harry succeeded in casting a Protego, and I think that DD agreed because the idea was imminently sensible. (Neither of them anticipated Harry's violating Snape's privacy by visiting the Pensieve.) We saw only one of those memories, but I'm guessing that the other two were even more sensitive, whether Snape was protecting them from Harry or Voldemort or both. My guess is both. Snape's fury at Harry's intrusion into the Pensieve could be explained in part by what he might have seen if he had visited one of the other two memories instead of that one. And that might well be a reason why DD agreed that it was best to drop the Occlumency lessons. After all, DD generally tells Harry only as much of the truth as Harry needs to know. Carol, hoping that this explanation works for you as it does for me From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 23 22:50:22 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:50:22 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164094 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sages Baby" wrote: > > I just read the Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince again > and > I had a question. While reading a few things stood out this time > that didn't the first time. Like when Harry was at Grimmauld Place he > and Sirius were looking over the Black Family Tree, Sirius was > talking about his brother Regulus Black. This was one of the things > that made me read an re-read the paragraph. (forgive me I am new at > this) > > "Oh no" Said Sirius. "No he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on his > orders, more likely, I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be > killed by Voldemort in person. From what I found out after he died, > he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do > and tried to back out." > > > The note left inside the locket was addressed "To the Dark Lord". > Hasn't it been said in the books that only the Death Eaters refer to > Voldemort as "The Dark Lord" > > Could Regulus have been R.A.B.? Has this discussion been brought up > already? If so I would love a link. Thanks. Geoff: This discussion has gone on since the book was published. The first suggestion that RAB was Regulus Black was made by vmonte in message 132922 at 1:13 pm on 19/07/05, This was 13 minutes after the group reopened for posting after the weekend closure during which we breathlessly read HBP after its publication on the 16th. If you pick up from there and work forward, you will find many threads referring to RAB and the various theories that have been advanced. Have fun. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 23:30:37 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:30:37 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164095 > >>Dungrollin: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 29, The Phoenix Lament > > Discussion questions: > 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety > of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - > Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire > sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is > that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? Betsy Hp: Hmm, I suppose Lupin's stunned disbelief best echoed my reaction. (Yes, I know, heavy forshadowing from Vow, only an idiot wouldn't have expected it... I read fast, okay? ::end defensive postering::) But my biggest sympathy went to Hagrid. I think he probably had the purest love for Dumbledore and it was rather like watching a small child be told their parent is dead, IMO. > 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) In this > chapter, McGonagall and Tonks ask the same questions that fans have > been asking for years, namely: what did Snape tell Dumbledore to > make him trust him? Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and > Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really > has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must > have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked > Dumbledore? I'm very good at "let's pretend!", so yes, ESE!Snape: would his story as told by Harry have fooled Dumbledore? Um... no. Hell, no. N.O. Never in a million, billion, trillion years could I ever see Dumbledore pulled in with a "I caused the death of some great people, but I'm really, *really* sorry." No way. Never. So yeah, there must be something more to the story there. > How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could have > convinced him? Dumbledore is pretty sly. I don't see him as someone easily tricked. (I think it's wise to keep in mind that the "giver of second chances" story is a Death Eater one, IIRC.) So the story would need to be good. Especially to earn *complete* trust. Snape would need to have started with a truth, I think. Perhaps build an early friendship with Lily Evans into something more than what it actually was. And I think he'd have to shed some blood, frankly, putting actions to words. The clever bit would come from not overplaying his hand. Doing all he can to protect Harry but at the same time making no secret of his contempt for the boy. Damn. That'd make a fairly kickass villain, yes? I mean, Voldemort would be nothing to Snape. Tom couldn't play Dumbledore, after all. > What themes that the books have already visited would Snape's tale > (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, and how could his > ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's story? The issue here is, I can't think of any themes an ESE!Snape would reflect. Not that have been in the story all ready. I also don't see how an ESE!Snape adds anything to Harry's story. It turns what I see as a tale of growth into the Emperor's New Clothes. Which I don't see as the story JKR is telling. So this is the place where it's hard to continue the play-acting. ESE!Snape belongs in a different story altogether. (IMO, of course. ) > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is > accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you > annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had > stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Gosh, no. It'd have been annoying if they *had* suspected Snape. A bit too deus ex machina for my tastes since no suspicion of Snape on their parts had been suggested before. > Since Ron, Neville and Ginny weren't much more use when confronted > by the Peruvian Darkness Powder, and only made it through the fight > because of the Felix Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA > really was changed? No. But then I've always seen the DA as flawed from the start because Slytherin wasn't included. The Hat has already informed us that Hogwarts won't operate at full strength and won't be able to overthrow the evil that threatens it until the Houses act in concert. Without Slytherin the DA could never (and will never) rise above a study club. > 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have > known a spell we didn't [ ] After all, he was the Defence against > the Dark Arts teacher?" > Reading through your excellent summary all of McGonagall's actions took on a rather sinister light, IMO. She stops the Phoenix song, interrogates Harry, and in this instance seems to protest too much. "It was a Super Secret Barrier!!" I don't know, I could be reading too much into it. (I've long loved the idea of ESE! McGonagall just for the incredibly cool twist it'd be.) But it is odd that she jumps to the DADA knowledge theory. Of course, it could simply be that McGonagall knows Transfiguration and not much else. All other disciplines are Greek to her and anyone who knows DADA is strangely gifted. Or something. > 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that > Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur > that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all > right; she only has eyes for Bill. Do you find that surprising? No. Molly is pretty single-minded about her family. If one of them is injured that's all she's going to focus on. > How do you interpret her different reactions to the dramas at the > ends of CoS, GoF and HBP, and how do they reflect upon her > assertion in OotP that Harry is as good as her son? That "as good as" does not mean "is". Molly likes Harry. And her heart is of course touched by the poor little orphan story attached to him. But she's never treated Harry like family. (Not to say that she hasn't treated him well.) And if the choice came down to Harry or a Weasley, Molly wouldn't hesitate. Not for a second. Which is not a new opinion of mine. > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the > same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and > centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out > against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find > this consistent with his character? Good lord, yes. Lupin is Mr. Detached. He'd definitely react to stress by pulling away rather than clinging to. > Given the close friends he has lost, do you understand him wanting > to keep Tonks at arm's length, or do you agree with Molly that he's > being ridiculous? Lord, save me from ever agreeing with Molly! Given the "marriage bug" that bit before, I think it actually makes sense for Lupin to question Tonks' sincerity. He may worry that she's going to tie herself down with him because of the stress of the times. Last thing he'd ever want to do to some poor girl. Oh, and let me add that if I were Tonks I'd worry a bit about Remus "anything to please" Lupin being bullied into marrying me. I'd take a moment to question him *away* from the massive amount of peer- pressure that was the hospital wing. > How does his behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later > break-up with Ginny? It doesn't, IMO. Lupin is deciding to not *marry* someone. Harry is breaking off a Spring fling. Plus, it looked more like Lupin did a full on breakup, whereas Harry wasn't quite as definitive. Ginny still has reason to think they'll get back together when everything is over. > 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is > sleeping peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? If so, > what do you think it signifies, and if JKR had wanted to signify > the opposite, how do you think she would have done it? I do think JKR wanted to leave the impression that Dumbledore was ready for his next big adventure. I suppose if she'd really wanted to mess with Harry's head she could have had Dumbledore staring wild- eyed into space muttering "The horror! The horror!" > 8. What do you make of McGonagall's statement about closing the > school: " I must say that Professor Dumbledore's murder is more > disturbing to me than the idea of Slytherin's monster living > undetected in the bowels of the castle " Do you find this statement > surprising? Do you agree with it? Do you think it might reflect the > fact that she was a student at Hogwarts the first time the Chamber > opened? Do you think it reflects JKR's opinion? Dumbledore was the best of them. And he was struck down. It is a bit more scary and immediate than realizing that a Basilisk had been kept in the basement. After all, look at the creatures Hagrid's imported to the back yard. > 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, > his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school > reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay > for the funeral? How does this compare with his manner with > Dumbledore in chapter four? If the school reopens, do you think he > will stay on as potions master and head of Slytherin, and do you > think Dumbledore's death will affect his decision? I liked his shock at Snape's betrayal. It was nice to see that Snape's old Head of House thought better of him. And it makes perfect sense that he was so shaken. He'd come out of hiding because he believed in Dumbledore's ability to protect him. Now that's all changed. So I don't know if he'll be there in the Fall. Though for that matter, I'm not sure that the school will open. > 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he > went with Dumbledore? Absolutely. If Dumbledore had fully trusted McGonagall she'd have already known about the horcruxes. > Would you have had the courage (or stubbornness) to do the same at > his age? Heh. I'd have had the smart-ass-ness to do the same. I *lived* to question teachers at that age. They loved me. (Seriously, some of them really did.) > Do you think that he did what Dumbledore would have wanted? Absolutely. > McGonagall will almost certainly ask Dumbledore's portrait where he > took Harry when it wakes up; what do you think it will tell her? > Since all the portraits are sworn to help the current head, do you > think they will tell her about the horcruxes? Who says McGonagall will be headmistress? I'm not sure how knowledge about the horcruxes would help any new Head of Hogwarts with their job. It doesn't seem to have much to do with leading the school. And that might be the loophole. > If they refused, do you think she has the potential to turn into an > Umbridge, or worse? Since I'm always up for a bit of ESE!McGonagall theorizing, I could see that version of McGonagall coming out. However, a good McGonagall wouldn't need the trappings of power Umbridge was after. She has enough confidence in her status and ability. So I think a good McGonagall would be a bit annoyed, but get on with what she *can* do. > 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry > & co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? Harry didn't > tell her what he knows about the Unbreakable Vow either (despite > the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the Horcruxes). Do > you think she will find out, and if she did how do you think she > would react? What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able > to piece together from the information he has? Honestly, I don't see McGonagall playing that big of a part. (Unless she's evil.) So I don't see that we'll read an on-page scene where Harry fills her in on everything. > 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to > Dumbledore's death moving? Yes. (see question 1.) > We don't get to see what he thinks of Snape's apparent treachery, > do you think this omission is conspicuous? Yes. > Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school opens or not, > because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has just been > burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of Grawp, > or do you think he might have another reason that we don't > know about? Loyalty to Dumbledore, I think. Hagrid would never abandon Dumbledore's "kingdom". > 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the > governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing > whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Well, they were prepared to close Hogwarts after Mirtle died, and again when the students were getting petrified. So yeah, unless someone has a pretty strong argument, I'll say the invasion of Hogwarts by Death Eaters and the murder of Dumbledore will encourage the govenors to close the school. > Do you think that JKR ought to tell us one way or another before > book 7? I think she ought not. I'd prefer to find out via DH than a press release. > 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's > death suspicious? Do you think that we may find out something in > book 7 which will make us view this hospital-wing scene in a > different light (even if you can't imagine what it is yet)? If there's going to be an ESE character (Ever so Evil: secretly working for the baddies while the whole time we thought they were good) than there'll *have* to be a re-examination of the hospital scene. I've read some credible arguments showing Lupin's reaction to be suspect. And some questions about McGonagall have been raised as well. > 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the > Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall > asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? They've often been vocal > in the past when Harry and Dumbledore were alone together; is their > silence in this scene conspicuous? How do you think Phineas > Nigellus, for example, reacted to news of Dumbledore's death, and > when did he hear? I'm not sure I'd say I was surprised. I don't think their silence registered. But I will say I think it might speak to McGonagall not being ratified by the Govenors yet. I doubt Nigellus will be as emotional as he was about Sirius. Just another headmaster joining the wall. Though I expect a bit of curiosity as to the state of the "plan". > 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix > had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left > the school, had left the world had left Harry." Did you find this > ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- > read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to > know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be > associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? Hee! I haven't done a sixth re-read, so it's not worn off yet. And yes, Fawkes will always (I think) be associated with Dumbledore. Even if he (for example) became Snape's, it'd suggest a benediction by Dumbledore. Thanks, Dungrollin! Great questions. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 23 23:46:51 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:46:51 -0000 Subject: The Problem of Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164096 > Betsy Hp wrote in > : > << That so many readers think Dumbledore *wanted* Harry to go > through the trap door in PS/SS proves my point. There's no way to > explain a Dumbledore willing to put a child to that sort of risk > without allowing for a certain amount of monstrosity in his > character. But that version of the events in PS/SS, Harry's version, > still stands. JKR needs to shoot it down. IMO, anyway. >> > >>Catlady: > Many readers perceive that many of Harry's experiences were set-ups, > and some think it was Dumbledore who set them up. In general, I > think it was Rowling who set them up, and some of the Puppetmaster! > DD folks disagree with me by saying that Rowling is too good a > writer to allow her authorial hand to be so clearly seen > manipulating the characters. Betsy Hp: I agree that the master manipulater is JKR. Though I don't think she's too creaky with it. It seems to me that characters tend to act in character. It's just moments of timing that sometimes seem lucky. (e.g. Harry et al doing their school shopping the exact same day and time as Draco in HBP.) But that's a hard type of manipulation to work around. > >>Catlady: > But actually it was that word 'monstrosity' that bit me. It's that > old Problem of Evil again. If DD set it up, he has a monstrous > streak. If the author set it up, she's cruel to the characters. > *She* knows Harry's life will not be lost in the trapdoor quest, > but she has already killed his parents and subjected him to those > Dursleys. And if we view Real Life, its Author has supplied Famine, > Pestilence, Tsunami, schizophrenia, and heartbreak (just as > examples). Betsy Hp: Heh, yeah I'm not touching the "does God allow evil" with a barge pole, thanks. But as to authors... A good author *must* be cruel to their characters, otherwise there's no story. And the more gifts an author bestows upon their character the more cruel she must be. Harry doesn't get his good looks, athletic ability and perfect skin for free. An author can slip into character torture wherein the angst gets just a bit out of hand, but in general the hero must suffer. And the reader can feel free to totally agonize with the hero and hate all that challenge him. But if all we read about was handsome Harry and his perfect life... well, honestly I doubt we'd ever read it. Far too insufferable. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 00:03:15 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:03:15 -0000 Subject: A note on Slytherin In-Reply-To: <43D430F0.000001.02720@JUSTME> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164097 > >>Debi: > > Each house represents a family unit so I would assume they are > close knit, even a good Slytherin would be concerned about the > pressure from the bad Slytherins that they would receive on working > closely with the other houses. Also information about the DA was > spread by word of mouth, I would assume that those close to Harry > and those that those particular friends would tell would most > likely not include anyone from Slytherin. Betsy Hp: I tend to think the latter: no one from Slytherin was invited. Even Hermione didn't quite understand what the Sorting Hat was trying to say. I'm assuming you mean "children of Death Eaters" when you refer to "bad Slytherins". I'm not sure how much pressure they could assert, since their parent's beliefs could get them arrested. But I do agree that Slytherin, being the outcast House, is probably particularly close-knit. Outcasts usually are. So I don't think any Slytherin would try and join a group that sees their House as evil or not quite good enough. > >>Debi: > Also a Slytherin type personality is one that is aloof and not > inclined to be the type to admit needing the help of others, they > seem to be self serving as we see by Horace Slughorn's example. > They also seem to be elitists. Betsy Hp: That's the prejudice against them, yes. But the pensieve scene in OotP where the rich, beautiful, wellborn Gryffindors attack the half- blood ugly kid from a Northern Mill-town pretty much ripped up that particular myth, IMO. Slytherin is no more elite than Ravenclaw. Draco is many things, but he's not aloof. Crabbe and Goyle aren't all that self-serving. > >>Debi: > But I do believe the majority of them are not evil, just that they > have a slightly different conscious that most of the Hogwarts > students. > Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think the biggest difference between Slytherins and the rest of the school is the certain knowledge that the rest of the school dislikes them. We've seen first year Slytherins hissed at the Sorting Feast without teacher interference. I imagine it leads to a sense that the rest of the school can go hang for all the Slytherin's care. And that's not evil; it's human. Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 00:46:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:46:58 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164098 --- "Dana Hoogland" wrote: > > Hi I am new and I have a question. I have been reading > many posts in the archives and I have a question > regarding the speculations about "Snape's Worst Memory". > I have seen many suggestions that Snape removed these > memories from his head to protect them from being seen > by Harry. Can anyone tell me why so many think that the > pensive is a memory elimination device? ... bboyminn: Other have answered you, and I have actually addressed this issue in the past. While some have suggested 'Shadow' memories, I think 'secondary' memories is closer to the truth. Most of us who are over a certain age have fond memories of our past, of endless summer days running down broad tree lined streets. Yet, when we return to these childhood places, they do not quite live up to our memories. Why is that? Because after a certain age, you are no longer remembering the actual event, you are remembering the last time you remembered the event. You remember the last time you fondly remembered, and with each rememberance, we embellish slightly; tree grow taller and more stately, avenues grow wider and grander, etc.... These are what I call Secondary Memories. So, let's say Snape removes an event from his memory. Once he does that, how does he even know to look at it? How does he even know the event occurred? How does he know that he should put it back, if he can't remember that he ever had it? I believe this is the heart of your question. Of course, the answer is he has many secondary memories related to the event that he can draw on. To remember to view it, he can recall putting it in the Penseive, why he put it their, the general nature of the thought placed therein, etc.... Now with respect to any form of Legilimency or other magical mind probing, secondary memories are very vague and often, as in old memories, inaccurate. They would be much harder for a Legilimens to read and interpret, and they would not likely come forward the way memories are force by the Legilimency Spell. That seems to bring forward Primary Memories. That is, when Harry burns with jealousy at Dudley's new bike, that is a Primary Memory. A Secondary Memory would be a memory of Harry in his closet stewing and fuming over the thought of Dudley's new bike. The Secondary Memory would be a little value to anyone, but it would be sufficient enough to remind Harry that he had stored this memory and needed to view and retrieve it. Do you see how this might work? Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 01:01:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:01:08 -0000 Subject: McGonagall vs. Umbridge (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 29,...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164099 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > dungrollin: > > > 10. Since all the portraits are sworn to > > >help the current head, do you think they will tell > > >her about the horcruxes? If they refused, do you > > >think she has the potential to turn into an Umbridge, > > >or worse? > > > zgirnius responded: > > > I don't think McGonagall has much in common with > > Umbridge. It is my opinion that she asked with the > > intent to help Harry, and further the work of the > > Order in Dumbledore's absence. The extenmt to which > > the portraits must obey the current head is unclear to > > me. I'll be curious to see what other people think. > > Carol adds: > Thanks for calling my attention to this part of the > question, .. I agree that McGonagall will never turn > into an Umbridge. She's strict ..., but she also has > a kind, compassionate side ... > > What McGonagall would do if the portraits refused to > defer to her, I don't know, .... .... Everard informs > her that Scrimgeour is coming, tacitly acknowledging > her authority as headmistress. ... The office's and the > portraits' acceptance of her seals the bargain. > ... > > Carol, who thinks that McGonagall will be too busy as > headmistress to play much of a role in helping the Order > in DH but that she'll aid Harry in small but necessary > ways... > bboyminn: Apologies for some poor snipping. Relative to what McGonagall would do it the portraits refuse to divulge information to her, I think we are ignoring one thing, Dumbledore's portrait is right there in her office. If she needs to know anything, she can ask Portrait!Dumbledore and he will either tell or not tell, and I think the other portraits will respect his choice. True the portraits are loyal to the new headmistress, but that doesn't mean they can ignore their loyalty and confidences with Dumbledore, especially not when Dumbledore is right there. I think McGonagall will accept Portrait!Dumbledore's choices just the same as she accepted the real Dumbledore's choices. She knows that in war, all things can not be revealed to all people; that's just the way it is. I'm sure Harry will treat her and other people the same way, as he has already shown with Scrimgeour. She may not like it any more that Scrimgeour did, but I think she will accept it graciously. So, no McGonagall -> Umbridge transformation. Steve/bboyminn From literature_Caro at web.de Wed Jan 24 01:38:11 2007 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:38:11 +0100 Subject: Snape the saint? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1054276487.20070124023811@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 164100 I found out an interesting fact, that might fuel again the discussion about Snape: There is a saint called Severus of Ravenna, who is curiously the patron of spinners and policemen. Does this eventually enlighten Snape's further role in the book for he lives in Spinner's End and Harry wanting to become an auror, which seems to me to be a sort of special group of policemen. What do you think of this? Yours Caro From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jan 24 02:04:02 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:04:02 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: <8C90D4952C8FD9F-1378-2D5D@MBLK-R03.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164101 Julie 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and centre -" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with Ginny? I do understand Lupin wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, as he's been doing that with people all his life, to protect himself and from his POV to protect others. He's been doing that to Harry all along too. It's selfish behavior though. If Tonks (or Harry, or whoever) knows who and what he is and is willing to assume the risk of loving him, then the courageous thing for Lupin to do is to honor that risk by taking the same risk back. I'm still waiting for Lupin to show his true Gryffindor colors and do this :-( Sherry now: I have a very different take on this. Lupin represents disability and illness. He has lived his life being shunned and feared by the majority of the world in which he lives. As a disabled person, I can say that my parents never raised me to be that way, but I know *many* disabled people who have been taught to believe they should not inflict themselves on an nondisabled person, especially in the case of love and marriage. I can't tell you how many times people have said to me that as a blind person, I should only marry a blind person because I would be too much work for a sighted man. Even though I've lived independently, safely and productively for years. There is such a stigma in the world associated with people who have disabilities. I don't allow myself to buy into it, but I know far too many people who do. So, with Lupin. Not only does he have a disability, he has a deadly disability. In spite of his parents and DD and his friends, most of whom are dead, he's been taught, by bitter life experience, to believe he isn't as good as the rest of his world, that he's dangerous and unworthy. Though I violently disagreed with his feelings about being involved with Tonks, I completely understood why he would have those feelings. They really broke my heart for him and Tonks. I was glad that either he, or Tonks or a combination of both, didn't let him give into that way of thinking. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 02:07:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:07:22 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164102 Betsy Hp: > The issue here is, I can't think of any themes an ESE!Snape would > reflect. Not that have been in the story all ready. I also don't > see how an ESE!Snape adds anything to Harry's story. It turns what I > see as a tale of growth into the Emperor's New Clothes. Which I > don't see as the story JKR is telling. So this is the place where > it's hard to continue the play-acting. ESE!Snape belongs in a > different story altogether. (IMO, of course. ) Alla: Um, not attempting to change your mind or anything, but do feel a need to ask for clarification, since despite this point was raised more than once in the past, I do not remember coherent answer to this ( not just yours, anybody) So, yes just want to understand your position, so please bear with me. The question is why do you not see that Harry forgiving Snape, evil Snape or any less than completely DD!M Snape would be a character growth for Harry. I mean, right now, Harry **hates** Snape, really really hates him and I would imagine that it would take lots of courage and character to forgive a man, who contributed to Harry growing up an orphan, who treated him badly in classroom, who killed his mentor, etc. I mean if you are going to tell me that this is a **different** character growth for Harry that the one you imagine will happen in the story, that the one you would want to occur, that is fair enough. But what I do want to know is how Harry moving from hate of Snape to forgiving the Snape is not the character growth, but Emperor new clothes as you said. Again, of course that assumes Snape that you do not buy, I understand that, but could we pretend that it is Snape in this story just for this one? And then let's look at Harry and tell me how it is not a character growth to forgive a sinner, whom right now Harry passionately hates. For example, let's suppose we are talking about Lucius Malfoy and Harry and let's suppose at the end of the book Harry forgives Lucius ( we do agree that Harry has staff to forgive Lucius for as well, yes, maybe not as painful, but painful enough?), are you saying that this would not character growth for Harry? What would be the difference then if Harry forgives Snape? I mean, sure, that excludes the character growth that many DD!M Snape theorists would like to see for Harry - to see Snape for the man he truly is - faithful Dumbledore soldier. Snape being Evil or just Less than completely DD!M Snape assumes that Harry IS right about Snape being a bad man, to put a long story short. On the other hand, it will make Harry see that anybody is capable of redemption, that he just as DD should give people second chances and the most importantly, it teaches Harry that he should not be like Snape, should not hold grudges. Heee, Harry's most important lesson to not ever become Snape, forgive him and move on, and leave one of his life nightmares Severus Snape behind. Yes, that is just me speculating, but honestly want to know about character growth part. Thanks, Alla From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Wed Jan 24 02:02:27 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:02:27 -0000 Subject: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701221347id7c00fbh8059f4cb193681f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164103 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jeremiah LaFleur" wrote: > > > > Jeremiah: > > > > > > If Professors are escorting their classes to other parts of the castle then > who is watching the students when they get to a classroom with a professor > who is escorting their previous class to another part of the castle... > SNIP > As far as Ron and Harry going off to see Hermione with McGonagall's > approval... I would think that McGonagall would be under the impression that > Harry and Ron are purebloods (though Harry really isn't, as we realize > through DD's discussions on the subject in subsequent books)> Lilygale now: Just a small point but - McGonagall knows that Harry at least is not a pureblood. She watched his Muggle relatives disapprovingly ("the worst sort of Muggles") while waiting for Dumbledore to bring Harry to the Dursleys. Also, I'm not sure why a pureblood would be any more or less likely to be able to defend themselves than another witch or wizard. As you pointed out, MgGonagall might have a soft spot for Hermione *because* she is an intelligent and reasonably talented second-year student. But Hermione is not a pureblood, which argues against her thinking (Minerva's thinking, not Hermione's) that Ron or any other pureblood would have greater competence against a Basilisk than anyone else. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 02:30:29 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:30:29 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470701221347id7c00fbh8059f4cb193681f4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470701231830j7a05b008re638b4815dbe0d85@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164104 > Jeremiah: > > > > > > If Professors are escorting their classes to other parts of the castle then > who is watching the students when they get to a classroom with a professor > who is escorting their previous class to another part of the castle... > SNIP > As far as Ron and Harry going off to see Hermione with McGonagall's > approval... I would think that McGonagall would be under the impression that > Harry and Ron are purebloods (though Harry really isn't, as we realize > through DD's discussions on the subject in subsequent books)> Lilygale now: Just a small point but - McGonagall knows that Harry at least is not a pureblood. She watched his Muggle relatives disapprovingly ("the worst sort of Muggles") while waiting for Dumbledore to bring Harry to the Dursleys. Also, I'm not sure why a pureblood would be any more or less likely to be able to defend themselves than another witch or wizard. As you pointed out, MgGonagall might have a soft spot for Hermione *because* she is an intelligent and reasonably talented second-year student. But Hermione is not a pureblood, which argues against her thinking (Minerva's thinking, not Hermione's) that Ron or any other pureblood would have greater competence against a Basilisk than anyone else. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jeremiah: You're right. McGonagall does know that Harry has Muggle blood in his family line. However, your question about why a pure-blood would not be as big a target... the threat written on the wall was towards "mudblodds" as Draco so elequently points out. (The little git). And maybe McGonagal wasn't thinking clearly. However, I do want to point out that Ron has an uncle that isn't magical and nobody talks about him very much. Ron aslo mentions that (I'm actually reading CoS right now) the magical world would have died out if they hadn't married Muggles and in that vein nearly everyone in the castle would be a "mudblood" if there were a "Malfoy-Lexicon on the Wizarding World." So, my point was Ron (and at the time I wrote the earlier post, Harry) would not have been threatened according to the writing on the wall (ha ha). But maybe Harry would be. But, then again, he is, at least, born from two magical people and it's possible that would ahve been enough to "pass" as a "more-pure-than-Hermione-and-Justin Finch-Fletchley." Since McGonagal doesn't think in terms of "Half-Blood" Pure-Blood" and the "other" blood mentioned above, she may think it ok. But I do understand your confusion. Harry did face LV and Ron was with him for most of that. It is possible that McGonagal felt they would be ok in the middle of the day walking to see Hermione. (With a tear in he eye and a sniffle, to boot). (I'm almost to that part and when I re-read it you know I'm gonna read it with a lot of scrutiny, now). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 03:19:49 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:19:49 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164105 > Alla: > The question is why do you not see that Harry forgiving Snape, evil > Snape or any less than completely DD!M Snape would be a character > growth for Harry. zgirnius: Speaking only for myself, the objection to ESE!Snape as I understand it is not that it would not provide an example of Harry doing something noble and heroic is he forgave ESE!Snape. It would. It would not provide anything *new*. ESE!Snape is not the villain of the tale, who will be defeated by Harry's power of love. Voldemort is. He is also thre *primary* reason Harry's parents are dead, and the man who gave the order to kill DUmbledore. He has done far worse to Harry personally than Snape, as well, having tortured him with the Cruciatus curse and materminded the MOM fiasco that led to the death of Sirius. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 03:38:50 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:38:50 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164107 ?? > Alla: > > The question is why do you not see that Harry forgiving Snape, evil > > Snape or any less than completely DD!M Snape would be a character > > growth for Harry. > > zgirnius: > Speaking only for myself, the objection to ESE!Snape as I understand it > is not that it would not provide an example of Harry doing something > noble and heroic is he forgave ESE!Snape. It would. It would not > provide anything *new*. > > ESE!Snape is not the villain of the tale, who will be defeated by > Harry's power of love. Voldemort is. He is also thre *primary* reason > Harry's parents are dead, and the man who gave the order to kill > DUmbledore. He has done far worse to Harry personally than Snape, as > well, having tortured him with the Cruciatus curse and materminded the > MOM fiasco that led to the death of Sirius. > Alla: I am afraid I still do not understand. Harry forgiving Evil Snape would not provide anything new for his character? How is that possible? Right now Harry **hates** Snape, then he will learn to **not hate** Snape anymore. Not because Snape did not do anything wrong, but because Snape either commits redemptive act OR because Harry would realise that it is really bad for his mental health to become like Snape or because Harry would realise that Lily would have wanted him to forgive Snape or something. So, he will grow, no? Aren't you really saying ( do not mean to put words in your mouth), but that is what I hear, so correct me if I am wrong, that Harry forgiving Snape would not provide anything **new** for us to see in Snape? Well, not it would not. But it would provide for us to see Harry growing from hate to forgiveness and that was my question - how is Harry doing that, even if Snape is evil is not a character growth? And I really did not argue for or against evil Snape, you know? I was just asking that limited question :) Oh, and are you saying that Harry would have to forgive Voldemort instead of Snape? I do not agree then, I think that Voldemort in JKR??s world is way beyond forgiveness ( he is a sociopath as she called him) and he would be defeated by some sort of metaphoric showing of power of love, but Harry would also had to forgive somebody IMO, literally. I mean to me Snape is as good candidate as any ;) But again that was not my question, so if anybody can explain it further to me, much appreciated. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 04:09:53 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:09:53 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164108 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > The issue here is, I can't think of any themes an ESE!Snape would > > reflect. Not that have been in the story all ready. I also > > don't see how an ESE!Snape adds anything to Harry's story. It > > turns what I see as a tale of growth into the Emperor's New > > Clothes. Which I don't see as the story JKR is telling. So this > > is the place where it's hard to continue the play-acting. ESE! > > Snape belongs in a different story altogether. (IMO, of course. > > ) > >>Alla: > > The question is why do you not see that Harry forgiving Snape, evil > Snape or any less than completely DD!M Snape would be a character > growth for Harry. > Betsy Hp: I guess the problem is that I don't see forgiveness figuring into the story if Snape is ESE. What has he done to invite forgiveness at this point? How is Harry being pushed towards forgiving him? Do you feel that Harry's main goal for DH should be to chase down Snape, forgive him, and I guess through the power of his patented Harry-love turn Snape towards redemption? Because I don't see any hint of this being a theme in the books. If Snape is actually evil and so cunning he managed to fool Dumbledore I think the story would have to be about how Harry has been right all along and no one listened to him because... Well, if we're going with the "naked Emperor" story-line, then it'd be Harry's untainted principle and honesty (which I also have a hard time seeing in the actual books ). And then of course there's the issue zgirnius raises: > >>zgirnius: > Speaking only for myself, the objection to ESE!Snape as I > understand it is not that it would not provide an example of Harry > doing something noble and heroic is he forgave ESE!Snape. It would. > It would not provide anything *new*. > Betsy Hp: ESE!Snape overshadows Voldemort. In fact, if Snape really is evil, the opening of DH should be Snape killing Voldemort and taking his place. Because Snape has shown himself *far* more capable as a villain then Voldemort. Snape fooled the great Dumbledore; Voldemort tried and failed. Snape killed the great Dumbledore; Voldemort tried and failed. Which again, flies in the face of the theme of the books. We've had it driven home again and again: Voldemort is the big bad. He's the destructive force that is using the WW's (and Hogwarts') rifts to tear that world apart. And of course there's Voldemort's fear of death. If Snape is evil, then all of those themes are out the window. Who cares what Voldemort represents or illustrates, he's nothing. The big bad has been Snape all along. (If *only* we'd listened to "pure at heart" Harry!) > >>Alla: > But what I do want to know is how Harry moving from hate of Snape > to forgiving the Snape is not the character growth, but Emperor new > clothes as you said. > > On the other hand, it will make Harry see that anybody is capable > of redemption, that he just as DD should give people second chances > and the most importantly, it teaches Harry that he should not be > like Snape, should not hold grudges. > Betsy Hp: Again, if that's a theme in the books (and I seriously haven't seen it) then it'd be taken care of with Voldemort. If Harry is supposed to forgive someone evil, Voldemort is standing right there, blood of Harry's parent's dripping from his hands. ESE!Snape would once again be a repeat. But honestly, I don't see forgiveness as a theme. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 04:39:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:39:12 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164109 > > >>Alla: > > > > The question is why do you not see that Harry forgiving Snape, evil > > Snape or any less than completely DD!M Snape would be a character > > growth for Harry. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I guess the problem is that I don't see forgiveness figuring into the > story if Snape is ESE. What has he done to invite forgiveness at > this point? How is Harry being pushed towards forgiving him? Do you > feel that Harry's main goal for DH should be to chase down Snape, > forgive him, and I guess through the power of his patented Harry- love > turn Snape towards redemption? Because I don't see any hint of this > being a theme in the books. Alla: Wait, wait now I am even more confused. So you do not see forgiveness as one of the theme of the books at all? As to what Snape would have done to invite forgiveness? Well, there is always book 7. I guess Snape/Lily ( supposed one) can heavily influence that. I absolutely can see Harry forgiving Snape **not** because Snape did anything to invite forgiveness, but simply because his mother would have wanted him to forgive. ( because forgiveness is supposed to be a gift, no? I mean I am all for forgiveness being earned, believe me, but isn't in christianity one supposed to forgive just because Jesus did? And no, I am not saying it would be direct allegory, just thematic possibility IMO). And the fact that Harry did forgive him may cause Snape to do something redemptive at the end, etc. Betsy: > If Snape is actually evil and so cunning he managed to fool > Dumbledore I think the story would have to be about how Harry has > been right all along and no one listened to him because... Well, if > we're going with the "naked Emperor" story-line, then it'd be Harry's > untainted principle and honesty (which I also have a hard time seeing > in the actual books ). Alla: Oh, I think I got the problem, maybe. I do not understand how one excludes another. I mean, if Snape is evil or less than good, yes, the story is about Harry being right about Snape's nature, but who says that story is **only** about Harry being right about Snape nature? Why the story cannot be also about Harry being wrong that Snape cannot change **within** the story and change his ways? And I guess again the same question if Harry realises that how is it not a character growth for him? Sorry to keep hammering on this, but I really want to understand the POV on this one. > Betsy Hp: > ESE!Snape overshadows Voldemort. In fact, if Snape really is evil, > the opening of DH should be Snape killing Voldemort and taking his > place. Because Snape has shown himself *far* more capable as a > villain then Voldemort. Snape fooled the great Dumbledore; Voldemort > tried and failed. Snape killed the great Dumbledore; Voldemort tried > and failed. Alla: I again am not talking about whether Snape can or cannot be Evil. I understand that it is very hard to make the assumption that he is, but I am only interested in how Harry forgiving him would not mark Harry's change of heart, etc. I mean Snape does not even have to be completely evil here, he can be anything but complete DD!M, he can be Grey, LID, OFH, anything, but perfect Snape. Because you see, I do see the story you are talking about - Harry being wrong about who Snape is, and realising how wrong he is, growing that way. And I may even be able to swallow that story, if written well, as long as Harry realising that Snape is DD!M is not done through Snape abusing Harry again. ( Never mind me - I just read story where Snape letting Harry know how wonderful he is after kidnapping Harry and educating him on the issue. Boy, would ending like this - another Harry humiliation on the hands of Snape make me angry) But I am just racking my brain trying to understand how moving from hate to forgiveness, if Snape is not good does not mean anything for Harry character or the growth that I see for him. > Betsy Hp: > Again, if that's a theme in the books (and I seriously haven't seen > it) then it'd be taken care of with Voldemort. If Harry is supposed > to forgive someone evil, Voldemort is standing right there, blood of > Harry's parent's dripping from his hands. ESE!Snape would once again > be a repeat. Alla: How do you know that though? JKR said that she is writing about degrees of evil. Maybe Harry supposed to start stretching his love muscles on the smaller evil, LOL and then move to Voldemort? My guess is that whatever Harry does to forgive Smape or Peter or whoever would activate that power ( metaphor of the sorts) that would help him deal with Voldemort. IMO of course. Betsy Hp: > But honestly, I don't see forgiveness as a theme. Alla: But but isn't it what Dumbledore does all the time? Isn't that what he did to Snape, to Draco etc? From va32h at comcast.net Wed Jan 24 05:00:53 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 05:00:53 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164110 Betsy Hp: I guess the problem is that I don't see forgiveness figuring into the story if Snape is ESE. What has he done to invite forgiveness at this point? How is Harry being pushed towards forgiving him? Do you feel that Harry's main goal for DH should be to chase down Snape, forgive him, and I guess through the power of his patented Harry-love turn Snape towards redemption? Because I don't see any hint of this being a theme in the books. Va32h: Forgiveness is about the one who is forgiving, not the one who is forgiven. Snape and Voldemort are as screwed up as they are because they could NOT forgive, never forgive. They couldn't forgive their mothers for being weak, nor their fathers for being Muggles, nor whatever fate gave them the lives they were handed. In Snape's case, he also has the additional ludicrous childhood grudge against the Marauders that he stubbornly hangs on to. And Voldemort is exactly the type to remember and nurture any slightest wrong. Harry needs to forgive for Harry's sake - so that he too is not consumed by his hatred and need for revenge. Snape does not need to invite Harry's forgiveness, he doesn't even need to accept it, or even know about it. I don't expect Harry to invest himself in forgiving Snape in DH. But at some point in the story, yes, I do think that Harry cannot remain pure of soul if he does not forgive. Will he also forgive Voldemort? Probably not, that is too much to ask of anyone. But I do think that for Harry to successfully vanquish Voldemort, he must do it out of a desire to save the wizarding world, and not out of a desire to avenge. And part of letting go of that vengeance is in letting go of past hurts. Hating Snape will not bring Dumbledore back. Forgiving Snape won't either, but it will remove a burden from Harry's soul. Hate requires too much energy to sustain. As for forgiveness not being a theme in the books - I'm sitting here totally kerflummoxed at that! It seems to be all over the books to me! Barbara/va32h From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 24 06:50:22 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:50:22 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164111 > > Betsy Hp: > I guess the problem is that I don't see forgiveness figuring into the > story if Snape is ESE. What has he done to invite forgiveness at > this point? How is Harry being pushed towards forgiving him? Do you > feel that Harry's main goal for DH should be to chase down Snape, > forgive him, and I guess through the power of his patented Harry- love > turn Snape towards redemption? Because I don't see any hint of this > being a theme in the books. > > Va32h (Barbara) wrote: > > Forgiveness is about the one who is forgiving, not the one who is > forgiven. > > Snape and Voldemort are as screwed up as they are because they could > NOT forgive, never forgive. They couldn't forgive their mothers for > being weak, nor their fathers for being Muggles, nor whatever fate > gave them the lives they were handed. > > In Snape's case, he also has the additional ludicrous childhood > grudge against the Marauders that he stubbornly hangs on to. And > Voldemort is exactly the type to remember and nurture any slightest > wrong. > > Harry needs to forgive for Harry's sake - so that he too is not > consumed by his hatred and need for revenge. Snape does not need to > invite Harry's forgiveness, he doesn't even need to accept it, or > even know about it. > > I don't expect Harry to invest himself in forgiving Snape in DH. But > at some point in the story, yes, I do think that Harry cannot remain > pure of soul if he does not forgive. > > Will he also forgive Voldemort? Probably not, that is too much to ask > of anyone. But I do think that for Harry to successfully vanquish > Voldemort, he must do it out of a desire to save the wizarding world, > and not out of a desire to avenge. And part of letting go of that > vengeance is in letting go of past hurts. Hating Snape will not bring > Dumbledore back. Forgiving Snape won't either, but it will remove a > burden from Harry's soul. Hate requires too much energy to sustain. > > As for forgiveness not being a theme in the books - I'm sitting here > totally kerflummoxed at that! It seems to be all over the books to > me! > Julie: What Barbara said, especially that forgiveness is all about the one doing the forgiving. While forgiveness *can* benefit the forgiven (if he/she truly desires that forgiveness), it ALWAYS benefits the forgiver (relieving a burden from the soul). That's why I want to see Harry forgive Snape. For Harry. Not for Snape. To add a note for Alla, I do think Harry can gain something from forgiving an ESE!Snape, just as he could from forgiving Peter Pettigrew, the Malfoys, the Dursleys, Voldemort, etc. But the simple truth is, it's a much BETTER story if Harry forgives a DDM!Snape, with all his shades of grey, the guy capable of doing good things for the right reasons, but equally capable of falling prey to his worst instincts. It's a better story if Harry recognizes his hatred of Snape is out of proportion to the man's crimes (at this moment I'm leaving open the question of whether killing Dumbledore was outright murder or not), especially when compared to the other characters who have done Harry much worse wrongs, like Voldemort (who actually did kill Harry's parents), Bellatrix (who actually did kill Sirius), Peter (who actually did betray Harry's parents knowingly and without compunction), etc. It's a better story if Snape isn't one of a dozen one-dimensionally (or nearly so) evil characters like the aforementioned baddies, because why do we want one more ESE character when we can have a much more complex DDM character (who is not--NOT NOT NOT--all good or saintly by any means)? That's the main reason why I would hate to see Snape as ESE, or anything but the bitter, sarcastic, mean, vindictive, miserable but resolute DDM I believe he is. ESE guts the character, and hurts the story. That's it. IMO, of course, Julie From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 07:40:39 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:40:39 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164112 > Alla: > Aren't you really saying ( do not mean to put words in your mouth), > but that is what I hear, so correct me if I am wrong, that Harry > forgiving Snape would not provide anything **new** for us to see in > Snape? zgirnius: No, it would duplicate a process Harry is/has/will be going through with respect to Voldemort. Only on a smaller scale, because everything that ESE!Snape has done to Harry, is balanced by something that Voldemort has also done. Mostly, by something bigger. So it would show us nothing new about Harry. Reporting the prophecy - Killing Harry's parents Killing Dumbledore - Ordering the assassination of Dumbledore Being mean to Harry - Torturing Harry and trying to kill him, many times taunting Sirius - setting up the situation that lured Sirius out to the MoM, and being the boss of the woman who killed him Alla: > I do not agree then, I think that Voldemort in JKR??s world is way > beyond forgiveness ( he is a sociopath as she called him) and he > would be defeated by some sort of metaphoric showing of power of > love, but Harry would also had to forgive somebody IMO, literally. zgirnius: Oh, OK. I'm not so sure I agree. Actually, if you mean some sort of practical forgiveness, as opposed to a philosphical letting go of hate...why is ESE!Snape a suitable figure to be forgiven? He certainly does not seem to want it, and would be a fine addition to the inmates of Azkaban. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 11:16:34 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:16:34 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164113 Alla: Right now Harry **hates** Snape, then he will learn to **not hate** Snape anymore. Not because Snape did not do anything wrong, but because Snape either commits redemptive act OR because Harry would realise that it is really bad for his mental health to become like Snape or because Harry would realise that Lily would have wanted him to forgive Snape or something. Betsy Hp: > I guess the problem is that I don't see forgiveness figuring into the story if Snape is ESE. What has he done to invite forgiveness at > this point? How is Harry being pushed towards forgiving him? Alla: > I absolutely can see Harry forgiving Snape **not** because Snape did anything to invite forgiveness, but simply because his mother would have wanted him to forgive. ( because forgiveness is supposed to be a gift, no? I mean I am all for forgiveness being earned, believe me, but isn't in christianity one supposed to forgive just because Jesus did? And no, I am not saying it would be direct allegory, just thematic possibility IMO). > Dung: I'd like to leave aside Alla's main question about whether Harry forgiving Snape would equal character growth, and actually ask whether it's in principle possible to forgive an ESE!Snape at all. Firstly, what exactly are we talking about when we talk about forgiveness? Personally I don't see forgiveness as simply ignoring crimes, or forgetting about crimes, or deciding that crimes don't matter and sweeping them under the carpet. To me, (and I'm really speaking from personal experience here, I've no idea if anyone else finds the same thing), forgiveness involves an element of empathy, it involves being able to put myself in someone else's shoes, and admitting to myself that there is potentially be a series of events which could cause me to act in a similar way. Once I have admitted that I am hypothetically capable of committing the same crime given a certain set of circumstances, that I understand the motivation of the person who's wronged me, then the door is open to forgiveness. (The most common thing I find myself forgiving people for is ignorance of the consequences of an action, which is pretty easy to empathise with since we're only human.) Otherwise, I would just be letting someone off the hook for no reason. I cannot forgive someone I don't understand, except in a very abstract way, which feels rather like paying lip-service to the ethic of trying not to be too judgemental because I might not have all the facts. It's not what I'd call genuine forgiveness. It's like forgiving Voldemort in a kind of `on-paper' way because it's not his fault he's a psychopath. So here's a question: can you *force* yourself to forgive somebody who has not only done you horrific wrong, but that you despise from the very core of your being? Can you *force* yourself to let go of all that emotional baggage, not because you have some sympathy for the situation that they were in, or the difficult choice they had to make, but simply because you need to have forgiven them in order to be able to defeat the Dark Lord? Or because you reckon your dead mother would have wanted you to? Alla, Sherry and others, can *you* forgive an ESE!Snape? If you can't, how is Harry supposed to *without finding out some information which changes his view of Snape and/or Snape's crimes*? I don't think I'd be able to forgive an ESE!Snape as he stands now. I don't have a clue as to his motivations, so I am utterly unable to put myself in his shoes and ask myself whether I can imagine being prey to the same weaknesses. I suppose I could do it in an `on- paper' abstract kind of way, with the assumption that something really bad must have happened to him at some point, or a string of really bad things, which turned him into the magnificent bastard we see in canon. But I don't think I could do the genuine empathetic stuff. On the other hand, I am certain that I could forgive Snape if it came to light that he was DDM. So (assuming that you've agreed with what I wrote above ? if you don't, I hope you can at least understand where I'm coming from) if we're considering Harry actually *genuinely* forgiving Snape, there *has*, IMO, to be an element of empathy, Harry has to come into possession of some more information about Snape which opens the door to forgiveness. What information could that be, if it isn't a revelation that Snape is DDM? An abused and neglected childhood? Further horrifying and remorseless bullying at school? Maybe unforgivable persecution and torture from Voldemort drove him insane? Or perhaps Harry would have to go through a dark night of the soul, where he would be tempted to use dark magic, to murder, to commit similar crimes to Snape ... in order to be capable of understanding Snape's moral weakness, in order to be able to empathise with his choices, and thus be able to forgive them? I suppose what I'm getting at is that at the moment (end of HBP) Harry has clearly not forgiven Snape, but if you think that he will at some point in the future, something must change. The question is therefore, what? If it's Snape, how is Snape going to change, and what will precipitate this change? If it is Harry, how is Harry going to change, and what will precipitate this change? If it is Harry's *view* of Snape, and yet Snape is not DDM, what will Harry learn that opens the door to forgiveness? Dung, just interested in others' thoughts. From ibchawz at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 14:51:41 2007 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:51:41 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164114 > Alla: > > Oh, I think I got the problem, maybe. I do not understand how one > excludes another. I mean, if Snape is evil or less than good, yes, > the story is about Harry being right about Snape's nature, but who > says that story is **only** about Harry being right about Snape > nature? ibchawz responds: Let me start by stating that I am probably one of the few that is still on the fence regarding Snape. Until I read DH, I will probably remain on the fence. Since I want to honor your wish to keep this discussion more about forgiveness and less about whether Snape is ESE, OFH, DDM, ESG, etc, I will get to the topic of forgiveness. I agree that forgiveness and second chances have been a major theme in the books. Many of these instances have already been cited by others so I will not repeat them here. I believe that Dumbledore (it may have been someone else - correct me if I'm wrong) told Harry that it was often more difficult to forgive someone for being right than for being wrong. This discussion was focused on Percy Weasley reconciling with his family, but could be foreshadowing a much larger "forgiveness for being right". This also reminds me of what Dumbledore said of Neville at the end of PS/SS. He said that it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more courage to stand up to your friends. Perhaps these two bits of wisdom are related. This could mean that Harry forgiving Snape for being right could actually be more profound than forgiving Snape for being wrong. This scenario could actually provide character growth opportunities for both Harry and Snape. Any thoughts? ibchawz From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 15:01:33 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:01:33 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164115 > Julie: > To add a note for Alla, I do think Harry can gain something > from forgiving an ESE!Snape, just as he could from forgiving > Peter Pettigrew, the Malfoys, the Dursleys, Voldemort, etc. > But the simple truth is, it's a much BETTER story if Harry > forgives a DDM!Snape, with all his shades of grey, the guy > capable of doing good things for the right reasons, but > equally capable of falling prey to his worst instincts. > That's the main reason why I would hate to see Snape > as ESE, or anything but the bitter, sarcastic, mean, > vindictive, miserable but resolute DDM I believe he is. > ESE guts the character, and hurts the story. That's it. > > IMO, of course, > Alla: **Thank you** Julie for answering the question I asked, LOL. I mean, I am just trying to figure out the thematic objection, the thematic impossibility to Harry forgiving ESE!Snape or any Snape for that matter, except fully and completely DD!M Snape, or in Betsy's situation objection to Harry forgiving any Snape, I guess ( right, Betsy?) I mean, really and truly Harry forgiving Snape is Soooo not my favorite ending for Snape, but I can see it being nicely done and executed for Harry's character development. Yes, I do understand that you would find Harry forgiving DD!M Snape to be a better story, but does it mean that JKR will find it a better story if Harry still learns to forgive? To move on from hatred? Does it really matter what type of Snape would he have to forgive? For **Harry's** development, not for Snape? As you brought the examples of Dursleys, Peter, etc, wouldn't that be character development as well? Harry forgiving them? How is Snape any different? I mean, even if Snape DD!M there are things which he wronged Harry at ( we do agree, yes?), so if he is less than DD!M , how does it matter? I mean, it sure matters for the fans of DD!M Snape, because in that story Snape would not look too heroic, I get that, but the **hero** of the story still undergoes character development, just the different one IMO and who says that JKR would not choose to take him that road? JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jan 24 15:44:09 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:44:09 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164116 > Alla: > > Wait, wait now I am even more confused. So you do not see > forgiveness as one of the theme of the books at all? > > As to what Snape would have done to invite forgiveness? Well, there > is always book 7. I guess Snape/Lily ( supposed one) can heavily > influence that. I absolutely can see Harry forgiving Snape **not** > because Snape did anything to invite forgiveness, but simply because > his mother would have wanted him to forgive. ( because forgiveness > is supposed to be a gift, no? I mean I am all for forgiveness being > earned, believe me, but isn't in christianity one supposed to > forgive just because Jesus did? And no, I am not saying it would be > direct allegory, just thematic possibility IMO). > > And the fact that Harry did forgive him may cause Snape to do > something redemptive at the end, etc. Va32h: Harry needs to forgive for Harry's sake - so that he too is not consumed by his hatred and need for revenge. Snape does not need to invite Harry's forgiveness, he doesn't even need to accept it, or even know about it. I don't expect Harry to invest himself in forgiving Snape in DH. But at some point in the story, yes, I do think that Harry cannot remain pure of soul if he does not forgive. Magpie: I think what Betsy might mean--and what others are also saying--is that she doesn't see blanket forgiveness *for its own sake* as a theme in the books. JKR really doesn't seem to put too much stress on forgiving someone on principle. She seems to get more into the individuals actually feeling the desire to forgive for a reason. Given the way Snape is set up, I can't imagine Harry offering ESE! Snape forgiveness just to forgive him without it being another jab at Snape, showing satisfying contempt. Because what in Harry's character or the books so far has set up that sort of thing, where someone says, "You're the worst person in my world, but I forgive you?" On the contrary, the books are far more interested in the reasons why people *can't* forgive, and in forgiving through truly understanding the other person. Harry has to learn and develop in order to forgive any version of Snape, and it's just hard to imagine what lessons he'll be learning and what direction he'll be developing to arrive at the forgiveness of ESE!Snape. So if Harry is going to forgive ESE!Snape--it could certainly be growth. But I suspect Harry would have to be forgiving him because he understands why Snape did these things, and can empathize or see something good there. (The "drop of pity" Harry feels for Draco at the end of HBP is connected not just to Draco's fear and hard situation but to Draco's wand going down.) I admit it's hard for me to envision this because it seems so much like JKR is gearing up for compassion for Snape, for showing us that he really did feel remorse and really did try to undo what he did. Since these books don't seem generally forgiving, I have a hard time imagining how this would play out. It seems like either Harry has got to literally recognize himself in ESE!Snape and so be able to a connection even though Snape's as evil as he is, or Harry's forgiveness would be more along the lines of his feelings about Peter--he's evil, but he's beneath me. I'll let the Dementors/death take care of him. It's hard for me to see the build-up to Harry's forgiving ESE!Snape out of what I guess you'd call a more exalted place. I guess the most obvious comparison for me would not be Harry forgiving Voldemort, but Harry forgiving Peter, who also continues to make choices to destroy Harry's happiness. Harry could certainly forgive him, but I can't imagine him forgiving him in a way that doesn't highlight the contempt Peter should be held in. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 16:34:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:34:01 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164117 Magpie: I think what Betsy might mean--and what others are also saying--is that she doesn't see blanket forgiveness *for its own sake* as a theme in the books. JKR really doesn't seem to put too much stress on forgiving someone on principle. She seems to get more into the individuals actually feeling the desire to forgive for a reason. Alla: Okay, that is a little easier for me to understand, but it is still very different from what I heard Betsy saying ?V that she does not see forgiveness being a theme in the books. You are just talking about more concrete forgiveness, yes? Magpie: Given the way Snape is set up, I can't imagine Harry offering ESE! Snape forgiveness just to forgive him without it being another jab at Snape, showing satisfying contempt. Alla: Well, sure that would be extremely satisfying for me, the more contempt Harry shows for Snape the better LOL, but this is precisely what I can see JKR showing Harry overcoming ?V the contempt that is and understanding why Snape did those things ( I sort of agree with Dung that Harry needs to learn additional information about Snape in order to truly forgive, but I will try to answer her below) Magpie: So if Harry is going to forgive ESE!Snape--it could certainly be growth. But I suspect Harry would have to be forgiving him because he understands why Snape did these things, and can empathize or see something good there. (The "drop of pity" Harry feels for Draco at the end of HBP is connected not just to Draco's fear and hard situation but to Draco's wand going down.) Alla: Absolutely, most most definitely. Keep in mind again that I am not talking about strictly evil Snape, but just any Snape, who is less than fully DD!M. It can even be Snape who made a decision to kill Dumbledore on the Tower, because Dumbledore was indeed dying from poison, but made a decision of **his own volition**, without Dumbledore asking him. It can be Life Debt Snape, it can be Grey Snape. I am sure there are good things to be found in those Snapes and some empathy from Harry to be given. As long as we agree that Harry will grow while forgiving **any** Snape, I am happy ?? Magpie: I admit it's hard for me to envision this because it seems so much like JKR is gearing up for compassion for Snape, for showing us that he really did feel remorse and really did try to undo what he did. Since these books don't seem generally forgiving, I have a hard time imagining how this would play out. Alla: I guess to me it seems the contrary that all goes to the end being as forgiveness the key for everything. It is not like everybody on every page forgives each other, but since Dumbledore does and since he is so delighted that Harry felt something for Tom Riddle, it seems that all roads lead there to me of course. I mean DD forgives his assassin, loudly at that, no? Magpie: It seems like either Harry has got to literally recognize himself in ESE!Snape and so be able to a connection even though Snape's as evil as he is, or Harry's forgiveness would be more along the lines of his feelings about Peter--he's evil, but he's beneath me. I'll let the Dementors/death take care of him. It's hard for me to see the build-up to Harry's forgiving ESE!Snape out of what I guess you'd call a more exalted place. Alla: Would it be easier if Snape would not be strictly evil? Magpie: I guess the most obvious comparison for me would not be Harry forgiving Voldemort, but Harry forgiving Peter, who also continues to make choices to destroy Harry's happiness. Harry could certainly forgive him, but I can't imagine him forgiving him in a way that doesn't highlight the contempt Peter should be held in. Alla: The difference would be if Harry sees Snape making some other choices as well. IMO of course. Dung: So here's a question: can you *force* yourself to forgive somebody who has not only done you horrific wrong, but that you despise from the very core of your being? Can you *force* yourself to let go of all that emotional baggage, not because you have some sympathy for the situation that they were in, or the difficult choice they had to make, but simply because you need to have forgiven them in order to be able to defeat the Dark Lord? Or because you reckon your dead mother would have wanted you to? Alla, Sherry and others, can *you* forgive an ESE!Snape? If you can't, how is Harry supposed to *without finding out some information which changes his view of Snape and/or Snape's crimes*? So (assuming that you've agreed with what I wrote above ?V if you don't, I hope you can at least understand where I'm coming from) if we're considering Harry actually *genuinely* forgiving Snape, there *has*, IMO, to be an element of empathy, Harry has to come into possession of some more information about Snape which opens the door to forgiveness. I suppose what I'm getting at is that at the moment (end of HBP) Harry has clearly not forgiven Snape, but if you think that he will at some point in the future, something must change. The question is therefore, what? If it's Snape, how is Snape going to change, and what will precipitate this change? If it is Harry, how is Harry going to change, and what will precipitate this change? If it is Harry's *view* of Snape, and yet Snape is not DDM, what will Harry learn that opens the door to forgiveness? Alla: Actually I completely understand where you are coming from and as I mentioned in my reply to Magpie agree with you in a sense that if Harry has to forgive Snape, any Snape, some additional information should be revealed to Harry and some element of empathy be there. Then it is going to be the real forgiveness more than on paper one, yes. So, sure something should change. Where we may disagree I suppose is what change that would be. I think that what Lily would have wanted may influence Harry decision very very strongly. As in my mother sacrificed herself for me, she is basically a saint and if she saw something good in Snape, maybe I should see something good as well, you know? That kind of thing. And since I am not talking about strictly Evil Snape only, IMO there are plenty of additional information that Harry may found out about Snape like that. For example, Harry may learn that Snape indeed killed Dumbledore because he thought that he has no other choice and he could not help the white hats otherwise. I mean, I would find it very believable that Harry may feel some sympathy to Snape like that. Does that answer your question at all or did I make it more confusing? Alla From va32h at comcast.net Wed Jan 24 16:50:44 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:50:44 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164118 Magpie: I think what Betsy might mean--and what others are also saying--is that she doesn't see blanket forgiveness *for its own sake* as a theme in the books. JKR really doesn't seem to put too much stress on forgiving someone on principle. She seems to get more into the individuals actually feeling the desire to forgive for a reason. Va32h here: I guess I see Dumbledore as the representative of blanket forgivness. He is the one who forgives Snape, even though, as far as we know, Snape has not personally wronged Dumbledore. Even aiding Voldemort and assisting in the murder of the Potters is not a personal wrong against Dumbledore. And when Dumbledore tells the assembled crowd at the end of GoF that they "will be welcomed back here at any time" it just struck me as a metaphor for the idea of forgivness. Of course, Dumbledore also says that in order to work together, their aims must be identical and their hearts open. ESE Snape would not have identical goals to Harry (but then I think Snape is DDM anyway). But it still won't *hurt* Harry to forgive an ESE Snape, even if that forgiveness consists only of no longer actively pursuing revenge against him. Forgiveness does not require Harry to like Snape or trust him, just to let go of the personal hatred for him. If Harry is presented with a choice of destroying a horcrux or pursuing Snape, won't we all want him to put aside his grievance with Snape and look at the larger goal? I would also suggest that Harry has already practiced a level of blanket forgiveness with the Dursleys. Harry doesn't love the Dursleys, but he isn't consumed with punishing them or getting even with them either. In fact, when Dudley, of all people, is in danger, Harry's first instinct is to help. Harry may never say the words "I forgive you" to the Dursleys, he may never even think of his relationship with them in terms of forgiveness, but it is clear to me that he has thrived by being able to focus on himself and improving his life, rather than punishing them. Magpie: Given the way Snape is set up, I can't imagine Harry offering ESE! Snape forgiveness just to forgive him without it being another jab at Snape, showing satisfying contempt. Because what in Harry's character or the books so far has set up that sort of thing, where someone says, "You're the worst person in my world, but I forgive you?" On the contrary, the books are far more interested in the reasons why people *can't* forgive, and in forgiving through truly understanding the other person. Harry has to learn and develop in order to forgive any version of Snape, and it's just hard to imagine what lessons he'll be learning and what direction he'll be developing to arrive at the forgiveness of ESE!Snape. So if Harry is going to forgive ESE!Snape--it could certainly be growth. But I suspect Harry would have to be forgiving him because he understands why Snape did these things, and can empathize or see something good there. (The "drop of pity" Harry feels for Draco at the end of HBP is connected not just to Draco's fear and hard situation but to Draco's wand going down.) Va32h here: Forgiving *can* be about understand and empathizing with the person who wronged you, but it doesn't have to be. Think of the countless real-life people who forgive the criminals who have murdered their loved ones. Surely this is not a case of putting themselves in their shoes or understanding them, or rationalizing that they might have done the same thing. Rather, the forgiveness comes from realizing that nurturing the hate is hurting *themselves*, not the person they hate. I wonder if anyone will ever understand Snape's motives, including the readers. That happens. It's the question asked when anyone does something evil: "Why! What made you do that!" We don't always get an answer, and even if we do, it may not be our idea of a good answer. Which is why I think it's such a virtue to be able to forgive without having a specific reason. Magpie: I admit it's hard for me to envision this because it seems so much like JKR is gearing up for compassion for Snape, for showing us that he really did feel remorse and really did try to undo what he did. Since these books don't seem generally forgiving, I have a hard time imagining how this would play out. It seems like either Harry has got to literally recognize himself in ESE!Snape and so be able to a connection even though Snape's as evil as he is, or Harry's forgiveness would be more along the lines of his feelings about Peter--he's evil, but he's beneath me. I'll let the Dementors/death take care of him. It's hard for me to see the build-up to Harry's forgiving ESE!Snape out of what I guess you'd call a more exalted place. I guess the most obvious comparison for me would not be Harry forgiving Voldemort, but Harry forgiving Peter, who also continues to make choices to destroy Harry's happiness. Harry could certainly forgive him, but I can't imagine him forgiving him in a way that doesn't highlight the contempt Peter should be held in. Va32h: I agree that it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Harry simply decided to forgive ESE Snape. But as I mentioned before, Harry has already "forgiven" in this sense by coming to terms with the Dursleys. And I think he has alreay forgiven Peter as well. I didn't see Harry's treatment of Peter as considering Peter "beneath him" - although I do see that angle, in Harry's comment that the Dementors were too good for Peter. But Harry's reasoning in forgiving Peter was really out of pragmatism. Killing Peter might make everyone feel righteous for a few minutes, but it wouldn't exonerate Sirius. And wanting someone dead and actually causing their death are two very different things, and even at 13, I think Harry is a compassionate enough person to know there is a difference. Harry's relationship with the Dursleys is also pragmatic. He could torment them, which might make him feel better for a little bit, but in the end, would not make his life any better. What I am long windedly trying to say is - forgiveness doesn't have to mean "I understand what you did and no longer hate you for it", but can also be "I still hate what you did, but am not going to waste my life and energy in getting even with you." That's the kind of forgiveness that I think Harry has already practiced, and can bring to his relationship with Snape, whether Snape is ESE or DDM. va32h/Barbara From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jan 24 17:48:17 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:48:17 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164120 > Magpie: > I admit it's hard for me to envision this because it seems so much > like JKR is gearing up for compassion for Snape, for showing us that > he really did feel remorse and really did try to undo what he did. > Since these books don't seem generally forgiving, I have a hard time > imagining how this would play out. > > Alla: > > I guess to me it seems the contrary that all goes to the end being as > forgiveness the key for everything. > It is not like everybody on every page forgives each other, but since > Dumbledore does and since he is so delighted that Harry felt > something for Tom Riddle, it seems that all roads lead there to me of > course. > I mean DD forgives his assassin, loudly at that, no? Magpie: Yes, he does forgive there--and that was what I felt like I was talking around in my post too.:-) Dumbledore does forgive, and even with someone like Tom Riddle whom he needs to defeat, he doesn't seem angry at him. So I do think that Harry needs to go in that direction. I just don't think that he's going to reach Dumbledore's level by the end of the 7th book (a lot of Dumbledore's pov seems to go along with his great age, after all). JKR is so good with characters, I feel like what interests here more about this (and this is fine with me because it interests me too and I believe in this reason for forgiveness) is understanding the person. That's a reason I find it hard to believe that Dumbledore was tricked by Snape. As Betsy reminded us, the whole "he needs to see the good in people and is a sucker" is the DE view, while really Dumbledore seems particularly good at understanding people. His problem is usually that somehow underestimates or overestimates them. After the fact he usually understands where they were coming from. So I think even with Dumbledore the forgiveness is connected to understanding people, not just a compulsion to forgive. He seems very much a "too understand is to forgive" person, and it seems like that's the path Harry will take as well to me. > > Magpie: > It seems like either Harry has > got to literally recognize himself in ESE!Snape and so be able to a > connection even though Snape's as evil as he is, or Harry's > forgiveness would be more along the lines of his feelings about > Peter--he's evil, but he's beneath me. I'll let the Dementors/death > take care of him. It's hard for me to see the build-up to Harry's > forgiving ESE!Snape out of what I guess you'd call a more exalted > place. > > Alla: > > Would it be easier if Snape would not be strictly evil? Magpie: I think so...I think because Harry's character as I see him is pretty demanding of people. He doesn't waste time on people who don't really deserve it. When I try to picture him dealing with ESE! Snape I feel like he's either furious at him because he's so evil, or thinks he's pathetic because he's so evil, if that makes sense. Unless, of course, Harry gets to a point where he can connect to ESE! Snape--which might be harder, but I'm not going to rule that out. (Suddenly I'm thinking about that moment where Luke refuses to kill Vader in Star Wars!) > Magpie: > > I guess the most obvious comparison for me would not be Harry > forgiving Voldemort, but Harry forgiving Peter, who also continues > to make choices to destroy Harry's happiness. Harry could certainly > forgive him, but I can't imagine him forgiving him in a way that > doesn't highlight the contempt Peter should be held in. > > Alla: > > The difference would be if Harry sees Snape making some other choices > as well. IMO of course. Magpie: Definitely. I think Harry "gets" Peter and judges him accordingly. Peter's "true self" seems to have been revealed in ways that Snape's hasn't completely been revealed. (Which is not meant to suggest his "true self" completely negates his other self, just that Harry doesn't really get what makes him tick yet.) That's maybe why it sometimes surprises me when people talk about Peter being the one to be "redeemed" in Book VII. I think he's obviously been set up to be an asset to Harry in some way--DD stated that when he explained the Life Debt. But the Debt seems like it makes it even more difficult for Peter to do the right thing for any other reason than its benefiting him. Harry could still forgive Peter, but I think it would be in a more dismissive way than he will ultimately forgive Snape. Va32h here: Forgiving *can* be about understand and empathizing with the person who wronged you, but it doesn't have to be. Think of the countless real-life people who forgive the criminals who have murdered their loved ones. Surely this is not a case of putting themselves in their shoes or understanding them, or rationalizing that they might have done the same thing. Rather, the forgiveness comes from realizing that nurturing the hate is hurting *themselves*, not the person they hate. I wonder if anyone will ever understand Snape's motives, including the readers. That happens. It's the question asked when anyone does something evil: "Why! What made you do that!" We don't always get an answer, and even if we do, it may not be our idea of a good answer. Which is why I think it's such a virtue to be able to forgive without having a specific reason. [...] I agree that it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Harry simply decided to forgive ESE Snape. But as I mentioned before, Harry has already "forgiven" in this sense by coming to terms with the Dursleys. And I think he has alreay forgiven Peter as well. I didn't see Harry's treatment of Peter as considering Peter "beneath him" - although I do see that angle, in Harry's comment that the Dementors were too good for Peter. But Harry's reasoning in forgiving Peter was really out of pragmatism. Killing Peter might make everyone feel righteous for a few minutes, but it wouldn't exonerate Sirius. And wanting someone dead and actually causing their death are two very different things, and even at 13, I think Harry is a compassionate enough person to know there is a difference. Harry's relationship with the Dursleys is also pragmatic. He could torment them, which might make him feel better for a little bit, but in the end, would not make his life any better. Magpie: I could not agree more with that view of forgiveness in real life-- it's something I definitely believe. I still disagree that this is something the book is striving to teach. The story seems far more concerned with personal understanding of people and *not* just not self-destructively holding on to that hatred. That can be part of it- -Harry doesn't keep himself awake nights tossing and turning about the Dursleys or Peter. But I don't think his "forgiveness" of them compares to the type Dumbledore offered Snape and Draco storywise. I particularly don't see him heading in this direction with Snape, since Harry's conflict with him is the most important relationship in the books. This isn't somebody who, imo, he's working towards cutting loose. The Slytherin characters get to him more than the Dursleys because they are more like his shadows, and as such they have to be joined with the whole, not just set loose. Even Dumbledore, as I said to Alla, seems to combine forgiving with understanding. He understands where everyone is coming from so I don't think that can be separated from the offer of forgiveness or his lack of rage against them. Maybe the issue is that while the kind of forgiveness you're describing is definitely healthy, it's not very dramatic. It amounts to walking away. In a book that needs to at least be built up to through drama. You could do it, but I suspect it would need for Harry to get further and further down a dark path for revenge while the book to me seems to be heading more towards empathy. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Jan 24 18:26:53 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:26:53 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164121 Alla: > I think that what Lily would have wanted may influence Harry > decision very very strongly. As in my mother sacrificed herself > for me, she is basically a saint and if she saw something good in > Snape, maybe I should see something good as well, you know? That > kind of thing. Jen: This is the key point for me even though so many good points have been made about forgiveness. The plot is heading toward Harry finally learning about and connecting with Lily in a similar way to what happened with James in POA. While Snape is part of that plot in my mind, I truly believe the more important story will be Harry and Lily: Harry learning to see Snape through Lily's eyes, seeing the wizard world, even seeing Voldemort the way Lily did when begged him to 'have mercy'. In that respect I don't see it being as crucial as others do that Snape be DDM in order for Harry to forgive him, the more important thing for Harry is what Barbara/va32h said: 'Forgiveness does not require Harry to like Snape or trust him, just to let go of the personal hatred for him.' (I think there are other parts of the story that indicate we aren't headed in this direction, i.e. "I trust Severus Snape', so I'm answering only the hypothetical question.) ibchwz: > I believe that Dumbledore (it may have been someone else - correct > me if I'm wrong) told Harry that it was often more difficult to > forgive someone for being right than for being wrong. This > discussion was focused on Percy Weasley reconciling with his > family, but could be foreshadowing a much larger "forgiveness for > being right". Jen: Nice point. I finally found the quote in HBP, thought it was OOTP: 'People find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right' (Chap. 5). So to tie this back to the hypothetical situation, Harry forgiving an evil Snape seems even more possible in light of this canon and when you think about the concept in RL. I could more easily imagine Harry forgiving a Snape whom he learned had a tragic backstory and turned out to be evil due in part to circumstance rather than a loyal Snape with the same tragic backstory. Anyone think Snape is going to pass up the chance to needle Harry and take a poke at James if the time comes when Harry has to own up to being wrong about him? I sure don't!!! People like that, who are *right* on top of it, are extremely hard to forgive. This is why I don't see the revelation of Snape's loyalty alone leading to a change of heart in Harry so much as the transformation that will take place when he finally reconnects with his the mother he once knew and lost, losing a piece of himself in the process. Snape is small potatoes compared to that. ;) Jen From mymusical_girls at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 18:58:50 2007 From: mymusical_girls at yahoo.com (Raechel) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:58:50 -0000 Subject: Snape the saint? In-Reply-To: <1054276487.20070124023811@web.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164122 Caro: > There is a saint called Severus of Ravenna, who is curiously the > patron of spinners and policemen. Does this eventually enlighten > Snape's further role in the book for he lives in Spinner's End and > Harry wanting to become an auror, which seems to me to be a sort of > special group of policemen. > > What do you think of this? Raechel responds: I, too, have read this information. It is part of the reason for my belief that Snape is not evil if you consider how closely most of the other characters follow their namesakes in mythology, history, et al. I took this "saint" thought into consideration when weighing the scene at the end of HBP when Snape and Harry are having their final confrontation. Snape's reaction to being called a coward is what made him finally curse Harry. IMO that's because he feels he has done what most "saints" do. He has "sacrificed" himself for his cause or for the betterment of those who are true to that cause. I also believe that Snape will have to die in DH because of his treachery (to either/both sides) and that will further carry on the idea of "sainthood". Just a few thoughts from me, Raechel From caaf at hotmail.com Wed Jan 24 19:12:35 2007 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:12:35 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164123 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > I agree that the memories have been "cut" rather than "copied" in this > case (though Slughorn's may be different). I think the suggestion that > zgirnius made up thread about some shadow of a memory remaining even > when the detailed, objective memory is removed is also applicable. > IOW, even if Snape couldn't remember the details of his humiliation > because the memory is in the Pensieve (and he certainly didn't those > details to rise to the surface of his mind when he was teaching Harry > Occlumency), he would remember that the incident happened, just as > Harry would have remembered that Cho had kissed him if he could have > put that memory in a Pensieve to protect it from Snape. He would just > be protecting the objective details, the image of what happened, from > Snape's Legilimens spell. > > Snape probably doesn't have to worry about Harry using the Legilimens > spell, which he hasn't practiced and which may be beyond his skill > level, but he does have to worry, as we see later, about Harry using a > Shield Charm (Protego), even an accidental one. When the (accidental) > Protego sets up an invisible wall around Harry to protect him and his > memories from Snape's intrusion, it deflects Snape's Legilimency spell > back onto its caster, revealing random snippets of Snape's own > memories--the shouting man and cowering woman, for example. > > Just by teaching Harry Occlumency, Snape was risking the exposure of > various memories, none of which he particularly wanted Harry to see, > if Harry happened to use a Protego (intentionally or not). After all, > he had told Harry to use any spell he could think of to protect > himself, and Protego is the logical defensive spell to use under the > circumstances. And while he would no doubt have preferred that Harry > not see *any* of his memories, there were a few that he particularly > wanted to protect. So I think that Snape protected himself against the > deflection of his own powerful Legilimens spell by placing that > humiliating memory and two others that were possibly even more > important (the eavesdropping incident and the "tale of deepest > remorse"?) into the Pensieve, which would store them temporarily until > it was safe to put them back inside his head. > > Although the primary use of the Pensieve is presumably to "sift" > (sieve) various thoughts and memories and study them to see their > connections or implications, the use to which DD puts it in GoF, it > can also be used to temporarily store a memory that a wizard wants to > revisit to see it objectively (as opposed to the subjective, > emotion-tinged version that he would experience by simply remembering > it as a Muggle or a wizard untrained in Legilimency would). Snape, > being a Legilimens like DD, can remove memories from his own head just > as DD can, though I doubt that he habitually studies them in a > Pensieve. (He's more concerned with keeping them compartmentalized and > inaccessible to Voldemort.) I think that he agreed to teach Harry > Occlumency only if he could borrow DD's Pensieve to remove any > memories that he didn't want Harry (or LV, through Harry) to see in > case Harry succeeded in casting a Protego, and I think that DD agreed > because the idea was imminently sensible. (Neither of them anticipated > Harry's violating Snape's privacy by visiting the Pensieve.) > > We saw only one of those memories, but I'm guessing that the other two > were even more sensitive, whether Snape was protecting them from Harry > or Voldemort or both. My guess is both. Snape's fury at Harry's > intrusion into the Pensieve could be explained in part by what he > might have seen if he had visited one of the other two memories > instead of that one. And that might well be a reason why DD agreed > that it was best to drop the Occlumency lessons. After all, DD > generally tells Harry only as much of the truth as Harry needs to know. > > Carol, hoping that this explanation works for you as it does for me > Cyril here: In general I agree with the gist of Carol's post on the aspect of the secondary memories being the cause for someone to remember that he had a memory, which needs to be reinserted into their minds. The one aspect that I have a concern with is why would Snape place that memory into the Pensieve (or three memories, using Carol's examples above), readymade for Harry to look at. He could easily have extracted the memories and placed them into vials or containers similar to what Slughorn did in HBP, and how DD actually stored memories of those he had tracked down. Why would Snape even need a Pensieve if he just wanted to store the memories, and not to look at them for some information or clues. Looks like Snape had that (and maybe) other memories in the Pensieve because he was looking for something. I see no other reason for him to borrow DD's Pensieve. Cyril, going to reread that chapter looking for reasons why Snape would want to be reviewing that particular memory (though none come in mind offhand) From mymusical_girls at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 20:11:42 2007 From: mymusical_girls at yahoo.com (Raechel) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:11:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164124 > >>Dungrollin: > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the > same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and > centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out > against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find > this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has > lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, > or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his > behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with > Ginny? Raechel responds: I was just rereading HBP from the beginning when something jumped out at me in regard to this question. Yes, Lupin, continues to remain resistant to the idea of commitment. I think this may be partly because he has grown accustomed to being alone. In PoA he mentions that when he became a werewolf it was only when Padfoot, Prongs, and Wormtail were with him that he felt less wolfish and more human. IMO, he is comfortable being alone and uncomfortable with human relationships. However, Sirius was single for his adult life as well (before his stint in Azkaban). In the chapter called "Will and Won't" when Harry received his inheritance Dumbledore mentions that Sirius and Regulus were both unmarried and childless. It made me wonder why. Especially considering that Sirius' best friend, James, was married with a child. Any thoughts? Thanks. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 20:41:22 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:41:22 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164125 > Alla: > > Oh, I think I got the problem, maybe. I do not understand how one > excludes another. I mean, if Snape is evil or less than good, yes, > the story is about Harry being right about Snape's nature, but who > says that story is **only** about Harry being right about Snape > nature? The question of Snape's "nature" figures very strongly into the whole forgiveness angle in any number of ways. I think in many ways it turns on a couple of questions: 1) is this a story about forgiveness, and 2) is this a story with distinct Christian overtones to that forgiveness? Forgiveness means many things to many people, I guess, but if this story does have overtones of Christian forgiveness then we start narrowing things down quite a bit. A lot of the problem with various Snape theories is that they fly in the face of Christian forgiveness by essentially mounting a case for the defence: i.e. arguing that Snape really isn't in the wrong. Now, if Snape isn't in the wrong it's hard to say that this is a story about forgiveness -- rather that it's a story about truth. And certainly at that point anything specifically Christian in the theme disappears. Recognizing that one has been wrong and correcting one's attitudes is a story that could be told from the standpoint of Roman Stoicism, Aristotelian ethics, or ancient Egyptian paganism. There is nothing specifically Christian about it. So, if Snape isn't in the wrong any forgiveness offered him would be 1) possibly not foregiveness at all, but simply recognition of an existing set of circumstances, which is something else entirely, and 2) not specifically Christian in any way. If Snape IS in some major sense in the wrong (pick your theory as to how), and IS in some major sense still carrying a major load of guilt (in the sense of an objective stain rather than anything he might feel), then the Christian themes reappear. Indeed, the more clearly in the wrong Snape is, and the more deeply stained and unredeemed, then the more powerful the themes are. I don't know. But there seems to be a consensus that we will be seeing strong reflections of JKR's Christianity in the finale -- and she herself has seemed to say as much -- and if that is so, then the more guilty the Snapey-poo, the more clear the religion. Lupinlore, who doesn't see Snapey-poo, in his "true nature," so much as a black sheep as a black dung beetle with a bat fixation From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jan 24 21:18:19 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:18:19 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164126 Lupinlore > Now, if Snape isn't in the wrong it's hard to say that this is a > story about forgiveness -- rather that it's a story about truth. And > certainly at that point anything specifically Christian in the theme > disappears. Recognizing that one has been wrong and correcting one's > attitudes is a story that could be told from the standpoint of Roman > Stoicism, Aristotelian ethics, or ancient Egyptian paganism. There > is nothing specifically Christian about it. > > So, if Snape isn't in the wrong any forgiveness offered him would be > 1) possibly not foregiveness at all, but simply recognition of an > existing set of circumstances, which is something else entirely, and > 2) not specifically Christian in any way. If Snape IS in some major > sense in the wrong (pick your theory as to how), and IS in some major > sense still carrying a major load of guilt (in the sense of an > objective stain rather than anything he might feel), then the > Christian themes reappear. Indeed, the more clearly in the wrong > Snape is, and the more deeply stained and unredeemed, then the more > powerful the themes are. > > I don't know. But there seems to be a consensus that we > will be seeing strong reflections of JKR's Christianity in the > finale -- and she herself has seemed to say as much -- and if that is > so, then the more guilty the Snapey-poo, the more clear the religion. > > > Lupinlore, who doesn't see Snapey-poo, in his "true nature," so much > as a black sheep as a black dung beetle with a bat fixation Magpie: Well, he's already in the wrong, I think. Regardless of whether he's DDM!Snape now, he was a DE, and he caused the death of Harry's parents. The question then isn't a difference between whether he's right or wrong but whether he's repentent or not. It's all well and good for Dumbledore to "forgive" Snape--but I don't think that's what he's done, since it wasn't Dumbledore's family that was killed. Who's he to forgive him? What he's done is given Snape a second chance to make amends if Snape is DDM. It's Harry who has something to forgive Snape for, whether he killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders or not. Not only has Snape objectively treated him badly, it was his intentional bad act that put Harry in the position he's in now and killed his parents. This is what Dumbledore claims Snape has remorse over. So is it more Christian to forgive someone who has no remorse than one that does? I don't think so. It might be more difficult in some circumstances, but I don't think Snape's feeling remorse necessarily makes it easier for Harry. It just maybe makes his witholding forgiveness about something else than it would be otherwise. -m (who really really hates the use of the name "Snapey-poo") From va32h at comcast.net Wed Jan 24 21:18:15 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:18:15 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164127 > Raechel responds: > However, Sirius was single for his adult life as well (before his > stint in Azkaban). In the chapter called "Will and Won't" when Harry > received his inheritance Dumbledore mentions that Sirius and Regulus > were both unmarried and childless. It made me wonder why. Especially > considering that Sirius' best friend, James, was married with a child. > Any thoughts? > > Thanks. Va32h: Sirius spent most of his adult life in Azkaban. In Snape's Worst Memory, Sirius appears to be something of a playboy, flirting with several girls. It's not a stretch to think that he, like many 20somethings, simply did not find someone he wished to settle down with. And of course he spent some 13 years in solitary confinment after that. I also don't think it would have added anything to the books for Sirius to have a wife and child. If anything, it would have been a distraction. The entire Sirius/Harry relationship would have to be changed to accommodate a child of Sirius'. I suppose we could have Voldie have killed off them as well, but Sirius already has enough loss and angst to motivate him without needing an additional personal grudge against Voldemort. So there are reasons both within the story and without, that Sirius being married with children is simply not necessary. va32h From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed Jan 24 21:30:02 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 13:30:02 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701241330u79c9ff67s4af6e15e71cafaa4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164128 > >>Dungrollin: > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the > same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and > centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out > against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find > this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has > lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, > or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his > behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with > Ginny? Raechel responds: I was just rereading HBP from the beginning when something jumped out at me in regard to this question. Yes, Lupin, continues to remain resistant to the idea of commitment. I think this may be partly because he has grown accustomed to being alone. In PoA he mentions that when he became a werewolf it was only when Padfoot, Prongs, and Wormtail were with him that he felt less wolfish and more human. IMO, he is comfortable being alone and uncomfortable with human relationships. However, Sirius was single for his adult life as well (before his stint in Azkaban). In the chapter called "Will and Won't" when Harry received his inheritance Dumbledore mentions that Sirius and Regulus were both unmarried and childless. It made me wonder why. Especially considering that Sirius' best friend, James, was married with a child. Any thoughts? Thanks. ======================================== Jeremiah: Well, first off, I don' think that having friends who are married and parents makes you spontaneoudly desire to pair-bond and breed. So, James' influence on both Lupin and Sirius doesn't extend to the alter or the bedroom. I've had a lot of friends who are HIV+ and a few of them go through this "tainted" period where they feel that dating and sexual expression only will bring them heart-break because a lot of guys who aren't HIV+ will reject them when they find out about their positive status. (And, btw, most of my friends who are pos. get over it & choose love). I look at Lupin that way. He has a hang-up about having been "infected" and become a werewolf. I think he feels nobody can or will love him the way he is. He had been in the Werewolf "Closet" for so long and now that he's out he has to deal with somebody like Tonks who doesn't care about the werewolf thing. I have had my suspicions that Sirius is Gay. (lol.. ok, not really, but I think it would be very cool if he was). Come to think of it, JKR has a lot of single mature men. Dumbledore, Snape, Sirius, Lupin, Mundungus, Charlie Weasley, Voldemort, Hagrid (ok, he was single until book 4), just to name the one's off the top of my head. I woudln't think that all of them are gay (not to mention gay and single) but maybe there's a portion of JKR's culture that has single men being acceptable? What I think it this: Sirius has been through a lot. He was very passionate about the Order before LV's fall and then he was thrown in prison. He's not in a place, mentally, to date and has stayed single. His focus is Harry's well-being. plus, everyone thinks Sirius is a killer, so who's going to seek him out for dinner and a movie? Just my 2 cents. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 22:33:39 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:33:39 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164129 > >>Magpie: > I think what Betsy might mean--and what others are also saying--is > that she doesn't see blanket forgiveness *for its own sake* as a > theme in the books. > Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. Never has any character in Potterverse forgiven someone (in the true sense of the word) without that person having done *something* to show that they'd earned that forgivness. Not even Dumbledore takes that sort of action. At least, not that I've seen. Dumbledore doesn't forgive Tom Riddle; he holds Tom responsible for all of his actions. And Dumbledore doesn't truly forgive Draco. He leaves a door open for Draco to walk through, yes. He encourages Draco to choose a different path. But Dumbledore doesn't suggest that Draco may now forget about any past wrongs he's done; that Dumbledore has washed that sin all away. *Action* is required of Draco. (Something Dumbledore does do is detach a person's evil actions from himself. IOWs, Dumbledore doesn't allow Tom's evilness to threaten or alarm him. Is that a sort of forgiveness? I'm not sure, honestly.) Gosh, not even Snape (seen as loyal by Dumbledore) gets a scene in which Dumbledore suggests that all is forgiven. And one thing the books certainly don't do is encourage anyone to forgive evil, if Voldemort equals evil. (And the way JKR strips him of any sort of humanity suggests that he comes pretty darn close, IMO). So I'm confused as to how an evil Snape should somehow be up for forgivness. I'm not sure what might have forshadowed such a thing. > >>Alla: > > Keep in mind again that I am not talking about strictly evil Snape, > but just any Snape, who is less than fully DD!M. > Betsy Hp: Then you're changing the rules. I was told to imagine ESE!Snape. And I did. However, playing along... I suppose this version of Snape is only slightly evil? His mother beat him and that's why he became a murderer? Again, what in the books suggests that Harry forgiving such a man is a theme JKR is working on showing? I honestly don't see anything. This flavor Snape is as much a copy of Peter Pettigrew as ESE!Snape is a copy of Voldemort. Harry does not, and is not encouraged to, forgive Peter. So why would he forgive Snape? > >>Alla: > > I mean I am all for forgiveness being earned, believe me, but isn't > in christianity one supposed to forgive just because Jesus did? > Betsy Hp: Well... no. Not really. Not the way I understand it. Evil isn't forgiven, it's destroyed. And I guess through its destruction comes forgivness. "Go and sin no more", etc. etc. (Though honestly, it's hard to make blanket statements about Christian beliefs. About the only thing holding Christianity together is that all Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Thing is, what exactly Christ taught has been up for argument since... well, Jesus. ) But beyond the definition of Christian Forgiveness, again, this is not the sort of thing I see at all expressed in the books. I'm not saying that some part of Christianity won't be expressed in the Potter books, but forgiveness isn't it, that I've seen. (I'm leaning towards redemption, myself.) > >>Magpie: > > So is it more Christian to forgive someone who has no remorse than > one that does? I don't think so. > Betsy Hp: I certainly don't remember that particular lesson being taught in Sunday School. Of course, I also see Snape's story being tied more to the story of Saul/Paul. And Saul had to feel quite a bit of remorse in order to earn the redemption that gave him the name Paul. (Would that make Harry, Ananias? Heh, I don't think it's a literal retelling.) Hmm... I suppose Alla is thinking that the remorse, redemption, rebirth phase of (anything but DDM!)Snape's story will all get crammed into DH? For one, I don't think it'll fit. For another, if Snape has been meant to be exactly what Harry saw him as throughout the previous books, it seems to be piling too many themes on Snape's poor shoulders. And finally, it puts too much growth onto Snape. Snape will be where the action is, while Harry doesn't grow too much at all. However, if most of Snape's redemption has taken place off-screen and Harry learns about it on-screen, the action will all be on Harry's side. Which is why I don't see any flavor but DDM!Snape (not to be confused with perfect!Snape) as fitting into Harry's story. Of course, my view completely changes when we look towards a DDM! Snape. Because *that's* a Snape that I can see Harry needing to forgive. Snape has treated Harry badly, and Harry does need to let his anger at such treatment go. If Snape is DDM!, then I can see Harry *finally* recognizing that Snape has felt remorse for his majorly wrong actions (i.e. telling Voldemort the prophecy). I can see Harry finally seeing that Snape has been trying to redeem himself. And so I can see Harry forgiving Snape for the wrongs Snape has done and has actively tried to put behind him. (Hey, maybe Harry *is* Ananias! ) And beyond that, Harry may be able to forgive Snape those actions that perhaps Snape himself doesn't recognize as wrong (classroom behavior, snipes at James, etc.). Which would put Harry in a stronger position, character-wise, than Snape. Since Snape was not able to let go of (or forgive) the wrong actions of the not always well behaved but still basically good James, Sirius and Lupin. *That's* the sort of forgiveness I can see occuring in the "Harry grows up" story line. But not forgiveness of evil. Whether that evil is straight-up (Snape as Voldemort) or whiny (Snape as Peter). [An aside: This was a fairly hard post to write for some reason. Partly, I think, because I tried to seperate out my personal beliefs from the themes I see in the actual books. I'm not sure how successful I was on that, but for that reason I didn't respond to the posts that talked about Forgivness in and of itself -- though I did read them. Just so you all know. ] Betsy Hp (not sure this is even postable, but oh what the heck! ) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 23:03:10 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:03:10 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164130 bboyminn wrote: > > While some have suggested 'Shadow' memories, I think 'secondary' memories is closer to the truth. > > [A]fter a certain age, you are no longer remembering the actual event, you are remembering the last time you remembered the event. You remember the last time you fondly remembered, and with each rememberance, we embellish slightly; > These are what I call Secondary Memories. > > So, let's say Snape removes an event from his memory. Once he does that, how does he even know to look at it? How does he even know the event occurred? How does he know that he should put it back, if he can't remember that he ever had it? Of course, the answer is he has many secondary memories related to the event that he can draw on. To remember to view it, he can recall putting it in the Penseive, why he put it their, the general nature of the thought placed therein, etc.... Carol responds: While I agree that memories that are constantly relived, not necessarily fondly (and unless Snape put it in the back of his mind using Occlumency, that memory of teenage humiliation would be one of them) are distorted by our emotions and biases regarding the people and events involved, and often by what we wish had happened (though that wouldn't apply in this case), I don't think JKR has anything so complicated in mind. I think that once a person removes the *objective record* of the memory and places it in a Pensieve, what remains is the subjective remembrance, a shadow memory that may be almost as detailed or much vaguer than the objective memory, but which cannot be placed in a Pensieve because it isn't a real, objective record of what happened. For example, I remember that when I was in first grade, a boy named George (not Weasley ) grabbed my glasses and put them on. When I grabbed them back, a teacher named Mrs. Brooksby ordered me to "Give George back his glasses" and sent me (for the one and only time in my life) to the principal's office! I don't constantly relive that memory, thank goodness, nor do I remember the concrete details of the objective memory that are no doubt somewhere in my subconscious mind, but if I were a witch and a Legilimens and could remove the real memory, its echo or shadow, my subjective shadow memory--an inaccurate, vague recollection distorted by any emotions I might still feel regarding the incident--would still be in my head, inaccessible to a Legilimens like Snape or Voldemort (or a Legilimens spell like the ones snape used on Harry) because of its insubstantiality and lack of detail. (I don't remember what George or Mrs. Brooksby looked like, for example. I remember that the incident occurred near the back steps of the school, but not what the grounds looked like or who else was present.) So Snape would remember that James and Sirius had attacked and humiliated him, even using one of his own spells against him, and he would, of course, remember that he had put that memory and two others into the Pensieve, but the objective details of the memory, such as exact words and facial expressions, would be protected from accidental exposure to Harry, or, through him, to Voldemort by being removed from snape's head and placed in the Pensieve. Carol, whose memories, even the most vivid ones, are all of the inaccurate subjective variety--and don't match my sister's subjective memories of the same incidents From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 23:15:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:15:26 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164131 > Betsy Hp: > Yes, exactly. Never has any character in Potterverse forgiven > someone (in the true sense of the word) without that person having > done *something* to show that they'd earned that forgivness. Not > even Dumbledore takes that sort of action. At least, not that I've > seen. > > Dumbledore doesn't forgive Tom Riddle; he holds Tom responsible for > all of his actions. And Dumbledore doesn't truly forgive Draco. He > leaves a door open for Draco to walk through, yes. He encourages > Draco to choose a different path. But Dumbledore doesn't suggest > that Draco may now forget about any past wrongs he's done; that > Dumbledore has washed that sin all away. *Action* is required of > Draco. Alla: Are we talking about different definitions of forgiveness, maybe? Because semantics so often seemed to be the reason of misunderstandings I run into. I mean, I see what Dumbledore did to Draco is complete and absolute forgiveness. Otherwise, I would have seen Dumbledore talking that Draco deserves to be punished, not come to hiding with his family. No talking about Draco almost killing two students or planning Dumbledore's assasination as something that needs to be punished. What is this if not forgiveness? And Tom Riddle? Dumbledore may have certainly hold LV responsible for his actions, but he seems to me to very actively **not** hold Tom responsible for what he did before he came to Hogwarts, clean plate and all that. You do not see it as forgiveness? Betsy Hp: > (Something Dumbledore does do is detach a person's evil actions from > himself. IOWs, Dumbledore doesn't allow Tom's evilness to threaten > or alarm him. Is that a sort of forgiveness? I'm not sure, > honestly.) Alla: IMO it is. but I guess this is agree to disagree moment. Betsy Hp: > Gosh, not even Snape (seen as loyal by Dumbledore) gets a scene in > which Dumbledore suggests that all is forgiven. Alla: Well, sure we see no scene like that, but IMO it is implied very strongly when DD tells Harry how remorseful Snape was, that was the greatest regret of his life, etc. Betsy Hp: > And one thing the books certainly don't do is encourage anyone to > forgive evil, if Voldemort equals evil. (And the way JKR strips him > of any sort of humanity suggests that he comes pretty darn close, > IMO). So I'm confused as to how an evil Snape should somehow be up > for forgivness. I'm not sure what might have forshadowed such a > thing. Alla: I think the books do not encourage to forgive Voldemort, but not the evil itself, or the other characters that represent it. Per JKR Voldemort is a sociopath, basically nothing can help him IMO. What foreshadows such thing? For example Dumbledore offering to take Lucius in hiding as well. Lucius Malfoy somehow deserves to go to hiding instead of Azkaban? What is it if not blank forgiveness? > > >>Alla: > > > > Keep in mind again that I am not talking about strictly evil Snape, > > but just any Snape, who is less than fully DD!M. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Then you're changing the rules. I was told to imagine ESE!Snape. > And I did. However, playing along... I suppose this version of > Snape is only slightly evil? His mother beat him and that's why he > became a murderer? Again, what in the books suggests that Harry > forgiving such a man is a theme JKR is working on showing? I > honestly don't see anything. Alla: Sorry for being unclear, but even though I started talking about Evil Snape as sort of umbrella for all Snapes that Harry may forgive and grow character wise, I certainly mentioned that for that Snape does not even have to be evil, anything less than full DD!M. Does that make sense? This is from my post yesterday: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164109 "I mean Snape does not even have to be completely evil here, he can be anything but complete DD!M, he can be Grey, LID, OFH, anything, but perfect Snape." Again, not denying that my original question was how Harry would not grow if he forgives Evil Snape, but I included other varieties in the same post, no? Betsy Hp: > This flavor Snape is as much a copy of Peter Pettigrew as ESE!Snape > is a copy of Voldemort. Harry does not, and is not encouraged to, > forgive Peter. So why would he forgive Snape? Alla: But, but I stated the reasons. He may forgive Snape because he can see Snape from Lily eyes, because despite the fact that Snape had done some major major wrongs, he also did some good things, something Harry can empathise with or something like that. Betsy Hp: > Hmm... I suppose Alla is thinking that the remorse, redemption, > rebirth phase of (anything but DDM!)Snape's story will all get > crammed into DH? For one, I don't think it'll fit. For another, if > Snape has been meant to be exactly what Harry saw him as throughout > the previous books, it seems to be piling too many themes on Snape's > poor shoulders. And finally, it puts too much growth onto Snape. > Snape will be where the action is, while Harry doesn't grow too much > at all. Alla: What growth of Snape? In this scenario he would still be the same man, just Harry would see **some** good things that Snape did in the past and that would help Harry undergo some major growth where Harry would be able to see something good that Snape did **in the past** which will help Harry to forgive. Betsy Hp: > However, if most of Snape's redemption has taken place off-screen and > Harry learns about it on-screen, the action will all be on Harry's > side. Which is why I don't see any flavor but DDM!Snape (not to be > confused with perfect!Snape) as fitting into Harry's story. Alla: Yes, sure Snape's good things would had to be off screen, I mean Harry would just learn about them, even if they take place in the present and the action of forgiving is still on Harry. Betsy Hp: > Of course, my view completely changes when we look towards a DDM! > Snape. Because *that's* a Snape that I can see Harry needing to > forgive. Snape has treated Harry badly, and Harry does need to let > his anger at such treatment go. >> *That's* the sort of forgiveness I can see occuring in the "Harry > grows up" story line. But not forgiveness of evil. Whether that > evil is straight-up (Snape as Voldemort) or whiny (Snape as Peter). Alla: Okay, you can see this sort of forgiveness occuring, I just do not see how JKR is prevented from showing another sort of forgiveness. The one which DD gave to his assassin to be and the one who almost killed two students. The one that DD gave to the merciless bully of kids in the orphanage. The one that DD was ready to give to Lucius and Narcissa. I mean, is it not the forgiveness of evil? IMO it is. And since Harry is supposed to learn DD lessons, I can absolutely see Harry practicing on Snape. Betsy Hp: > [An aside: This was a fairly hard post to write for some reason. > Partly, I think, because I tried to seperate out my personal beliefs > from the themes I see in the actual books. I'm not sure how > successful I was on that, but for that reason I didn't respond to the > posts that talked about Forgivness in and of itself -- though I did > read them. Just so you all know. ] > Alla: Sorry about that? Being hard to write I mean. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 23:47:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:47:12 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164132 Alla: > > I am afraid I still do not understand. Harry forgiving Evil Snape would not provide anything new for his character? How is that possible? > > Right now Harry **hates** Snape, then he will learn to **not hate** > Snape anymore. Not because Snape did not do anything wrong, but > because Snape either commits redemptive act OR because Harry would > realise that it is really bad for his mental health to become like > Snape or because Harry would realise that Lily would have wanted him > to forgive Snape or something. > > So, he will grow, no? > I do not agree then, I think that Voldemort in JKR??s world is way > beyond forgiveness ( he is a sociopath as she called him) and he > would be defeated by some sort of metaphoric showing of power of > love, but Harry would also had to forgive somebody IMO, literally. Carol responds: Let me start by saying I agree that Voldemort is beyond forgiveness. IMO, Harry's defeat of him using Love won't mean forgiving Voldemort himself. That's neither necessary or possible, as far as I can see. But he *will* need to be motivated by compassion for the victims of Voldemort, not only those who have been killed or tortured by Voldemort and his Death Eaters, or have lost family members and friends, but even those who, like Snape, have done things they regret and now suffer the agony of remorse. If Snape is truly sorry that he ever aided Voldemort and helped to bring about the Potters's deaths, and particularly if he's suffering anguish over having to murder Dumbledore, then he, too, is Voldemort's victim. Understanding and forgiving him instead of seeking vengeance on him would be an essential step forward in Harry's journey toward Love. So while it would perhaps be noble to forgive a truly evil Snape, it might be as impossible to do so as it would be to forgive Voldemort. ESE!Snape would simply be a sociopath on a smaller scale. And even if Harry could forgive him and set aside his desire for revenge, as he surely must if his weapon is to be Love, there would be little motive for doing so. What would be the point of forgiving a wholly evil Snape? (Snape in any variety is unlikely to ask Harry's forgiveness; I think it will have to be extended vouluntarily.) And what's the point of undestanding ESE!Snape's motivations, which would be exactly the same as Bellatrix's and Crouch Jr.'s, fanatical loyalty to Voldemort, or OFH!Snape's, which would be chiefly self-preservation, like Peter Pettigrew's? An understanding of DDM!Snape's motivations, however, both his genuine remorse and his loyalty to Dumbledore, would be a step toward developing the compassion that Harry needs if he's going to be willing to sacrifice himself for the WW (which includes Snape as well as Neville). It would also be a step toward understanding Dumbledore and seeing the wisdom of his second chances policy and his complete trust in Snape. (Admitting that DD was right would be an act of maturity for Harry, not a step backward toward childhood.) So as far as I can see, forgiving DDM!Snape promotes Harry's progress toward growing up and toward defeating Voldemort. Forgiving any other kind of Snape is either too much to expect of Harry or insufficiently tied in with the compassion a hero must feel for the people he is trying to save, none of them wholly good or evil, and none, even the most powerful and talented, able to save themselves. Carol, sure that the recognition scene, when Harry learns to see Snape with Dumbledore's eyes, will be one of the most moving and powerful in DH From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 24 23:54:32 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:54:32 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164133 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > While some have suggested 'Shadow' memories, > > I think 'secondary' memories is closer to the truth. > > > > ... > > > > So, let's say Snape removes an event from his memory. > > Once he does that, ... How does he even know the > > event occurred? ... if he can't remember that he ever > > had it? Of course, the answer is he has many > > secondary memories related to the event ... > > Carol responds: > ... I don't think JKR has anything so complicated in > mind. I think that once a person removes the *objective > record* of the memory and places it in a Pensieve, what > remains is the subjective remembrance, a shadow memory > that may be almost as detailed or much vaguer than the > objective memory, but which cannot be placed in a > Pensieve because it isn't a real, objective record of > what happened. > > For example, ... > > Carol, whose memories, even the most vivid ones, are > all of the inaccurate subjective variety--and don't > match my sister's subjective memories of the same > incidents... > bboyminn: Although it certainly doesn't seem like it, I think we are agreeing with each other. In a sense, we are saying the same thing, just framing it differently. It seems reasonable that what you call 'Shadow' memory, it a memory that exists and is made up of a collection of 'Secondary' memories. The point I'm really trying to make is that no memory exists in isolation. Let us use a slightly real world example. You go to the corner store to get some milk and while you are there an attempted robbery occurs. The (magical) police arrive and everyone gives them a general account of what happened. Then you remember that you can pull memories from your head, and that the police are capable of viewing memories in a Penseive. So you give them the memory of the actual robber so that later when viewed they can see the actual robber and make a positive identification. (Too bad you can't hook a printer directly to the Penseive, you could have 'Wanted' flyiers out in a matter of minutes.) Now, has all evidence of that event left your mind? Certainly not, you still remember going to the store, you still remember that a robbery occurred and that you explained what happen to the police, later you will remember having gone home and told your family. Perhaps when you explained everything to the police, in your mind you relived it again, thereby creating a new memory. Indeed this secondary memory is very subjective, filled with emotions and accompanying distortions. All these secondary memories, and re-rememberances, would create what you call a Subjective Shadow Memory. And I agree that these 'shadow' memories are too vague, distorted, emotional, and subjective to be of much use to a Legilimens. Again, the key point is that no memory lives in isolation. It is the associated memories that allow you to know what you put into the Penseive, to still remember why you put it in there, and to know enough to know to put it back when you are done. Much like you, most of my childhood memories are gone, and all that remain are the shadows, but those shadows are enough to remind me that the memory and the places once existed. No memory lives in isolation, isn't that the point we are both trying to make? Steve/bboyminn From mymusical_girls at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 00:28:25 2007 From: mymusical_girls at yahoo.com (Raechel) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 00:28:25 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701241330u79c9ff67s4af6e15e71cafaa4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164134 Jeremiah: Well, first off, I don' think that having friends who are married and parents makes you spontaneoudly desire to pair-bond and breed. So, James'influence on both Lupin and Sirius doesn't extend to the alter or the bedroom. I have had my suspicions that Sirius is Gay. (lol.. ok, not really, but I think it would be very cool if he was). Come to think of it, JKR has a lot of single mature men. Dumbledore, Snape, Sirius, Lupin, Mundungus, Charlie Weasley, Voldemort, Hagrid (ok, he was single until book 4), just to name the one's off the top of my head. I woudln't think that all of them are gay (not to mention gay and single) but maybe there's a portion of JKR's culture that has single men being acceptable? What I think it this: Sirius has been through a lot. He was very passionate about the Order before LV's fall and then he was thrown in prison. He's not in a place, mentally, to date and has stayed single. His focus is Harry's well-being. plus, everyone thinks Sirius is a killer, so who's going to seek him out for dinner and a movie? Just my 2 cents. Raechel responds: All joking aside, I actually think that Sirius might have been gay as well. Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts about his life being wrapped up in the Order, as I was questioning mostly his choice BEFORE he was wrongly accused of murder and thrown into prison. Also, I respectfully disagree with what you said about friends not influencing each others choices. It's been my experience that often single people hang out mostly with other singles, couples hang out mostly with other couples, and people with kids hang out mostly with people who have kids. It's because they have more things in common. Obviously, there are exceptions considering that I'm married with kids and my best friend is single. However, I was thinking about my post after I sent it and realized that, as you said, there are a lot of single, mature men in these stories. In fact, there are a lot of single, mature women: Professors McGonagall, Sprout, Trewlaney, Umbridge, and Madame Maxime to name a few. The more I think about it the more I realize that these interpersonal relationships would just cloud the story with too many issues and details. It was probably to save the sanity of the author and her readers that she chose to eliminate those extraneous, unnecessary details. Again, just my thoughts, Raechel From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jan 25 02:16:13 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:16:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, References: Message-ID: <004e01c74026$ca2425d0$a19e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164135 > Alla: > > Are we talking about different definitions of forgiveness, maybe? > Because semantics so often seemed to be the reason of > misunderstandings I run into. > > I mean, I see what Dumbledore did to Draco is complete and absolute > forgiveness. Otherwise, I would have seen Dumbledore talking that > Draco deserves to be punished, not come to hiding with his family. > > No talking about Draco almost killing two students or planning > Dumbledore's assasination as something that needs to be punished. > What is this if not forgiveness? Magpie: I don't mean to speak up for Betsy again but I'm jumping in because this was the same question I was asking reading her post. I think the thing about Dumbledore and Draco is that it's true he doesn't talk about punishment for his crimes--he actually says "no real harm has been done." But I also think that part of the reason he can do that is he sees the kid suffering and so doesn't feel like he has to do that. I think what Betsy may be referring to is the fact that Dumbledore offers Draco the choice to say he doesn't want to kill for Voldemort. It's not the most active of choices, but it's saying No to Voldemort. He can offer to forgive Draco only for trying to kill him--only Ron and Katie and their families can forgive Draco for the other things. Alla:> > And Tom Riddle? Dumbledore may have certainly hold LV responsible for > his actions, but he seems to me to very actively **not** hold Tom > responsible for what he did before he came to Hogwarts, clean plate > and all that. You do not see it as forgiveness? Magpie: Hmmm...I guess I would say: what's to forgive? I mean, for Dumbledore? Because he wasn't hurt by Tom before. Can Dumbledore forgive for someone else? I feel like it's a slightly different thing there. I'd describe it again as giving a second chance rather than forgiving him, because it's not Dumbledore's right to forgive someone for harm done to someone else (like wtih Ron and Katie). I think that's the distinction I'd make in all these things. You can only forgive trespasses against yourself. In a general way Snape did things against Dumbledore's side, but he's not forgiving Snape for a wound against himself. He definitely offers to forgive Draco for trying to kill him and agreeing to kill him, but there I think he understands Draco's position and sees remorse. Draco has to accept the offer, which brings some action with it. It's not like if Draco skipped off to be a DE I'd imagine Dumbledore shouting after him, "I forgive you Draco!" >Alla: > What foreshadows such thing? For example Dumbledore offering to take > Lucius in hiding as well. Lucius Malfoy somehow deserves to go to > hiding instead of Azkaban? What is it if not blank forgiveness? Magpie: Of Lucius? I don't think so. I think that offer was all about trying to save Draco. Where Voldemort uses his family against him, Dumbledore doesn't make him choose between not killing and saving his family. > Alla: > > But, but I stated the reasons. He may forgive Snape because he can > see Snape from Lily eyes, because despite the fact that Snape had > done some major major wrongs, he also did some good things, something > Harry can empathise with or something like that. Magpie: But doesn't that suggest Snape's earning the forgiveness, or is being forgiven due to understanding? I mean, if Lily saw the good in Snape there must be good in Snape. She doesn't seem like she just went around forgiving everyone for no reason. If Snape was ESE, would Lily forgive him for killing her, beyond just not wasting time hating him? I don't think JKR would be so interested in that, based on the girl we saw in the Pensieve. Would she forgive Snape for trying to get her son murdered? That I definitely don't think she would do--she might forgive him if he felt true remorse, but I don't know how he'd look through Lily's eyes if he was just killing her son with no remorse. > Alla: > > Okay, you can see this sort of forgiveness occuring, I just do not > see how JKR is prevented from showing another sort of forgiveness. > > The one which DD gave to his assassin to be and the one who almost > killed two students. The one that DD gave to the merciless bully of > kids in the orphanage. The one that DD was ready to give to Lucius > and Narcissa. I mean, is it not the forgiveness of evil? IMO it is. Magpie: I don't think it was forgiveness for any of them except Draco, whom he could I think see suffereing, and see that he did not want to do this--and whom he could forgive for a specific bad action against himself. He offered to forgive that by offering Draco the chance to make the right choice *now.* Tom Riddle and Snape I think he more gave a second chance. Lucius and Narcissa just lucked out that Dumbledore was willing to help them for Draco's sake (or perhaps to neutralize them). -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 02:34:20 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:34:20 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164136 > >>Alla: > Are we talking about different definitions of forgiveness, maybe? > Because semantics so often seemed to be the reason of > misunderstandings I run into. Betsy Hp: It's not so much a semantics mistake as the fact that "Forgiveness" itself and what it entails is a matter often discussed by theologians and philosophers without agreement. So I'm not expecting that we'll arrive at total agreement here. > >>Alla: > I mean, I see what Dumbledore did to Draco is complete and absolute > forgiveness. Otherwise, I would have seen Dumbledore talking that > Draco deserves to be punished, not come to hiding with his family. Betsy Hp: And I don't. People go into Witness Protection all the time. The FBI doesn't claim to have forgiven all their past sins. It's generally a very tit for tat arrangement, which is not a part of forgiveness, IMO. I do agree that Dumbledore helped Draco expand his own view of himself. And I also agree that Dumbledore saw beyond Draco's past actions. But I don't recall him saying anything to the extent of "all is forgiven". Not in a "complete and absolute" sort of way. (Draco could well be expected to seek forgiveness from Ron, Katie and even Bill Weasley in the future.) > >>Alla: > And Tom Riddle? Dumbledore may have certainly hold LV responsible > for his actions, but he seems to me to very actively **not** hold > Tom responsible for what he did before he came to Hogwarts, clean > plate and all that. You do not see it as forgiveness? > Betsy Hp: Nope. Not at all. It's more Dumbledore not seeing himself as God. He's not in a position to punish Tom for wrongs commited in the orphanage (though he does "encourage" Tom to return the things he stole). The hope that Tom might move in a different direction once among his peers doesn't suggest a forgiveness of past mistakes, IMO, more an opportunity for Tom to move beyond them. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Gosh, not even Snape (seen as loyal by Dumbledore) gets a scene > > in which Dumbledore suggests that all is forgiven. > >>Alla: > Well, sure we see no scene like that, but IMO it is implied very > strongly when DD tells Harry how remorseful Snape was, that was the > greatest regret of his life, etc. Betsy Hp: Hmm...actually I agree with you there. I think Dumbledore must have forgiven Snape for his role in the Potters' deaths (and any other Death Eater actions). However, you'll note that it's based on Snape's remorse. Something Dumbledore took as genuine. So the forgiveness isn't of a blanket sort at all; it's action based. Nor does it suggest that all is better in Snape-land. It just means *Dumbledore* believes in him. > >>Betsy Hp: > > And one thing the books certainly don't do is encourage anyone to > > forgive evil, if Voldemort equals evil. > > > >>Alla: > I think the books do not encourage to forgive Voldemort, but not > the evil itself, or the other characters that represent it. Per JKR > Voldemort is a sociopath, basically nothing can help him IMO. Betsy Hp: Right. But does she then suggest (or does Dumbledore suggest) that Voldemort should be forgiven? That Voldemort (or the evil he represents) not be destroyed? I haven't seen anything in the books that says as much. The Basilisk is killed, not sent to training school. > >>Alla: > What foreshadows such thing? For example Dumbledore offering to > take Lucius in hiding as well. Lucius Malfoy somehow deserves to go > to hiding instead of Azkaban? What is it if not blank forgiveness? Betsy Hp: I thought Dumbledore was going to leave Lucius "safe" in Azkaban? But even if he did offer to hide Lucius from Voldemort's wrath, I don't equate that with forgiveness. If a prisoner is threatened by an outside source, the prison system would (I expect) move that prisoner, even hide him if necessary. It doesn't mean the prisoner has been forgiven. > >>Betsy Hp: > > This flavor Snape is as much a copy of Peter Pettigrew as ESE! > > Snape is a copy of Voldemort. Harry does not, and is not > > encouraged to, forgive Peter. So why would he forgive Snape? > >>Alla: > But, but I stated the reasons. He may forgive Snape because he can > see Snape from Lily eyes, because despite the fact that Snape had > done some major major wrongs, he also did some good things, > something Harry can empathise with or something like that. Betsy Hp: Because of the nature of these books, I honestly don't think Snape can be seen as worthy of any sort of forgiveness *unless* he's on Dumbledore's side. *That's* the good thing that Harry can empathise with that allows Harry to forgive the classroom antics. Seeing the DDM!Snape is seeing Snape through Lily's eyes. However, if Snape is not loyal to Dumbledore, than Lily never really saw him (much as she didn't really see Peter). If Snape is not loyal to Dumbledore, there's not an action I can think of that would break through his cold-blooded murder of Dumbledore for Harry. The most I could see from Harry for a non-DDM!Snape is a sort of horrified pity. But not a sense that past wrongs should not be fully paid for. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Hmm... I suppose Alla is thinking that the remorse, redemption, > > rebirth phase of (anything but DDM!)Snape's story will all get > > crammed into DH? > > > > And finally, it puts too much growth onto Snape. Snape will be > > where the action is, while Harry doesn't grow too much at all. > >>Alla: > What growth of Snape? In this scenario he would still be the same > man, just Harry would see **some** good things that Snape did in > the past and that would help Harry undergo some major growth where > Harry would be able to see something good that Snape did **in the > past** which will help Harry to forgive. Betsy Hp: So no redemption, but somehow forgiveness? I just cannot see it. There is nothing in the books to suggest that this is a possible theme or something JKR wants Harry to learn. I do think that redemption is a theme within the books. So if your scenario doesn't include redemption, I feel it's even less likely to occur. (My opinion of course. ) > >>Betsy Hp: > > Of course, my view completely changes when we look towards a DDM! > > Snape. Because *that's* a Snape that I can see Harry needing to > > forgive. Snape has treated Harry badly, and Harry does need to > > let his anger at such treatment go. > > > > *That's* the sort of forgiveness I can see occuring in the "Harry > > grows up" story line. But not forgiveness of evil. Whether that > > evil is straight-up (Snape as Voldemort) or whiny (Snape as > > Peter). > >>Alla: > Okay, you can see this sort of forgiveness occuring, I just do not > see how JKR is prevented from showing another sort of forgiveness. Betsy Hp: Because so far as I've seen JKR hasn't shown forgiveness without redemption. > >>Alla: > The one which DD gave to his assassin to be and the one who almost > killed two students. The one that DD gave to the merciless bully of > kids in the orphanage. The one that DD was ready to give to Lucius > and Narcissa. I mean, is it not the forgiveness of evil? IMO it is. Betsy Hp: Again, I don't see Dumbledore as having forgiven either Narcissa or Lucius. And Dumbledore doesn't just blankly "forgive" Draco. He offers Draco a chance to *not* become something, and he offers the possibility of redemption. But in no shape or form do I see this as Dumbledore forgiving evil. The Malfoy family is too human to be evil incarnate. Voldemort has lost enough humanity that he's coming pretty close. > >>Alla: > And since Harry is supposed to learn DD lessons, I can absolutely > see Harry practicing on Snape. Betsy Hp: I just don't see this as a lesson Dumbledore has taught (or even exemplified). And I don't see it as a lesson Harry is even capable of learning or acting on. I like what Carol says here: > >>Carol: > > So as far as I can see, forgiving DDM!Snape promotes Harry's > progress toward growing up and toward defeating Voldemort. > Forgiving any other kind of Snape is either too much to expect of > Harry or insufficiently tied in with the compassion a hero must > feel for the people he is trying to save, none of them wholly good > or evil, and none, even the most powerful and talented, able to > save themselves. Betsy Hp: I agree that this sort of thing is beyond Harry. I just want him to get past his anger enough to see the humanity in people who think differently from him. But I certainly don't expect him to forgive evil. > >>Betsy Hp: > > [An aside: This was a fairly hard post to write for some reason. > > > >>Alla: > Sorry about that? Being hard to write I mean. Betsy Hp: Oh, nothing to apologize for! It just makes me think, that's all. Generally, a good thing. Betsy Hp From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Thu Jan 25 02:35:21 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 02:35:21 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164137 > > > Cyril here: > > In general I agree with the gist of Carol's post on the aspect of > the secondary memories being the cause for someone to remember that > he had a memory, which needs to be reinserted into their minds. > > The one aspect that I have a concern with is why would Snape place > that memory into the Pensieve (or three memories, using Carol's > examples above), readymade for Harry to look at. He could easily > have extracted the memories and placed them into vials or containers > similar to what Slughorn did in HBP, and how DD actually stored > memories of those he had tracked down. Why would Snape even need a > Pensieve if he just wanted to store the memories, and not to look at > them for some information or clues. > > Looks like Snape had that (and maybe) other memories in the Pensieve > because he was looking for something. I see no other reason for him > to borrow DD's Pensieve. > > Cyril, going to reread that chapter looking for reasons why Snape > would want to be reviewing that particular memory (though none come > in mind offhand) > Anne Squires now: I believe the entire episode was a set up. I think that Snape's worst memories are, indeed, stored in vials or containers. Either that or he knows that his worst/most incriminating memories are so well protected by his skills at Occlumency that there is absolutely no way that Harry will ever discover them, Protego spell or not. I think the memories that Harry did end up seeing when he cast the Protego spell were memories that Snape had allowed to come to the surface. He was prepared to sacrifice these memories just in case Potter did manage to achieve something during the lessons. Considering the fact that Snape is a former DE who had direct dealings with LV, I just don't believe that his memories of a troublesome broomstick, shooting down flies, or of domestic troubles are very problematic for him. I don't think he is overly concerned that anyone should view these memories, not do I think Snape considers these memories to be *that* bad, relatively speaking. These are the memories that he allows LV to view as well as Potter. His memories of listening in on the Trelawney Prophecy and of whatever brought him back to DD were *not* in the pensieve. I don't think they ever were. I think the pensieve contained memories which were guaranteed to show James Potter and Sirius Black in a very negative way. I think Snape knew that at some point he would be called away. Probably he is used to being interrupted while in his office; I'm fairly certain that being called away for whatever reason is not highly unusual. Considering the fact that the school had disintegrated into such complete chaos under Umbridge, I believe that Snape was fairly certain that at some point he would be called away. In fact, when Harry took the plunge into the pensieve it was the second time that Snape had left him alone with the pensieve. I think Snape was somewhat surprised that Harry didn't take the bait the first time. Snape knows Harry's shortcomings fairly well; he knows that Harry sneaks around and does not respect the privacy of others, especially not when it come to Snape's privacy. It is also possible that Snape knew that Harry had been in DD's memories uninvited the previous year. Then what does Snape do? He makes a big show of extracting his memories and placing them in the pensieve right in front of Harry. I think Snape was thrilled when Harry finally, finally took the bait and went into this memory of the Mauraders. Snape was not angry. We saw Snape when he was truly in a rage at the end of PoA. In PoA Snape completely lost control. He certainly didn't have enough enough control to throw a jar of cockroaches and make sure it missed its supposed target. The jar toss was for show. Snape wasn't really trying to actually hit Harry. Also, Snape had enough control to grab a jar of bugs, not a jar of some rare, expensive potion ingredient. Nope, he was not in a rage; he was feeling triumphant. From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 03:02:30 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:02:30 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164138 Anne Squires here: I believe the entire episode was a set up. Va32h here: Well I do as well, but it's a set up by JK Rowling. I think there are some things that we have to accept as contrivances for the sake of the book. Snape's bad memories are there to plant the seedlings of sympathy for Snape, just as the trips in the Pensieve in HBP are there to plant sympathy for Tom Riddle. Harry needs to learn that his parents were not perfect, he's been idealizing them for so long. And he's been demonizing Snape. Harry needs to realize that neither of those viewpoints is entirely accurate. And obviously we can't see Snape's *very* worst memories, because it would likely be something that is to be revealed in book 7. There are plenty of things in the books that happen because...well because that's what needs to happen in order for the story to progress. va32h From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Jan 25 03:38:16 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:38:16 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164139 Va32h here: Snape's bad memories are there to plant the seedlings of sympathy for Snape, just as the trips in the Pensieve in HBP are there to plant sympathy for Tom Riddle. Sherry now: Hmmm, if the pensieve trips were there to plant sympathy for Riddle, I don't know about Harry, but it didn't work for me. I have no sympathy for Riddle or Snape, come to think of it. Many people have bad childhoods, are rejected by family, grow up in orphanages and don't turn into psychopathic monsters. Or just plain old garden variety murderers of best friends/mentors. Va32h Harry needs to learn that his parents were not perfect, he's been idealizing them for so long. And he's been demonizing Snape. Harry needs to realize that neither of those viewpoints is entirely accurate. Sherry now: I'm always puzzled by the idea that Harry, who has never really known his parents, needs to learn not to idolize them. Why? Why shouldn't he keep his view of them? This is in a general sense I am asking the question, not rejecting the obvious plot device, because it's unchangeable. But what is good about making a kid, during a terrible year in his life no less, learn that his parents weren't all he thought? His view of his parents had actually helped him through some things. Why remove another source of pride and strength from the poor kid? Sherry From kamilaa at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 03:43:09 2007 From: kamilaa at gmail.com (Kamil) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 21:43:09 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164140 > > Cyril, going to reread that chapter looking for reasons why Snape > > would want to be reviewing that particular memory (though none come > > in mind offhand) > Anne Squires now: > > I believe the entire episode was a set up. > > I think the pensieve contained memories which were guaranteed to show > James Potter and Sirius Black in a very negative way. I think Snape > knew that at some point he would be called away. Probably he is used > to being interrupted while in his office; I'm fairly certain that > being called away for whatever reason is not highly unusual. > Considering the fact that the school had disintegrated into such > complete chaos under Umbridge, I believe that Snape was fairly certain > that at some point he would be called away. In fact, when Harry took > the plunge into the pensieve it was the second time that Snape had > left him alone with the pensieve. I think Snape was somewhat > surprised that Harry didn't take the bait the first time. > I think Snape was thrilled when Harry finally, finally took the bait > and went into this memory of the Mauraders. Snape was not angry. We > saw Snape when he was truly in a rage at the end of PoA. In PoA Snape > completely lost control. He certainly didn't have enough enough > control to throw a jar of cockroaches and make sure it missed its > supposed target. The jar toss was for show. Snape wasn't really > trying to actually hit Harry. Also, Snape had enough control to grab > a jar of bugs, not a jar of some rare, expensive potion ingredient. > Nope, he was not in a rage; he was feeling triumphant. That makes a certain degree of sense - I've always had trouble with the episode with the MWPP supposedly being "Snape's Worst Memory". Seriously, if that is someone's worst school days memory, they've had a pretty damn easy childhood. And since I get the idea we were supposed to feel some sort of sympathy for Snape in the scene - it always fell quite flat for me. But then several of the things JKR has done with Snape in the last two books have failed to resonate with me. I don't buy that he could possibly regret what happened to the Potters enough to repent from his DE ways (rather, I can see him dancing a jig over James' grave). I can certainly buy that he hated James/Sirius, etc., but for the episode we saw when Harry dived into the Pensive to be his *worst* memory? Jeez, I should have had such an easy childhood/life - and I had a pretty damn nice one as it was. So I'm waiting and hoping for there to be more to it - more to why Snape returned, more to why we were supposed to feel so very sorry for him, when, it seemed to me to be nothing more than a normal episode of schoolyard squabbling between two factions who despise one another, more to why Dumbledore trusted him so. But I fear JKR feels she has explained herself as much as she needs to; I think from this point on the backstory is over and it's on with the reveals. Bah. But if it turns out to have been a set-up to annoy Harry by presenting his father and godfather in as bad a light as possible - I'd much prefer that to being asked to accept that that was ickle Snape's very worst memory. Kamil, who, of late, has come to think that the most fascinating thing about Snape is Alan Rickman; which is bad since I'm not all that fond of the books as presented in that other medium From dossett at lds.net Thu Jan 25 04:00:33 2007 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:00:33 -0000 Subject: Snape Stuns Flitwick: WHY? was: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164141 Snipping great summary, and skipping most of the questions because better minds than mine have come up with great answers, but I wanted to comment on this one because I had an idea and haven't seen it mentioned in this chapter or in the previous one. > > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is > accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you > annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had > stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Putting aside Hermione's and Luna's gullibility, I have always wondered why in the world Snape would feel the need to Stupify Flitwick, duelling championship notwithstanding. Flitwick's stated purpose was to wake Snape and get him to help with the fight - Snape should not have had any way of knowing what was coming. For that matter, what in the world was Snape doing asleep?? He's always up at all hours: nearly every time Harry has been wandering around Hogwarts after hours, who does he run into?? Back to the issue at hand, I have recently come to believe that Dumbledore had told Snape where he and Harry were going - well, maybe not *where* they were going, but what they'd be doing that evening, and that DD expected to have health problems afterwards, just as he did after finding the ring horcrux. I believe that DD asked Snape to sleep while they were gone, and the plan was for Snape to stupify *Harry* when DD sent Harry to get Snape. That would have put Harry out of the way while Snape could tend to any of DD's 'injuries.' But instead, Harry was unable to get to Snape, and McGonagall sent Flitwick to find Snape. . . In the overall scheme of things, this is really unimportant, I know. Am I completely off my rocker, or does this make sense to anyone else? Thanks for any comments - Pat From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jan 25 04:51:45 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:51:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? References: Message-ID: <00a501c7403c$84a94650$a19e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164142 > Anne Squires now: > > I believe the entire episode was a set up. > > I think that Snape's worst memories are, indeed, stored in vials or > containers. Either that or he knows that his worst/most incriminating > memories are so well protected by his skills at Occlumency that there > is absolutely no way that Harry will ever discover them, Protego spell > or not. I think the memories that Harry did end up seeing when he > cast the Protego spell were memories that Snape had allowed to come to > the surface. He was prepared to sacrifice these memories just in case > Potter did manage to achieve something during the lessons. > Considering the fact that Snape is a former DE who had direct dealings > with LV, I just don't believe that his memories of a troublesome > broomstick, shooting down flies, or of domestic troubles are very > problematic for him. I don't think he is overly concerned that anyone > should view these memories, not do I think Snape considers these > memories to be *that* bad, relatively speaking. These are the > memories that he allows LV to view as well as Potter. His memories > of listening in on the Trelawney Prophecy and of whatever brought him > back to DD were *not* in the pensieve. I don't think they ever were. > > I think the pensieve contained memories which were guaranteed to show > James Potter and Sirius Black in a very negative way. I think Snape > knew that at some point he would be called away. Probably he is used > to being interrupted while in his office; I'm fairly certain that > being called away for whatever reason is not highly unusual. > Considering the fact that the school had disintegrated into such > complete chaos under Umbridge, I believe that Snape was fairly certain > that at some point he would be called away. In fact, when Harry took > the plunge into the pensieve it was the second time that Snape had > left him alone with the pensieve. I think Snape was somewhat > surprised that Harry didn't take the bait the first time. Magpie: Knowing Snape as I do (as just another reader) I have a hard time believing he'd want Harry to see him humiliated like that. (I also think that memory can absolutely be more painful and embarassing for Snape than many a day cavorting with Death Eaters--Snape doesn't mind people seeing him being cruel, he minds looking foolish and weak and getting PANTSED.) Did James look so bad in that scene, from Snape's pov? Didn't he look like the victor, using Snape's own spell against him? Snape's the one who looked pathetic--he's the one with his pants showing. Saying Snape wanted Harry to see this to see his Dad look bad seems like Dudley showing Harry the Twins giving him the Ten Tongue Toffee and the aftermath expecting Harry to turn against the Twins for it. Most at the time thought it was funny. Certainly not to show him James and Sirius looking bad--why would Snape think Harry would think James and Snape looked bad there anyway? If Snape thought that of Harry doesn't it suggest that Snape knows Harry is not like James, that he's a good person who might be on Snape's side? I think Snape might assume Harry would think it was as funny as his father did (and everyone did at the time--Harry would have to be better than everyone Snape was at school with). You're describing this as depending on Snape knowing Harry's shortcomings (he'll peek into the Pensieve), but it seems to more depend on Snape knowing Harry's virtues. I also have a hard time believing Snape assumed he'd be called away. He was only called away here due to circumstances beyond his control that had to do with Slytherin. It's not like Snape automatically gets called any time anything went wrong. If he was banking on that I think he might have been disappointed and Harry would never have gone into the Pensieve. I don't see why Dumbledore would tattle on Harry to Snape about going into his Pensieve before. Anne Squires: > I think Snape was thrilled when Harry finally, finally took the bait > and went into this memory of the Mauraders. Snape was not angry. We > saw Snape when he was truly in a rage at the end of PoA. In PoA Snape > completely lost control. He certainly didn't have enough enough > control to throw a jar of cockroaches and make sure it missed its > supposed target. The jar toss was for show. Snape wasn't really > trying to actually hit Harry. Also, Snape had enough control to grab > a jar of bugs, not a jar of some rare, expensive potion ingredient. > Nope, he was not in a rage; he was feeling triumphant. Magpie: That's a leap I can't make. Snape loses control enough to throw a jar at a student (maybe--I think people have suggested it might have just exploded), so you assume that throwing something requires exceptional control (I don't think Snape's going to lose his basic motor control just because he's angry), and when he misses that proves that was proof of better aim because he was trying to miss? It reads more believably to me as straightforward: Snape hates James as always, Harry's now seeing a painful memory that makes him hate James, now he sees Harry humiliating him along with his father, and he's angry enough to throw the nearest jar at him like a toddler having a tantrum. Sounds like Angry!Snape to me! -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 05:00:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:00:16 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: <00a501c7403c$84a94650$a19e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164145 > Sherry now: > > Hmmm, if the pensieve trips were there to plant sympathy for Riddle, I don't > know about Harry, but it didn't work for me. I have no sympathy for Riddle > or Snape, come to think of it. Many people have bad childhoods, are > rejected by family, grow up in orphanages and don't turn into psychopathic > monsters. Or just plain old garden variety murderers of best > friends/mentors. Alla: LOLOLOL - sitting here, laughing over "plain old garden variety murderers", Sherry. I am not sure about Pensieve trips for sympathy for Riddle either, but I go back and forth on this idea. As I said in another thread, I do not think that JKR plans to elicit sympathy to Voldemort, but who knows maybe she does want Harry feel a tiny bit of pity for the boy whom LV once was. I mean, I certainly do not feel pity for him, but maybe Harry would? I guess we shall see in book 7. Sympathy for Snape? Um, you know the answer. Oh, and set up idea - always felt plausible to me. Sure Snape did not know when he would be called out of the room, but I find very plausible that he was biting his time and willing the nanture and Harry's curiosity take his course. I speculate and only speculate of course, that if no distraction could happened, Snape would have eventually came up with one. > Sherry now: > > I'm always puzzled by the idea that Harry, who has never really known his > parents, needs to learn not to idolize them. Why? Why shouldn't he keep > his view of them? This is in a general sense I am asking the question, not > rejecting the obvious plot device, because it's unchangeable. But what is > good about making a kid, during a terrible year in his life no less, learn > that his parents weren't all he thought? His view of his parents had > actually helped him through some things. Why remove another source of pride > and strength from the poor kid? Alla: What good about it? Well, except as you said being a plot device, I find absolutely nothing good with it. You know, hero journey and all that and Harry has to be absolutely alone but with his peers staff. ( Alla remembers many RL heroes who did some pretty great stuff in wars and peace time and with some members of their families being alive too, sigh, must not start ranting) But again there certainly came something good out of it for this reader, hehe. James moved SO far up to my favorite characters in Potterverse after Pensieve scene. I really do wonder if this was the effect JKR was going for. ( Oh, and to prevent questions - that is not because he was shown as bully, that is because he became a multilayered character in my eyes from saintly one. I still do not doubt that he was a good man altogether, but I also saw him doing pretty bad stuff. I admire characters like that) Magpie: > Certainly not to show him James and Sirius looking bad--why would Snape > think Harry would think James and Snape looked bad there anyway? If Snape > thought that of Harry doesn't it suggest that Snape knows Harry is not like > James, that he's a good person who might be on Snape's side? I think Snape > might assume Harry would think it was as funny as his father did (and > everyone did at the time--Harry would have to be better than everyone Snape > was at school with). You're describing this as depending on Snape knowing > Harry's shortcomings (he'll peek into the Pensieve), but it seems to more > depend on Snape knowing Harry's virtues. Alla: Okay, yes, I agree this is a strong argument against this being a set up in a sense that why would Snape think that Harry would be embarassed or something like that. BUT if the set up was done with the main purpose to get rid of Occlumency lessons, then it does not matter IMO. All that Snape needed IMO would be for Harry to peek in the Pensieve and I think it would be a pretty good guess to make, especially if DD clued Snape in on Harry making that trip in his pensieve in GoF. Magpie: > I also have a hard time believing Snape assumed he'd be called away. He was > only called away here due to circumstances beyond his control that had to do > with Slytherin. It's not like Snape automatically gets called any time > anything went wrong. If he was banking on that I think he might have been > disappointed and Harry would never have gone into the Pensieve. I don't see > why Dumbledore would tattle on Harry to Snape about going into his Pensieve > before. > Alla: See above, seems like rather easy one to me. Of course Snape is banking, but I would think that he would have waited few nights and if nothing would have come out would made Malfoy to call Snape out for something fictitious. As to why Dumbledore would say, maybe for strategic purposes to let Snape know that Harry is now aware of some interesting things in his past. To warn Snape for some reason maybe? From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 05:12:54 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:12:54 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164146 I had this whole long reply typed out, and it seems to have vanished entirely. I am not sure I have the energy to do it all again, so you will have to take my word for it that it made more sense the first time! Maybe "sympathize" is the wrong word for Voldemort. Perhaps humanize? Dumbledore was not intimidated by Voldemort because he could see him as just the boy Tom Riddle. For Harry and the reader, Voldemort seems an unbeatable force of evil. Now we can see Voldemort in that light too - human, vulnerable, defeatable. I do think we are meant (by JKR)to feel at least some pity for Snape, although I often wanted to smack him, shake him, and tell him to Get Over It already. As for Harry's parents - I suppose "humanize" is the word there as well. James and Lily were the sort of fantasy parents every orphan dreams of - beautiful, brave, in love with each other, devoted to their son, only leaving him because of some outside force. It is probably the same fantasy Tom Riddle had. But those heroic shoes can be hard to fill. Harry is aware of his own weaknesses, his temper, his impulsiveness. He frequently doubts his ability to defeat Voldemort. But see, his parents were human too. They were also capable of being petty, impulsive, and bad-tempered, and yet still able to rise valiantly to the occasion. I also think realizing one's parents are not perfect is a typical part of growing up, and so is part of the coming-of-age story that is within the defeating-evil story. And of course there is the recurring theme of; good people can do bad things, bad people can do good things, which is repeated so often in the books. va32h From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 25 05:17:31 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:17:31 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164147 > > Alla: > > Are we talking about different definitions of forgiveness, maybe? > Because semantics so often seemed to be the reason of > misunderstandings I run into. > > I mean, I see what Dumbledore did to Draco is complete and absolute > forgiveness. Otherwise, I would have seen Dumbledore talking that > Draco deserves to be punished, not come to hiding with his family. > > No talking about Draco almost killing two students or planning > Dumbledore's assasination as something that needs to be punished. > What is this if not forgiveness? Pippin: Mercy. At least that is what I would call it and that is what Dumbledore speaks of. Dumbledore is not as severe as he could be. But forgiveness for me is synonymous with pardon, and Draco is not being offered that. Draco is not told he's going to be able to continue with his life as if nothing had happened. If he's supposed to be dead, then his former life as the Malfoy heir and a seventh year Slytherin is gone. I don't know what sort of life in hiding Dumbledore could offer, but I doubt it includes the best of everything. And I don't think Draco would be able to take his NEWTS any time soon, so his career plans, if he had any besides being a favorite of Voldemort's, are toast. Alla: > And Tom Riddle? Dumbledore may have certainly hold LV responsible for his actions, but he seems to me to very actively **not** hold Tom responsible for what he did before he came to Hogwarts, clean plate and all that. You do not see it as forgiveness? Pippin: Tom is held responsible for the stolen items. Some children who seem to lack responsibility learn it as they get older. Dumbledore is not ready to give up on Tom just because Mrs. Cole suspects him of various crimes which she can't prove. Tom is warned that he must agree to obey wizarding laws. That he's a sociopath who feels no moral obligations and is clever enough to get around the rules is not Dumbledore's fault. IIRC, only one in a hundred or so people is a true sociopath -- so treating every child who seems to show no sense of responsibility as a sociopath would be wildly unfair to most of them. > Alla: > What foreshadows such thing? For example Dumbledore offering to take Lucius in hiding as well. Lucius Malfoy somehow deserves to go to hiding instead of Azkaban? What is it if not blank forgiveness? Pippin: Lucius is already in Azkaban at that point. Dumbledore offers to protect Lucius from Voldemort "when the time comes." Once again that does not equate to forgiveness. Lucius is not being set free to return to his DE ways. Pippin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Jan 25 05:26:57 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:26:57 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164148 Alla: > I mean, I see what Dumbledore did to Draco is complete and absolute > forgiveness. Otherwise, I would have seen Dumbledore talking that > Draco deserves to be punished, not come to hiding with his family. Betsy Hp: > And I don't. People go into Witness Protection all the time. > The FBI doesn't claim to have forgiven all their past sins. It's > generally a very tit for tat arrangement, which is not a part of > forgiveness, IMO. Jen: Dumbledore showed Draco mercy on the tower, which I view as falling somewhere in between both these views. Since Dumbledore didn't feel resentment or hatred toward Draco, he wasn't really offering forgiveness in my view. But he was doing more than just wiping away his potential criminal record because he felt compassion for Draco and his circumstance and wanted to offer him a second chance. I believe this will prove to be the case with Snape as well, Dumbledore showed mercy rather than forgiveness. Second chances imply absolution but don't require forgiveness. Most of the circumstances we've seen are about mercy so far so the more I think about it, so I'm not sure what JKR's take on forgiveness is. Many of the key people in Harry's life *can't* forgive, can't move past their resentment towards each other and put the past behind them. Harry has done that somewhat with the Dursleys although not consciously so I'm not certain it's a good example. Jen From va32h at comcast.net Thu Jan 25 05:38:17 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:38:17 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164149 Anne Squires here: The fact of the matter is, Harry learned about this particular memory from Snape's pensieve. I am not a very creative person, but there are numerous ways which come to my poor mind that would have accomplished the same thing for Harry and the reader. She could have had DD kindly explain (and with a lot of twinkling and peering over moon shaped glasses)to Harry that when James was a student he could sometimes be a rather nasty bully. She could have had Harry overhear a conversation a la Three Broomsticks scene from PoA or with the twins' extendable ears. She could have had an Order member mention that James and Sirius had reputations for bullying Snape in their younger days. I can imagine Moody, who seems way too blunt and insensitive at times, doing this. I can also imagine Lupin deciding to have a talk with Harry about not being too hard on Snape. I can actually imagine Sirius bragging to Harry about how things used to be with Snivellous. The point is, Harry could have learned about his father, Sirius, Lily, et al in numerous ways. But, he learned about them from the pensieve. I think Snape wanted Harry to see that memory. Not just JKR. Snape. The question is why did Snape do what he did? Why did he insure that Harry see that memory? Did he insure that Harry see it? I'm saying he most definitely did. I'm sure others will say it was an accident and Snape never intended for Harry to see the memory. The argument is about Snape's motivations and intentions in this scene. Snape's internal motivations. Snape's. Not JKR's. va32h here: Hearing about something secondhand is never as powerful as seeing it. Anyone who told Harry a story about his parents would naturally lend their personal bias to it, none of them could tell a story obectively, and without the benefit of age and hindsight. The only way for Harry to objectively see how his parents behaved at that age is to see it in the pensieve. I don't agree that Snape intended Harry to see the memory, so I don't have anything to say about Snape's motivations other than I don't think he wanted Harry to see it. Anne S. If your argument is, many things happened because JKR wrote it that way then there really wouldn't be much need for this forum, imho. I can't speak for everyone who is here; but one of the reasons I am here is to discuss the motivations of the various characters. Just exactly why did so & so do y instead of z? There's no fun in saying, "Well, so & so did that because JKR wanted them to." va32h: I seem to have offended you in some way? Of course a skilled writer can accomplish the goal of moving the plot along while making everyone behave in character and with plausible motivation. When discussion turns to the popular standby "Why did we have to go through the whole TriWizard Tournament when Moody could have made a book into a portkey, etc. etc." I am right in there arguing that there are a dozen plausible reasons why the tournament had to go on and why the cup had to be the portkey. In terms of this particular scene, not only do I not think that Snape deliberately set Harry up, I don't see why there is any reason, within or without the context of the books, for him to do so. We already know that Snape hates James. Harry knows that Snape hates James. Snape has already spoken negatively about James If I believe that Snape set Harry up, it tells me nothing new about Snape. Snape is a mean spirited person who hates James with good reason and would like to disabuse Harry of the notion that his father was good. This isn't news. If I believe Snape deliberately tried to hide those memories from Harry, it *does* tell me something new about Snape. I don't want to get into an argument with you over the purpose of this list, or what is worthy of discussion or not. va32h/Barbara From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 06:19:14 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:19:14 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: It really annoys me ... In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701231830j7a05b008re638b4815dbe0d85@mail.gmail.com> References: <948bbb470701221347id7c00fbh8059f4cb193681f4@mail.gmail.com> <948bbb470701231830j7a05b008re638b4815dbe0d85@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0701242219o248bb9c9w1fdaf06aefd50495@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164150 Carol responds: What about the mixed classes like Potions and Herbology? Is Professor Sprout supposed to escort the Hufflepuffs or the Gryffindors? That's the only class they have together, so they'd have to be going different directions. And, IIRC, there's a scene in which Snape escorts the Gryffindors. What happened to the Slytherins? Did he leave them on their own? Lynda: Perhaps Professor Sprout would have escorted both groups, taking them all with her and dropping the Hufflepuffs at their next classroom and then the Gryffindors at theirs, or vice versa if the Gryffindors classroom was closer. I've certainly done similar things with the students I work with when they leave from one classroom and have more than one destination. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 07:01:54 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:01:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470701241330u79c9ff67s4af6e15e71cafaa4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0701242301t7d81ea48v6272ac391ed549f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164151 Raechel: Also, I respectfully disagree with what you said about friends not influencing each others choices. It's been my experience that often single people hang out mostly with other singles, couples hang out mostly with other couples, and people with kids hang out mostly with people who have kids. It's because they have more things in common. Obviously, there are exceptions considering that I'm married with kids and my best friend is single. Lynda: I've noticed the same thing, (and I think that JKR actually does a good job of carrying this idea through in the books) that, for the most part, single people have more single friends, couples hang out with couples, etc. My closest friend is two months older than myself (nearly to the day) also single, and likeminded as far as entertainment and faith is concerned. I do have some close married friends as well, but due to the differences in our lifestyles, we don't do as much together as I do with my single friends. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 25 07:05:47 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:05:47 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164152 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Hmm... I suppose Alla is thinking that the remorse, redemption, > rebirth phase of (anything but DDM!)Snape's story will all get > crammed into DH? For one, I don't think it'll fit. For another, if > Snape has been meant to be exactly what Harry saw him as throughout > the previous books, it seems to be piling too many themes on Snape's > poor shoulders. And finally, it puts too much growth onto Snape. > Snape will be where the action is, while Harry doesn't grow too much > at all. > > However, if most of Snape's redemption has taken place off-screen and > Harry learns about it on-screen, the action will all be on Harry's > side. Which is why I don't see any flavor but DDM!Snape (not to be > confused with perfect!Snape) as fitting into Harry's story. Quick_Silver: I think that you take it too far in the other direction when you say that Snape isn't going to have his own growth in DH. I think that Snape and Harry are going to do grow concurrently in DH and the result will be a forgiving Harry and *redeemed*, DDM!, (whatever) Snape. As an example/speculation I can't help but fill that Snape's opinion of Harry's skills/talents/attitude is partly being built up to be knocked down. > Betsy Hp: > And beyond that, Harry may be able to forgive Snape those actions > that perhaps Snape himself doesn't recognize as wrong (classroom > behavior, snipes at James, etc.). Which would put Harry in a > stronger position, character-wise, than Snape. Since Snape was not > able to let go of (or forgive) the wrong actions of the not always > well behaved but still basically good James, Sirius and Lupin. Quick_Silver: But doesn't that still make Snape into an object of semi-pity? Snape would become the guy that never got over Hogwarts and what happened to him there. How could Harry not treat that Snape with some pity/bemusement/contempt? Totally speculating here but I think that Snape still has the chance to move beyond the Marauders in form of Harry. Quick_Silver From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 07:10:11 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 07:10:11 -0000 Subject: Aberforth Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164153 Just a thought -- maybe Aberforth has a difficulty when it comes to reading? One that would, perhaps, also occur so that he couldn't learn any *standard* spells, but was all the more creative, doing things with his wand that none of the professors had seen before? and ONLY that. Anyway, I do hope we find out in the DH... and if not, let's hope JKR publishes a history book including the background stories afterwards... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 08:00:27 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:00:27 -0000 Subject: Snape Stuns Flitwick: WHY? ( was: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164154 --- "rtbthw_mom" wrote: > > ... > > > > > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's > > office is accurate, what do you make of her and > > Luna's gullibility? Are you annoyed that they didn't > > realise immediately that Snape had stupefied Flitwick > > and try to stop him? > Pat: > > ... why in the world Snape would feel the need to > Stupify Flitwick, .... Flitwick's stated purpose was > to wake Snape and get him to help with the fight - > Snape should not have had any way of knowing what was > coming. bboyminn: Ah... but Snape did know what was coming. Well, he didn't know the specific (what, where, when, or how), but he certainly knew that sooner or later /something/ was going to happen. > Pat continues: > > For that matter, what in the world was Snape doing > asleep?? ... bboyminn: In this case, I think you have roughly the right assessment. Snape told everyone he was going to 'sleep', which really means 'I'll be in my quarters if anyone needs me'. If Snape was wandering the castle, he would not have been as easy to find when Dumbledore returned. Telling everyone he was going to 'sleep' meant that everyone would know precisely where to find him. Notice, that for someone 'asleep', Snape got dressed pretty fast. > Pat continues: > > ... I ... believe that Dumbledore had told Snape where > he and Harry were going - well, maybe not *where* they > were going, but what they'd be doing that evening, and > that DD expected to have health problems afterwards... bboyminn: I'm not buying any big conspiracy theory here, not that you are trying to sell one. At best, Dumbledore told Snape that he might need him later in the evening, so Snape should make himself easy to find. Beyond that, I don't think many details changed hands. > Pat continues: > > I believe ... the plan was for Snape to stupify *Harry* > when DD sent Harry to get Snape. That would have put > Harry out of the way while Snape could tend to any of > DD's 'injuries.' But instead, Harry was unable to get > to Snape, and McGonagall sent Flitwick to find Snape... > > ... bboyminn: But why stun Harry? So, Dumbledore needs a bit of Dark Arts Medical help, what difference does it make whether Harry is there or not. If they really wanted to get rid of Harry, all Dumbledore would have had to do is tell him to run off to bed; end of story. Here is what I think. Snape may have known Dumbledore, and possibly Harry, were off on some assignment. I suspect Snape was on alert to make himself easily available if and when needed. The simplest way to do that is to let everyone know he would be in his quarters. So that aspect is covered. Snape was aware, in general, that Draco was up to some thing, and he was further aware it was not a pleasant something. But he didn't know specifically what or when, and he wasn't involved in any of the planning aspects of it. When Flitwick came and told Snape Death Eaters were in the castle, he knew whatever Draco was planning was finally going down. At that point, Snape had to maintain his cover as a Spy. In a sense, he had to create /plausable deniability/. When questioned about his actions, he had to be able to convincingly say he acted like a DE, but at the same time, he had to do it in a way that did little or no harm. So, in stunning Flitwick, he acted like a DE. He could fairly say that he stunned Flitwick to keep him out of the fight and sway the advantage to the DE's. On the other hand, he also needed a diversion for Luna and Hermione. He certainly did not need them tagging along behind him. There may have been a small element of desire to truly protect Flitwick. Once Snape comes on the scene, events are controlled very tightly. The other DE's seem to quickly yeild to Snape's clear authority even though Snape is not involved in the plan. Snape also acts quickly, and does everything he can to get the DE's out of the castle as soon as possible and with a minimum of fighting. If Flitwick was there, that just increase the odds of a fight. By stunning Flitwick, Snape is actually keeping three people out of the fight, and thereby keeping them safe, but it also gives the impression that Snape acted to the advantage of the DE's which helps maintain his cover as a Voldemort supporter. External to the story, the author also needs to control the fight. JKR can't have Hermione and Luna running in and escalating a battle that Snape is trying to minimize. JKR essentially needs every person under control (pinned down, injured, distracted, etc...) so that Snape can make his escape and Harry can go chasing after him without other people getting involved. I think that purpose is reflected in and echoed by Snape's actions. He too is trying to control the fight, finish the job, and get the DE's out of the castle as quickly as possible. Both because the Job was done, and to minimize the death and destruction at Hogwarts. It is really some masterful writing on JKR's part. At every turn Snape's ambiguity is re-enforced. We see him attack Prof. Flitwick, but in doing so, he keeps him safe, and keeps Luna and Hermione distracted. We see signs that he is acting to protect Hogwarts, but we also see him kill Dumbledore. We see that he does not actually harm Harry, but on the other hand, he beats Harry down pretty hard. We see Snape in his greatest contrast of light and dark, and I think that is exactly how JKR wanted to leave us. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Thu Jan 25 08:26:57 2007 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:26:57 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164155 > > va32h: > In terms of this particular scene, not only do I not think that Snape > deliberately set Harry up, I don't see why there is any reason, > within or without the context of the books, for him to do so. > > We already know that Snape hates James. Harry knows that Snape hates > James. Snape has already spoken negatively about James > > If I believe that Snape set Harry up, it tells me nothing new about > Snape. Snape is a mean spirited person who hates James with good > reason and would like to disabuse Harry of the notion that his father > was good. This isn't news. > > If I believe Snape deliberately tried to hide those memories from > Harry, it *does* tell me something new about Snape. Anne Squires: Like you said, Snape is letting Harry know that he hates James. No, this is not news to anyone, especially Harry. If you accept my theory though that Snape set Harry up(and I do understand that you don't accept it) then it does add something new to the Harry-Snape relationship because this whole episode also shows that Snape has come to accept that Harry is not like his father when it comes to bullying. By the time we get to OotP, Snape has been keeping tabs on Harry for years. If Harry or any of the trio were bullies then I think Snape would be aware of it and would have called them on it. Snape has accused Harry of many things such as being arrogant "like his father." But, IIRC, Snape has never accused Harry of being a bully. (I mean up to this point in the series---OotP) And I'll bet he's been looking for that particulr trait. Add to this the fact that Snape has recently seen some of Harry's Dursley/Dudley memories. Now after having seen Harry's memories I truly do believe that Snape knows that Harry will at the least be dismayed and at the most be horrified to see that his father was a bully in the same vein as Dudley, Aunt Marge, Aunt Petunia, and Uncle Vernon. Snape does in fact realize that Harry would be more likely to identify with and empathize with the victim of a bully and have some rather strong feelings against the bully. This realization on Snape's part, I think, is evidence of a paradigm shift in his opinion of Harry. He still hates the Potter brat; but in this one area he can see that the son is not the father. Snape can also use this fact against both father and son. I just love the irony of the whole thing. The bully's victim uses this very memory to get revenge on his tormentor via this son. It's a very immature thing for Snape to do. But, then again, that's Snape for you. I think we must also remember that it's not just Harry who sees Snape's memory in the pensieve. LV is there as well and Snape knows it. Like I said in an earlier post, I think Snape's most important, damaging, or incriminating memories are probably stored away in vials or some sort of containers. Possibly they are carefully buried under memories which Snape considers unimportant. When Snape intices Harry into the pensieve he can kill two birds. He can upset the Potter brat and he also can show LV that he's not hiding anythng important from him. If LV is convinced that the worst Snape has to hide is a minor bullying incident from school, then Snape must be loyal. I have been thinking about why Snape would set Harry up and I think he was searching for a way to end the Occlumency lessons once and for all. Harry and LV were both showing up to those lessons. It was too dangerous for Snape the double agent. Those lessons had to end. va32h now: > I don't want to get into an argument with you over the purpose of > this list, or what is worthy of discussion or not. > > va32h/Barbara Anne Squires again: I don't blame you. I apologize. I reread my post and it sounded very high handed. I did not intend to come across so, I don't know, rude, I guess. Especially the last paragraph. I was completely out of line. I have deleted the post because I am embarrassed for ever posting it. I am very sorry. Sincerely Anne Squires From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jan 25 11:01:03 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:01:03 -0000 Subject: Snape Stuns Flitwick: WHY? was: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164156 Pat: > For that matter, what in the world was Snape doing asleep?? He's always up at all hours: nearly every time Harry has been wandering around Hogwarts after hours, who does he run into?? Back to the issue at hand, I have recently come to believe that Dumbledore had told Snape where he and Harry were going - well, maybe not *where* they were going, but what they'd be doing that evening, and that DD expected to have health problems afterwards, just as he did after finding the ring horcrux. I believe that DD asked Snape to sleep while they were gone, and the plan was for Snape to stupify *Harry* when DD sent Harry to get Snape. Ceridwen: I've always wondered if Snape was supposed to have Stupified Harry that night, too. I thought that it might have had more to do with Draco's task than with Snape healing Dumbledore, but that's a thought In my version, they knew that Draco had succeeded in whatever he was attempting that night, and they didn't want Harry to be in any danger from secondary DEs. Whatever would have happened with DD's death, or his lack of death since Snape would have been there to coax Draco into taking Dumbledore's offer, Harry would not have been in on it to either yell something at Draco to make him turn away from the offer, or to be harmed if Draco wanted to fight. This is assuming that they didn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet plan. This would also have had the benefit of circumventing the DADA curse since Snape would not have been seen to kill Dumbledore and would not have had to leave Hogwarts. Maybe the curse will be broken if it is successfully negated once. So, while Harry went to "get his cloak", Dumbledore told Snape that they were going after that next Horcrux and that something might happen that night; Snape took a nap; when he was awakened he automatically Stupified or stunned the person who woke him. When he saw it was Flitwick, he knew everything had gone pear-shaped and rushed to the tower, where the action was. Maybe Flitwick did get the words "The tower" out before Snape was awake enough to register who was talking to him, or maybe he just went to the sounds of battle. Ceridwen. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Jan 25 14:39:00 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:39:00 -0000 Subject: Harry looking in the Mirror after HBP (Would Harry forgiving Snape be charac...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164157 Carol: > So as far as I can see, forgiving DDM!Snape promotes Harry's > progress toward growing up and toward defeating Voldemort. > Forgiving any other kind of Snape is either too much to expect of > Harry or insufficiently tied in with the compassion a hero must > feel for the people he is trying to save, none of them wholly good > or evil, and none, even the most powerful and talented, able to > save themselves. Jen: I didn't fully appreciate the magnitude of Harry's responsibility until reading your last sentence: '..and none, even the most powerful and talented, able to save themselves.' *None* able to save themselves, not even Dumbledore, who may have died by Snape's hand but understood he was living on borrowed time from the moment Voldemort conceived his murderous plot. JKR said this in the TLC/Mugglenet interview after HBP: MA: If Harry was to look in the Mirror of Erised at the end of book six, what would he see? JKR: He would have to see Voldemort finished, dead gone, wouldn't he? Because he knows now that he will have no peace and no rest until this is accomplished. Jen again: I imagined if Harry looked in the mirror after HBP he would one day see Ginny, the next see himself getting revenge against Snape, the next finding the Horcruxes and Voldemort gone....! Was this Rowling pulling a Dumbledore and not quite answering completely? Or are we meant to believe that Harry's deepest heart's desire truly is the end of Voldemort? More important than my appreciation of Harry's task is Harry understanding the magnitude himself! I didn't really sense pure resolve and desire in Harry from that one scene at the funeral even though he exhibited a greater purpose and seriousness than ever before. He had so many distractions in HBP, from Quidditch to Ginny to his obsessesion with Draco, not to mention discovering the information about the prophecy and watching the scene on the tower. Draco was the one moving on with a single-minded purpose in HBP, not Harry. Whatever the value of his choices, Draco 'put away childish things' and took on the tasks of an adult. I suppose the cave and Dumbledore's death were the transitions and we can expect a more purposeful Harry in DH. Maybe Steve/bboy will get his wish after all, a Harry who will arm himself in any number of ways as he searches for the Horcruxes and sets *his* sights on the defeat of Voldemort, not only for himself and his own peace, but for all those who cannot defend against Voldemort's power. Jen, who would see a good night's sleep in the Mirror at the moment. :) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jan 25 14:44:04 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:44:04 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164158 Sherry: > I'm always puzzled by the idea that Harry, who has never really known his parents, needs to learn not to idolize them. Why? Why shouldn't he keep his view of them? This is in a general sense I am asking the question, not rejecting the obvious plot device, because it's unchangeable. But what is good about making a kid, during a terrible year in his life no less, learn that his parents weren't all he thought? His view of his parents had actually helped him through some things. Why remove another source of pride and strength from the poor kid? Ceridwen: My mother was an orphan. She lost her mother when she was two, and her father when she was nine. She was raised in an orphanage from the time of her mother's death. She thought her parents would have been perfect. She never could understand it when other kids fought their parents, and she never understood the normal teenage rebellion which prepares children for leaving the nest. This was not good for her as a parent, because she could never see why I might disagree with her. After all, I was lucky, I had my mother. She would have given anything to have had hers, and she would have always dutifully obeyed both of her parents out of gratitude that she had them with her, if the only hadn't died. This attitude would certainly impact Harry as a parent, but that wouldn't be within the story we're reading. For the story we have, Harry's strength is Love. The thread about forgiveness has given several definitions of forgiveness, and the ways that it would strengthen Harry and his Love power if he would be able to forgive Snape. One thing that I do think is necessary for Harry's forgiveness, not just dismissal, would be understanding of Snape's situation. If Snape's parents were the screaming man and the cringing woman, Harry doesn't need to think that Snape was lucky to have had his parents and that he threw away that good fortune. He would need to understand how parents can sometimes disappoint a child. Believing that is own parents would have been perfect puts a barrier in the way to that sort of understanding, in my opinion. Seeing his father as flawed and human, with weaknesses as well as strengths, helps Harry to understand that no one is perfect. Because it seems to me that he may think that because his parents were perfect, then everyone could be. Harry was allowed the opportunity that other children who have not lost their parents, to see his father as flawed and human, at a time when children normally see their parents as less than perfect. Glimpsing James and friends in the Pensieve was the closest thing orphaned Harry had ever seen of his father and mother. I don't count Dementor-induced recall as anything close: the situation was extrordinary. I thought it was touching that he was able to see them at all, not just waving from photos, but moving, talking, being relaxed in themselves. For Harry's inner development, not holding a picture of Perfect James and Perfect Lily in his mind will allow him to forgive himself for any action he may think of as unworthy of their sacrifice, or which he may think does not live up to their legacy. The pressure is off of him to be as perfect as he believed his parents were before the Pensieve incident. He is free to make mistakes and to learn from them, because his father, who looked like a royal prat in the Pensieve, grew up to become a loving husband and father, and a brave protector despite his mistakes. So, I see several benefits to Harry's discovery about his father for coming of age. It was a bitter disappointment at the time, but I think Harry did grow from it, and I think that he will continue to grow past the need for perfect parents and be able to be his own man. Ceridwen. From irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 12:02:34 2007 From: irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com (irishshedevil333) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:02:34 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164159 Raechel: > However, I was thinking about my post after I sent it and realized > that, as you said, there are a lot of single, mature men in these > stories. In fact, there are a lot of single, mature women: > Professors McGonagall, Sprout, Trewlaney, Umbridge, and Madame Maxime > to name a few. The more I think about it the more I realize that > these interpersonal relationships would just cloud the story with too > many issues and details. It was probably to save the sanity of the > author and her readers that she chose to eliminate those extraneous, > unnecessary details. irishshedevil This is just a side thought, but perhaps Lupin does not trust himself around other people. So that may be why he keeps Tonks away. (You guys have probably thought of that already.) Tonks and Harry are sure to be Lupin's weak spot. Do you think that they will be used somehow by LV? Do you think that Lupin will play a large role in the last book? From literature_Caro at web.de Thu Jan 25 14:58:56 2007 From: literature_Caro at web.de (literature_Caro) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:58:56 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape the saint? In-Reply-To: References: <1054276487.20070124023811@web.de> Message-ID: <1965655528.20070125155856@web.de> No: HPFGUIDX 164160 > Raechel responds: I also > believe that Snape will have to die in DH because of his treachery (to > either/both sides) and that will further carry on the idea of "sainthood". Hi Raehel! I wonder whether Snape will die. It is likely, but for Severus of Ravenna did not die as a martyr I am not sure about or Snivellus being killed as one. Greetings Caro From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Jan 25 15:30:14 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:30:14 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Sirius and being single/Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Takin In-Reply-To: <2795713f0701242301t7d81ea48v6272ac391ed549f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164161 > Raechel: > Also, I respectfully disagree with what you said about friends not > influencing each others choices. It's been my experience that often > single people hang out mostly with other singles, couples hang out > mostly with other couples, and people with kids hang out mostly with > people who have kids. It's because they have more things in common. > Obviously, there are exceptions considering that I'm married with kids > and my best friend is single. > > Lynda: > I've noticed the same thing, (and I think that JKR actually does a good job > of carrying this idea through in the books) that, for the most part, single > people have more single friends, couples hang out with couples, etc. My > closest friend is two months older than myself (nearly to the day) also > single, and likeminded as far as entertainment and faith is concerned. I do > have some close married friends as well, but due to the differences in our > lifestyles, we don't do as much together as I do with my single friends. Magpie: Yes, but you're talking about the way that different lifestyles tend to throw together marries and singles so that they hang out more with each other. MWPP became friends as kids when they had the exact same lifestyle and nobody knew who was going to be a parent and who wasn't. James then turned out to be someone who wanted to marry the girl he focused on for years. Why would this mean the other three (James is the odd man out here) are unusual for not grabbing the nearest woman and marrying her too? They didn't even have girlfriends, so getting married wasn't a particularly realistic choice. Perhaps they might have drifted apart if James and Lily started being more interested in other couples with children and the other three hung out more with single people (though given the James/Sirius relationship I have a hard time believing they wouldn't have remained friends), but but I don't think it's unusual that Sirius wasn't married at 23 just because James was. > Magpie: >> Certainly not to show him James and Sirius looking bad--why would > Snape >> think Harry would think James and Snape looked bad there anyway? > If Snape >> thought that of Harry doesn't it suggest that Snape knows Harry is > not like >> James, that he's a good person who might be on Snape's side? I > think Snape >> might assume Harry would think it was as funny as his father did > (and >> everyone did at the time--Harry would have to be better than > everyone Snape >> was at school with). You're describing this as depending on Snape > knowing >> Harry's shortcomings (he'll peek into the Pensieve), but it seems > to more >> depend on Snape knowing Harry's virtues. > > Alla: > > Okay, yes, I agree this is a strong argument against this being a set > up in a sense that why would Snape think that Harry would be > embarassed or something like that. > > BUT if the set up was done with the main purpose to get rid of > Occlumency lessons, then it does not matter IMO. All that Snape needed > IMO would be for Harry to peek in the Pensieve and I think it would be > a pretty good guess to make, especially if DD clued Snape in on Harry > making that trip in his pensieve in GoF. Magpie: But if Snape just needs Harry to peek in the Pensieve why put something so humiliating about himself in it? This is Snape we're talking about--would he really ever want Harry to see him in his grey underwear? Why not stick any memory in there and just say that Harry looked in the Pensieve and that's it? It just seems like a lot of machinations that replace a scene that brings together important emotional stuff in the story that's already been important in the past: Snape hates James, Snape hates Harry, Dumbledore thinks this "wound" of Snape can't be healed, Snape hates James for using Snape's spells against him, Snape can't stand looking weak. If it's all just a trick on Snape's part--his own version of the Midnight Duel--the scene's not important emotionally at all--except for the alleged destruction of Harry's previously high view of his father (which isn't destroyed at all, of course). > Magpie: >> I also have a hard time believing Snape assumed he'd be called > away. He was >> only called away here due to circumstances beyond his control that > had to do >> with Slytherin. It's not like Snape automatically gets called any > time >> anything went wrong. If he was banking on that I think he might > have been >> disappointed and Harry would never have gone into the Pensieve. I > don't see >> why Dumbledore would tattle on Harry to Snape about going into his > Pensieve >> before. >> > Alla: > > See above, seems like rather easy one to me. Of course Snape is > banking, but I would think that he would have waited few nights and if > nothing would have come out would made Malfoy to call Snape out for > something fictitious. Magpie: But of course Malfoy didn't call him out for something fictitious so it's like proving a negative. There's no sign in canon that Snape put this memory there hoping Harry would see it. We just have to assume that he *would* have brought Malfoy in on it (inviting Malfoy into lessons Snape was keeping quiet from him) if it hadn't worked. We'll just never know because he didn't have to do that. Alla:> > As to why Dumbledore would say, maybe for strategic purposes to let > Snape know that Harry is now aware of some interesting things in his > past. Magpie: He could certainly do that, but it seems very not Dumbledore to do that by revealing that Harry did something naughty--to Snape of all people. He's just handing him another thing to judge Harry for and possibly use against him. (As he's doing in this theory.) Dumbledore could have just told Snape that he shared this information with Harry. It seems very unlike him to tell Snape the circumstances in a case like that. Basically, to believe this was a set up on Snape's part on need some sign that he's doing that. Some sign that Malfoy's coming in was planned, a sign that Snape's acting. Anne_Squires: By the time we get to OotP, Snape has been keeping tabs on Harry for years. If Harry or any of the trio were bullies then I think Snape would be aware of it and would have called them on it. Snape has accused Harry of many things such as being arrogant "like his father." But, IIRC, Snape has never accused Harry of being a bully. (I mean up to this point in the series---OotP) And I'll bet he's been looking for that particulr trait. Add to this the fact that Snape has recently seen some of Harry's Dursley/Dudley memories. Now after having seen Harry's memories I truly do believe that Snape knows that Harry will at the least be dismayed and at the most be horrified to see that his father was a bully in the same vein as Dudley, Aunt Marge, Aunt Petunia, and Uncle Vernon. Snape does in fact realize that Harry would be more likely to identify with and empathize with the victim of a bully and have some rather strong feelings against the bully. I just love the irony of the whole thing. The bully's victim uses this very memory to get revenge on his tormentor via this son. It's a very immature thing for Snape to do. But, then again, that's Snape for you. Magpie: I guess that set up is ironic, but I'm not seeing Snape in it at all. It seems to assume that a certain view of Harry and of bullying must be shared by Snape because it's objectively true when I don't know that it is. Snape doesn't call James a bully any more than he calls Harry a bully--he calls James someone who was arrogant, who used Snape's spells against him and who went after him 4-on-1. His character to me seems to consistently be shown to despise weakness, and if James is the bully and Snape is the victim Snape is weak. He doesn't accept that role in the Pensieve either--he insults Lily for coming to his rescue and continues to try to fight back. I think he'd be furious if someone described Snape's relationship with James as victim and bully. So it seems a leap for him to assume that because Harry, too, has had people push him around he must therefore identify with all victims of bullies when Snape himself absolutely does not. It's even harder for me to imagine any situation where Snape said to himself, "You know what would be a great burn on Potter? I'll show him that day I got hung upside down with people laughing at my dirty underwear." I can't imagine a single situation where Snape would ever consider Harry seeing his underwear a good thing. I suspect that if you gave Snape a choice of reliving the day he went to the Dark Lord with the Prophecy, reliving the day he joined the DEs and reliving this day? I think he'd choose either of the first two over this one. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 25 15:32:19 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:32:19 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164162 > Betsy Hp: > > > The issue here is, I can't think of any themes an ESE!Snape would > > reflect. Not that have been in the story all ready. I also don't > > see how an ESE!Snape adds anything to Harry's story. It turns > what I > > see as a tale of growth into the Emperor's New Clothes. Which I > > don't see as the story JKR is telling. So this is the place where > > it's hard to continue the play-acting. ESE!Snape belongs in a > > different story altogether. (IMO, of course. ) > > > Alla: > > But what I do want to know is how Harry moving from hate of Snape to > forgiving the Snape is not the character growth, but Emperor new > clothes as you said. > Pippin: Going back to the orginal question... Forgiving any flavor of Snape fits in with the themes of redemption, love and forgiveness. What doesn't fit, IMO, is Harry having been right to suspect Snape from the beginning. That seems to have nothing to do with those themes. I don't see in the story that it's Harry's extraordinary powers of love that made Harry perceive evil when no one else did. If he did, it would be more of an emperor's new clothes theme, as Betsy said, seeing with the pure eyes of truth, or something like that. But Harry does not have such a power, and has been quite unable to detect evil that was sitting right in front of him and giving him friendly advice. It was easy for Harry to believe that Snape was an agent of evil because he resented Snape's treatment of him. It's a perfectly natural normal feeling, but I don't see what it has to do with an extraordinary power to love. OTOH, if Harry's power to love overcomes his resentment, and he sees that his resentment blinded him and led him to do to Snape what Snape has always done to him, ie, bear false witness against him, that will allow Harry to grow much more than if Harry's witness is true. I guess from the point of view of Christian themes it would depend on whether you see Harry as a Christ figure who can forgive though he has no sin to be forgiven for, or as an Everyman whose spiritual progress depends on acknowledging that he needs forgiveness. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jan 25 16:18:34 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:18:34 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: Operations of a Pensieve Message-ID: <23652230.1169741914392.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 164163 Bart: This is pretty much working backwards, in that I am figuring out what would make sense within the context of the canon. It appears that the Pensieve stores the records of sensory input from a memory. This allows someone to view the memory as if an outsider (or an outsider to view the memory). As Dumbledore has collected memories from others, it would also make sense that memories in a Pensieve can be copied and restored to their original "owners". The best clue to this is that Sluggy still retains his original memory of the Horcrux question, including the unedited parts. It may well be that putting the memory in the Pensieve in the first place doesn't remove it from the original owner, but there are too many clues that this is not the case. On the other hand, thought is a complex thing. As has been pointed out, just because the original memory is gone, the memories of the memory, such as the thinking one has done of the original incident, are still intact. And, since the Pensieve only contains the sensory information, one still must retain the subjective aspect of the memories in question. My guess is that, once one puts a memory into the Pensieve, one's thinks of the memory as a story told by someone else, rather than something that has happened to one's self. I can see two reasons why Snape empties some memories into the Pensieve. First of all, the phenomenon of "beginner's luck" is usually due to the fact that a beginner will do something that is so disadvantageous that it is completely unexpected to the more experienced person. Most of the time, the experienced person will take advantage of the disadvantage, but, sometimes, the move is such a surprise that it actually works. Therefore, paradoxically, especially during a training session, Harry has a better chance of getting through Snape's defenses than, say, Voldemort (not unlike the way Harry brings down Snape in a duel by unexpectedly breaking the rules in HBP). Therefore, these are memories that Snape doesn't want Harry to even have a chance of seeing. Secondly, as we are told that shutting down emotion is key to occlumancy, it would make sense that Snape would put away memories that have a high emotional content, particularly if they would relate to Harry. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 16:38:16 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:38:16 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: <004e01c74026$ca2425d0$a19e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164164 Alla wrote: > > > > Are we talking about different definitions of forgiveness, maybe? > > I mean, I see what Dumbledore did to Draco is complete and absolute forgiveness. Otherwise, I would have seen Dumbledore talking that Draco deserves to be punished, not come to hiding with his family. > Magpie: I think the thing about Dumbledore and Draco is that it's true he doesn't talk about punishment for his crimes--he actually says "no real harm has been done." > > But I also think that part of the reason he can do that is he sees the kid suffering and so doesn't feel like he has to do that. I think what Betsy may be referring to is the fact that Dumbledore offers Draco the choice to say he doesn't want to kill for Voldemort. It's not the most active of choices, but it's saying No to Voldemort. He can offer to forgive Draco only for trying to kill him--only Ron and Katie and their families can forgive Draco for the other things. Can Dumbledore forgive for someone else? I feel like it's a slightly different thing there. I'd describe it again as giving a second chance rather than forgiving him, because it's not Dumbledore's right to forgive someone for harm done to someone else (like wtih Ron and Katie). > > I think that's the distinction I'd make in all these things. You can only forgive trespasses against yourself. Carol responds: I agree with Magpie that you can only forgive trespasses against yourself ("Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us), so Dumbledore doesn't really have anything to forgive regarding Voldemort or Snape, neither of whom has injured him personally. He can forgive Draco (decline or cease to feel resentment against him) for attempting or wanting to kill him (I think he declines to feel resentment, much less seek vengeance), but I think what he actually shows Draco (and the young Snape) is mercy, compassion or forbearance shown to an offender, usually one over whom the merciful person has some power (which is why Draco, the one holding the wand, doesn't understand Dumbledore's mercy--he thinks that he's the one controlling the situation). Harry showed Wormtail mercy in the sense of forbearance (not compassion like DD's for Draco), but he didn't forgive him (cease to feel resentment or desire punishment for Wormtail's crimes against him). He was perfectly willing to send Wormtail to Azkaban, with the Dementors for company, to be driven mad with despair or die in prison. (I'm not arguing that he *should* forgive Wormtail, who has shown himself to be a self-serving coward willing to murder an innocent boy and restore Voldemort to his body using Dark maagic. I see no sign or remorse or repentance in him, or even of regret for betraying the Potters to their deaths.) It's *possible* that Harry will be in a position to show Snape mercy (as, BTW, Snape showed Harry mercy in rescuing him from the Crucio and deflecting his curses rather than cursing him in return even though Harry was trying to injure *him* and calling him coward), but that's unlikely given Snape's superior duelling skills and his abilities as a Legilimens and Occlumens. It's hard to imagine Harry having Snape at an advantage, but I sincerely hope that he *would* choose not to take revenge in that situation. To kill or Crucio him in such a situation would be an act of cowardice, as Harry knows full well ("Kill me like you kille him, you coward!"). But even if Harry were somehow in a position to show Snape the sort of strained mercy that he showed to Wormtail, that's not the same thing as *forgiving* him--ceasing to resent him and seek vengeance against him. Even though, theoretically, it's possible to forgive someone without understanding them (as the parents of five murdered Amish girls recently forgave the murderer, on principle), in Harry's case, forgiveness will almost certainly require understanding (and compassion like the Amish parents felt for the murderer of their children). Harry thinks he knows Snape and his motives. His resentment against him is not abstract resentment against a stranger who happened to kill or be involved in the deaths of people close to Harry but a personal vendetta against him for the eavesdropping and the murder of Dumbledore. To forgive him for these very real trespasses, he'll have to let go of the imagined ones (Snape's supposed responsibility for Sirius Black's death) and his own desire to punish Snape for real and perceived unfairness in his teaching methods. He'll have to understand why Snape killed Dumbledore (in part, I think, to protect Harry himself; "right vs. easy" isn't nearly as clearcut in this instance as Harry thinks it is), and accept Snape's remorse for the eavesdropping, and DD's murder, as real. I don't think that he could forgive an OFH! or ESE!Snape, but I do believe that forgiving a DDM!Snape (who is no saint, has no love for Harry, and has deeply injured him but also feels genuine remorse and genuine loyalty to Dumbledore) is an essential step toward Harry's defeating Voldemort through Love. At any rate, I'm trying to distinguish between mercy, such as Dumbledore showed to Draco on the tower, and forgiveness, such as I think Harry will have to show to (DDM!)Snape. I suppose that he could forgive some other variety of Snape, but I don't see why he would do so, and how it would be different from forgiving Wormtail or Bellatrix or Voldemort, which he hasn't done and which I don't expect him to do. Snape is another matter. He has a personal vendetta against Snape that is interfering with the eventual defeat of Voldemort through Love, and Snape alone of the Death Eaters has shown remorse (Karkaroff's cowardly and self-serving defection doesn't count) and risked his life to serve the cause of defeating Voldemort. Carol, hoping that she's made some useful distinctions and at least clarified her own position even if she hasn't persuaded anyone to change their minds on this topic From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 25 16:51:37 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:51:37 -0000 Subject: Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164165 > irishshedevil > This is just a side thought, but perhaps Lupin does not trust > himself around other people. So that may be why he keeps Tonks away. > (You guys have probably thought of that already.) Tonks and Harry are > sure to be Lupin's weak spot. Do you think that they will be used > somehow by LV? Do you think that Lupin will play a large role in the > last book? > Pippin: Heh heh. I think Voldemort found Lupin's weak spot a long time ago. I think Lupin is playing a larger role already than most people realize. Right now, Harry thinks that Snape has been a villain all through the series. If Snape steps out of that role, if he is not the Quirrell face of evil, the moral coward who made it possible for Voldemort to operate in plain sight, right under Dumbledore's long and twisted nose, the one that Dumbledore trusted so recklessly, then who is? The only other credible option is McGonagall -- but she's no coward. Lupin is, by his own admission. And however close he might have been to James and Sirius in his marauder days, something seems to have happened afterwards. Lupin doesn't appear to have been at James and Lily's wedding. He wasn't at Harry's christening. By the time of Godric's Hollow, Sirius and James no longer trusted him-- and they may have been right. Aimless and alienated, unable to find work, while James finds happiness with Lily and Sirius lives it up as a rebel, wouldn't Lupin start to resent his independently wealthy friends just a little? He has his work for the Order -- but what hope is there that life will be better for werewolves when Voldemort is defeated? It must have seemed rather pointless. It's said that those who join extremist groups are often skeptical of their ideology at first. They're drawn in by the sense of unity and companionship, and adopt the values of the group almost imperceptibly. I can see that happening to Lupin. He would eventually realize what a gulf had opened between him and his old friends. But what would he do about it? He has never had the courage to admit he did wrong -- all his confessions are full of remorse for what *might* have happened. Lupin, as usual, gave good advice to Tonks, and as usual, did not insist that she take it. IMO, he is too dangerous for her, not because he's a werewolf, but because he's a villain. I see her headed for a broken heart, or worse, and I would not be in her shoes for all the gold in Gringotts. Pippin (you can find a condensed version of the ESE!Lupin theory at message 146764) From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 17:43:05 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:43:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40701250943n25e69f73q6c23df64861a3891@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164166 Raechel responds: > However, Sirius was single for his adult life as well (before his > stint in Azkaban). In the chapter called "Will and Won't" when Harry > received his inheritance Dumbledore mentions that Sirius and Regulus > were both unmarried and childless. It made me wonder why. Especially > considering that Sirius' best friend, James, was married with a child. > Any thoughts? montims: Well, to the best of my understanding, the Marauders were just 21 or 22 when Lily and James were AK'd. They married and had a baby very young, but I wouldn't have expected the others, all things being equal, to have settled down so early. Of course, we don't know that Sirius didn't have a SO when he was arrested, but I would have expected whoever it was to have moved heaven and earth to get justice for him, so assume he didn't. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 17:24:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:24:52 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164167 Alla wrote: > Okay, yes, I agree this is a strong argument against this being a > set up in a sense that why would Snape think that Harry would be > embarassed or something like that. > > BUT if the set up was done with the main purpose to get rid of > Occlumency lessons, then it does not matter IMO. All that Snape > needed IMO would be for Harry to peek in the Pensieve and I think it > would be a pretty good guess to make, especially if DD clued Snape > in on Harry making that trip in his pensieve in GoF. Carol responds: I think that Magpie's argument more or less rules out the Pensieve's being a set-up to end the Occlumency lessons. If snape simply wanted Harry to enter the Pensieve and have an excuse to end the lessons, he would surely have chosen memories that made James (and Sirius) look bad without also placing Severus in a position of weakness. (I simply can't see any circumstances under which Snape would want Harry to see him humiliated. He hates weakness (or the appearance of it) in himself and others. Also, Snape takes the memories out of his head from the very beginning of the lessons, which began after Christmas and lasted (IIRC) until May or June. Surely, if Snape were simply trying to end the lessons by enticing Harry to enter the Pensieve, he would have engineered a reason to leave Harry alone with them long before. Instead, we have an earlier interruption, unengineered by anybody, in which Snape hears someone scream, says "What the--?", asks Harry if he saw anything unusual on his way to the office, and sweeps out the door with his wand in his hand to see what's happening. Since Harry doesn't take advantage of his absence on that occasion and instead follows him, there's no reason for Snape to suspect that he'd enter the Pensieve when Draco comes to ask him to rescue Montague from the toilet. (Oh, the duties of the Head of Slytherin House!) I see no reason to suspect that his anger at Harry for violating his trust and invading his privacy isn't genuine. (I'm the one who suggested that the jar of cockroaches could have exploded above Harry's head as a form of accidental magic like Harry's making the brandy glass explode in Aunt Marge's hand--Harry assumes that he throws it but doesn't see him do it.) I'd be angry, too, if someone did that to me. And we don't know what the other memories are. If one of them is the eavesdropping memory, Snape would be angry at what he *might* have seen and would want to stop the lessons to stop a repeat performance. (Also, it's near the end of the year and it's clear that Harry isn't trying to learn Occlumency and that the lessons aren't preventing his having those dreams. Dumbledore may have agreed with Snape that the lessons were a waste of time and maybe even doing more harm than good. It's clear that DD didn't order Snape to resume them or he would have done so, however grudgingly and resentfully.) Carol, glad that we got the excursion into Snape's memory showing that Snape's resentment of James has a very real basis and that young James, despite his popularity as a Quidditch star and his later heroism, was an arrogant, bullying little berk From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 18:02:02 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:02:02 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Aberforth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701251002s4797ad4av409ee23c93d0159b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164168 finwitch Just a thought -- maybe Aberforth has a difficulty when it comes to reading? One that would, perhaps, also occur so that he couldn't learn any *standard* spells, but was all the more creative, doing things with his wand that none of the professors had seen before? and ONLY that. Anyway, I do hope we find out in the DH... and if not, let's hope JKR publishes a history book including the background stories afterwards... ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremiah: I'm assuming everyone knows that Aberforth (DD's goat-loving brother...) is the bar-keep at the Hog's Head. You're right. I think that there is a lot to this character that has yet to be reveald. One could take the stance that Albus got the brains and all the junk went to Aberforth (and I agree that Aberforth is illiterate... JKR says so though DD). The other way to look at it is Albus was the go-getter and Aberforth had his own agenda whan it came to living his life. He's probably happy with his bar and goats, but I'm sure he has several tricks up his sleeve. What we don't know is is Aberforth went to Hogwarts just like his brother, or if he was in Gryffindor. Hmmm.. one thing that stands out about Aberforth, and maybe it's because I'm an adult, is JKR hints by telling us he inappropriately uses goats... Coming from DD's mouth I can't imagine it being sexual but there is a lingering "freak-out" that plays over and over when I read that passage in the books. But, he was aquitted and that's what counts, I guess. However, why does the Hog's Head still smell like goats? (I know.. 'cause they go iin there...) But why? Whatever chould he be doing with them? (oh! Oh!! LV's 7th Horcrux is a goat that lives with Aberforth!! Oh!!... lol... naw... that's crazy talk.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Jan 25 18:58:31 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:58:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin and Sirius and being single(was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament Message-ID: <2427223.1169751511089.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 164169 From: pippin_999 >It's said that those who join extremist groups are often >skeptical of their ideology at first. They're drawn in by >the sense of unity and companionship, and adopt the >values of the group almost imperceptibly. I can see >that happening to Lupin. He would eventually realize >what a gulf had opened between him and his old friends. Bart: You may have a point there; not necessarily about Lupin, but about Snape. Snape is quite clearly a brilliant and gifted magician (frankly, I suspect that what attracts such high caliber people to Hogwarts is an opportunity to do independent research, without a need to make a profit like F&G, or without a Ministry official looking over your shoulder, much as professors in top muggle Universities often do). Yet, he was also clearly the target of the "popular crowd" when at Hogwarts. There is little doubt that Tommy the "V", seeing a useful minion, had the DE's cultivate his friendship, bringing him into the organization. Given the DDM theory, it could be that turning in the prophecy, and seeing how Tommy was going to riddle the Potters, is what brought him to his senses, and realized what he was doing, causing him to go to Dumbledore and confess what an idiot he had been. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 19:58:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:58:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin's falsehoods (was: Lupin and Sirius and being single) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164170 Pippin wrote: > I think Lupin is playing a larger role already than most people realize. Right now, Harry thinks that Snape has been a villain all through the series. If Snape steps out of that role, if he is not the Quirrell face of evil, the moral coward who made it possible for Voldemort to operate in plain sight, right under Dumbledore's long and twisted nose, the one that Dumbledore trusted so recklessly, then who is? > > The only other credible option is McGonagall -- but she's no coward. Lupin is, by his own admission. And however close he might have been to James and Sirius in his marauder days, something seems to have happened afterwards. Lupin doesn't appear to have been at James and Lily's wedding. He wasn't at Harry's christening. By the time of Godric's Hollow, Sirius and James no longer trusted him-- and they may have been right. > > Aimless and alienated, unable to find work, while James finds > happiness with Lily and Sirius lives it up as a rebel, wouldn't > Lupin start to resent his independently wealthy friends just > a little? He has his work for the Order -- but what hope is > there that life will be better for werewolves when Voldemort > is defeated? It must have seemed rather pointless. Carol: While I'm not going to chime in on ESE!Lupin (just because Snape isn't a traitor doesn't necessarily mean that someone else is), I do think this last paragraph is an accurate portrait of young Lupin after Hogwarts, and I think that Peter Pettigrew could easily have made use of Lupin's resentment and envy of his friends, of his general unhappiness and discontent, to subtly raise the Potters' and Sirius Black's suspicions of their werewolf friend without ever openly suggesting that he was the spy. (At the same time, he could have subtly inflamed Remus's jealousy of Sirius and played up the Black family's Slytherin/Dark wizard connections.) IoW. I'm certain that Wormtail was both the spy and the traitor, but I'm equally certain that he had material to work with. He knew the other Marauders well and could play them against each other without being suspected given their underestimation of his own talents and cleverness (which, BTW, might have added resentment to his motives for betraying James Potter). But to return to Lupin. We've seen both Snape and Dumbledore dealing in secrecy and partial truths, so Lupin's secretiveness is not in itself suspicious. He has a lot to hide in PoA. Keeping the fact that he's a werewolf from the students and their parents is certainly understandable, given the prejudice against werewolves in the WW. Keeping his knowledge that Sirius Black is an Animagus from Dumbledore is explained by Lupin himself as resulting from his fear of Dumbledore's disapproval, which somehow outweighed the apparent danger that Sirius Black (apparently) posed to the students and particularly Harry. He does not, however, mention that he also neglected to turn in to Dumbledore the map that could have led Sirius Black to Harry if he found it, and which proves that Black knows secret passages into the castle that he must have used when he slashed the Fat Lady's painting and again when he slashed Ron's bedcurtains. He hypocritically tells Harry that he's astounded that Harry didn't turn the map in, 289, but doesn't do so himself. And he lies to himself that Black must have learned Dark Arts from Voldemort that enabled him to escape from Azkaban and enter the Hogwarts grounds. (Could Lupin really have believed his own lie?) But Lupin also underplays his Hogwarts friendship with both James and Sirius to Harry, and does not tell him until the Shrieking Shack (when it's clear that Peter Pettigrew was the spy and that Harry was never in danger from Black and his own identity as a werewolf has been revealed) that his three friends were Animagi who wandered the grounds and Hogsmeade with him on full-moon nights and that the four friends were the joint makers of the Marauder's Map. Exactly why he doesn't trust Harry with at least some of that information (the friendship and his identity as one of the map makers) is unclear--maybe he thinks that it will lead to the revelation that he's a werewolf, but certainly it would also reveal that Black knows how to get into the castle, information that Harry has every right to know. (He's also concealing the same information that the other adults are suppressing, that Black was Harry's godfather and the ostensible Secret Keeper, presumably for the same reason as Mr. Weasley, to keep Harry from going after him.) But in addition to concealing important information from Dumbledore and suppressing important details by telling Harry half-truths (the Whomping Willow was planted the same year he came to Hogwarts; he knew the makers of the Marauder's Map, etc.), he actually tells some flat-out lies (in addition to lying to himself, as previously indicated). For example, he tells Harry that Sirius Black "must have found a way to fight [the dementors]" (PoA Am. ed. 188). He tells Snape (in front of Harry) that the Maruader's Map "looks to me as though it is merely a piece of parchment that insults anyobody who reads it. . . . I imagine Harry got it from a joke shop--" (288). When snape intimates that Harry could have gotten the map "direct from the manufacturers," Lupin evades him by asking Harry whether he knows any of the "men" whose names are on the map and repeats his lie to Snape, "It looks like a Zonko product to me." (Interestingly, even when Lupin says, "I'll take it *back* now, shall I?" Snape, who obviously knows that lupin is lying, doesn't blow his cover. Nor does it bother Harry that Lupin would lie to Snape; when Lupin says "Yes, I know it's a map," 289, the earlier lie doesn't even register.) His response when Harry asks why Snape thought Harry got the map from the manufacturers (Because . . . because these mapmakers would want to lure you out of school") is more a half-truth than a lie, but it's certainly evasive, and its intention is clearly to conceal rather than reveal. (It doesn't answer Harry's question, either, but again Harry doesn't notice.) Given all these statements by Lupin that can be shown to be either lies or half-truths, what are we to make of his remarks about himself? He says, for example, "I don't pretend to be an expert at fighting Dementors, Harry . . . quite the contrary" (189). Does this statement mean that he's teaching Harry to cast a Patronus without being able to cast one against a Dementor himself? (Yes, he can cast a Patronus to communicate with other Order members, but that's not the same thing, and it's unclear whether anything besides silver light comes out of his wand when he drives off the dementor on the train.) Or does it mean that here really are other effective methods, such as the unidentified method that Snape teaches in HBP, that Lupin doesn't know? Or is he lying, covering up his expertise with false modesty, for which there seems to be no good reason? He also says that he *led* three of his friends into becoming Animagi (355), a point that Black doesn't dispute even though elsewhere the implication seems to be that it was James's idea. And, as Pippin says, he calls himself "cowardly" and gives his reason for not revealing that Black is an Animagus as being "Dumbledore's trust means everything to me" (356). The statement seems to be true enough, though hardly adequate as justification for concealing something so important, so perhaps it's another half-truth. Or perhaps his self-contempt for his cowardice is insufficient to stop him from being a coward, just as it didn't stop him from letting his friends get away with bullying when he was a Prefect. Not being an ESE!Lupin advocate (I think that Lupin is perfectly sincere when he tells Black that Harry has the right to know the truth about Pettigrew, 350), I'm not sure what to make of all these lies and half-truths, only that they cast doubt on the truth of Lupin's various statements about Snape (other than "superb Occlumens," which is backed by canon) and about himself. Carol, hoping that someone else will examine Lupin's remarks in OoP and HBP to see whether they, too, show signs of evasiveness or deception From va32h at comcast.net Fri Jan 26 00:48:16 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:48:16 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and the goats(was re: Aberforth) In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701251002s4797ad4av409ee23c93d0159b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164171 Jeremiah writes: "Hmmm.. one thing that stands out about Aberforth, and maybe it's because I'm an adult, is JKR hints by telling us he inappropriately uses goats..." va32h answers: That little bit has always struck me as JKR's Monty Python-esque humor coming out. I can just see John Cleese behind his newsreader's desk, saying "....where a local barman was acquitted of using inappropriate charms on a goat. And now for something completely different..." va32h From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 23:27:55 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:27:55 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quick_silver71" wrote: > > Quick_Silver: > But doesn't that still make Snape into an object of semi-pity? Snape > would become the guy that never got over Hogwarts and what happened > to him there. How could Harry not treat that Snape with some > pity/bemusement/contempt? Totally speculating here but I think > that Snape still has the chance to move beyond the Marauders in form > of Harry. > > Quick_Silver > Which points to the reason Snapey-poo almost certainly has to bite the big one/kick the can/travel to that great Ministry in the sky/etc. The entire character is oriented "backwards" so to speak, in that whatever alphabetical flavor you like with your Snapey-poo, he is as a character defined and motivated by the past. Once the issues rooted in the past are resolved, what on Earth would he do? The entire purpose of his character would be complete, and he would then be in a world to which he had no real reference -- a world in which he does not belong. For Snapey-poo, growth means resolution, and resolution means death. So here's to hoping for plenty of growth to the reprehensible and indefensible, child-abusing twerp! Lupinlore, who finds that idea vastly amusing as the justice in it is quite poetic From technomad at intergate.com Fri Jan 26 01:48:36 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:48:36 -0600 Subject: The DADA curse and Harry Message-ID: <002f01c740ec$1963d120$06570043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 164173 I was sitting around thinking about the "curse" that's on the Defense Against The Dark Arts teacher's position, and it occurred to me: Did Harry, in fact, avoid the curse? While he wasn't an official teacher, he was teaching DADA, and doing so at Hogwarts. I don't know exactly how magic works, but if he could be forced to compete in the Tri-Wizard Tournament even though there were three rightful champions, the DADA Instructors' Curse could have lit on him. Let's recap what happened to the DADA professors we know about. Quirrell: possessed by Vapormort and "left to die." Lockhart: memories destroyed by a spell he tried to cast, a spell at which he was apparently quite expert. Lupin: "outed" as a werewolf, nearly killed the Trio. Moody: kidnapped and kept under Imperius by an impostor, who was, himself, Kissed by a Dementor. Umbridge: kidnapped and (probably) abused by centaurs, after being promoted far beyond her abilities and driving the school into a state close to open rebellion. Snape: trapped by a stupid Unbreakable Vow into killing Dumbledore, forced to flee Hogwarts, "outed" as a Death Eater. Not a very encouraging list, is it? People in the fandom seem to think that Harry avoided the curse, because he wasn't ever the _official_ DADA instructor. However, in his fifth year, Harry lost not only his romance with Cho Chang (which was probably doomed from the beginning; Cho was clearly still grieving over Cedric and casting around for a "Cedric-substitute") but his closest link to his dead parents, his godfather, Sirius Black. To make it worse for Harry, Black's death could be laid at Harry's door---his refusal to practice his Occlumency left his mind open to Lord Voldemort, and that allowed Voldemort to plant the visions in his mind that led to the confrontation at the Ministry of Magic. Also, in common with the other DADA teachers, Harry didn't return, at least not as a DADA teacher. While he was at the school his sixth year, "Dumbledore's Army" was apparently dead. Even though Harry had enjoyed teaching, and his students had learned a lot, he didn't teach again. So-o-o...did Harry avoid the curse, or did it fall on him, too? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 01:53:36 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:53:36 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164174 > > Alla: > > > > > But what I do want to know is how Harry moving from hate of Snape to > > forgiving the Snape is not the character growth, but Emperor new > > clothes as you said. > > > Pippin: > Going back to the orginal question... > > Forgiving any flavor of Snape fits in with the themes of redemption, > love and forgiveness. What doesn't fit, IMO, is Harry having been right > to suspect Snape from the beginning. That seems to have nothing > to do with those themes. I don't see in the story that it's Harry's > extraordinary powers of love that made Harry perceive evil when no one > else did. If he did, it would be more of an emperor's new clothes > theme, as Betsy said, seeing with the pure eyes of truth, or something > like that. But Harry does not have such a power, and has been > quite unable to detect evil that was sitting right in front of him > and giving him friendly advice. Alla: Well, yes, Harry being right about Snape may have nothing to do with power of love theme or it may have, I am just not sure why it cannot be the theme on its own. I totally think that power of love, forgiveness would turn out to be one of the main themes in the book, but who says it would be the only one? I perceive that in the coming of age story/hero journey/slash the hero should experience character growth, yes? And several people sort of agreed that Harry forgiving any flavor of Snape is a growth, yes? But I do not happen to remember that hero should be limited to **one** flavor of growth, you know? Now Harry being right about Snape, well, for example it may end up being subtheme of the sort to Love and forgiveness IMO. I mean, it is not like it would be shown that by being right about Snape ( if he is right of course) Harry has some extraordinary powers of perception of something. If Harry is right about Snape, it is just **happened**, Harry took that lesson from Snape's interactions with him, Snape showed his nature to Harry, Harry did not seek out to find what Snape nature is IMO, not till Snape showed his nastiness to Harry in all his glory. Does that make sense? It can also be a theme of Hero being wiser than his mentor eventually, yes. After all, for all JKR denying comparisons with Star wars, she does say that she works in hero journey genre as well, where wise mentor has to die, where hero has to be alone, etc. And Luke journey for all huge differences with Harry's is a Hero journey as well. And while it is a **very** loose analogy, I believe it works. Luke turns out to be, you know, **right** about his father, about good being in his father and his mentor, you know, wrong. Does Star wars become any less compelling story, because the hero is right and his mentor is not? Not to me. Now, of course this is a backwards analogy as to result, but the principle is the same, so I think it may work quite well. IMO of course. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 19:49:00 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:49:00 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Takin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164175 > Magpie: > But if Snape just needs Harry to peek in the Pensieve why put > something so humiliating about himself in it? This is Snape we're > talking about--would he really ever want Harry to see him in his > grey underwear? Why not stick any memory in there and just say that > Harry looked in the Pensieve and that's it? > > It just seems like a lot of machinations that replace a scene that > brings together important emotional stuff in the story that's > already been important in the past: Snape hates James, Snape hates > Harry, Dumbledore thinks this "wound" of Snape can't be healed, > Snape hates James for using Snape's spells against him, Snape can't > stand looking weak. If it's all just a trick on Snape's part--his > own version of the Midnight Duel--the scene's not important > emotionally at all--except for the alleged destruction of Harry's > previously high view of his father (which isn't destroyed at all, of > course). Alla: First and foremost let me say that I am not married to the idea of it being a set up, definitely not. Because too often within the heated discussion I find myself straying my argument from the POV I held to answer exaggerated point and then my point gets exaggerated in turn, etc ( not with you, but it certainly happened to me). So, please keep in mind that the most I can say is that I just find it to be one of the possibilities, that's all. Because you see I look at OOP and reread it now with much more sinister Snape in mind than you do and I would not past **any** dirty trick behind him. Certainly within the set up of DD!M Snape it could be the emotional scene needed to introduce Snape's wounds that never healed, James and Sirius as bullies, etc, etc. If one thinks about set up of Evil Snape or OFH!Snape or LID!Snape, this scene can still be read as that, but it can also be read as Snape for example getting all that he needed from Harry's mind for Voldemort, exposing him enough, etc and figuring that he had enough and those occlumency lessons must be stopped at all costs. It smells set up to me for example when Snape takes his memories of the pensieve directly ** in front** of Harry and leaves the pensieve right there. I mean, really if Snape did not want Harry to see it and know about it, was it so difficult to do it **before** Harry comes and I do not know, leave pensieve hidden? As to why Snape leaves this memory in, if this is a set up. No clue, but if we are saying that some things are needed for the plot, why not this one as well? I mean JKR would kill two birds, do the set up and shows off their past as well. Another possibility is that Snape wanted Harry to see that memory to have more grounds to complain to Dumbledore and paint himself as victim of Potter's son who could not contain his curiosity and awakened his wounds that never healed. And what do you know, DD says that some wounds never healed. :) > > Alla: > > > > See above, seems like rather easy one to me. Of course Snape is > > banking, but I would think that he would have waited few nights > and if > > nothing would have come out would made Malfoy to call Snape out > for > > something fictitious. > > Magpie: > But of course Malfoy didn't call him out for something fictitious so > it's like proving a negative. There's no sign in canon that Snape > put this memory there hoping Harry would see it. We just have to > assume that he *would* have brought Malfoy in on it (inviting Malfoy > into lessons Snape was keeping quiet from him) if it hadn't worked. > We'll just never know because he didn't have to do that. Alla: Um,yes, of course. I thought I stated clearly that I was only speculating. The basis for that speculation of the sort is that even in that set up when Snape gets called for real trouble, Malfoy is the one who calls on him, basically somebody who would do whatever Snape orders him. No support in canon per se, but just possibility to arise my suspicion. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 23:04:45 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:04:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's Character Growth / Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164176 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And finally, it puts too much growth onto Snape. Snape will be > > where the action is, while Harry doesn't grow too much at all. > > However, if most of Snape's redemption has taken place off-screen > > and Harry learns about it on-screen, the action will all be on > > Harry's side. > > > >>Quick_Silver: > I think that you take it too far in the other direction when you > say that Snape isn't going to have his own growth in DH. I think > that Snape and Harry are going to do grow concurrently in DH and > the result will be a forgiving Harry and *redeemed*, DDM!, > (whatever) Snape. As an example/speculation I can't help but fill > that Snape's opinion of Harry's skills/talents/attitude is partly > being built up to be knocked down. Betsy Hp: I think I do tend to err too much on the side of no-movement-at-all Snpae. Partly because I like the character of Snape so much I have to actively fight against putting his story front and center in my mind. But also because I'm not entirely sure where JKR will take Snape. Will it be a happy ending or a tragic one? If tragic, than Snape's death would have to involve a fateful flaw of some sort, wouldn't it? In which case, I think there'd be a lesson not learned (or learned too late). I do suspect that either way, Harry's seeing Snape as he truly is will help finalize Snape's redemption in Snape's own eyes. I suspect Harry's forgiveness of Snape's past wrongs (wrongs the DDM! flavor of Snape *must* include) might equal (in Snape's view) Lily's forgiveness of Snape, and that this is the impossible goal a remorse filled Snape had set before himself way back when. > >>Quick_Silver: > > Snape would become the guy that never got over Hogwarts and what > happened to him there. How could Harry not treat that Snape with > some pity/bemusement/contempt? Totally speculating here but I think > that Snape still has the chance to move beyond the Marauders in > form of Harry. Betsy Hp: Oh, I hope you're right! I'd *love* for Snape to finally get beyond his resentment and hate of the Marauders. I'm really big on the healing of the House rift theme in the books. So I'm quite sure Harry and Draco will reconcile in some manner. How cool would it be if Snape were somehow able to reconcile with his Gryffindor foes? I'm just not sure how such a thing could happen, or that JKR will take Snape in that direction. On a slightly different note: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164147 > >>Alla: > > > > What is this if not forgiveness? > >>Pippin: > Mercy. At least that is what I would call it and that is what > Dumbledore speaks of. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164148 > >>Jen: Dumbledore showed Draco mercy on the tower... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164164 > >>Carol: > ...but I think what he [Dumbledore] actually shows Draco > (and the young Snape) is mercy,... Betsy Hp: Eureka! Thank you all for that insight (talk about great minds ). That is much more Dumbledore's thing: mercy, not blanket forgiveness. Dumbledore doesn't have the power to forgive someone all of their past wrongs. But he does have the ability to mercifully allow someone a chance to do better, to make a better choice. And this is a lesson I can see Harry learning as part of his character growth. Heck, I can even see it as a part of his eventual defeat of Voldemort. Betsy Hp (loves this list!) From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 03:37:12 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:37:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin and Sirius and being single/Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Takin In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0701242301t7d81ea48v6272ac391ed549f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0701251937l5e9d4410j6f3d3ab18291b72b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164177 Magpie: Yes, but you're talking about the way that different lifestyles tend to throw together marries and singles so that they hang out more with each other. MWPP became friends as kids when they had the exact same lifestyle and nobody knew who was going to be a parent and who wasn't. James then turned out to be someone who wanted to marry the girl he focused on for years. Why would this mean the other three (James is the odd man out here) are unusual for not grabbing the nearest woman and marrying her too? They didn't even have girlfriends, so getting married wasn't a particularly realistic choice. Perhaps they might have drifted apart if James and Lily started being more interested in other couples with children and the other three hung out more with single people (though given the James/Sirius relationship I have a hard time believing they wouldn't have remained friends), but but I don't think it's unusual that Sirius wasn't married at 23 just because James was. Lynda: My best friend and I have known each other from childhood, much as Lupin and Sirius. My other friends, with the exception of two are all married. One is my former college roomie. The others are friends from childhood who have either remained friends or become friends since we grew to adulthood or couples with like interests, mostly through a community choir I sing in. Rebecca and I (my college room mate) have remained friends throughout the year despite a fairly large disparity in lifestyle as I have with other friends from childhood because we take the time to remain close. I include their spouses and kids in my life and they include me in theirs. As for Sirius being unmarried at 23 when James was, I don't find that at all unusual. One of them fell in love and married, the other didn't. Neither situation is strange. They are just different. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jan 26 02:24:28 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:24:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, References: Message-ID: <003e01c740f1$1b8f7170$3478400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164178 > Alla: > Now Harry being right about Snape, well, for example it may end up > being subtheme of the sort to Love and forgiveness IMO. I mean, it > is not like it would be shown that by being right about Snape ( if > he is right of course) Harry has some extraordinary powers of > perception of something. If Harry is right about Snape, it is just > **happened**, Harry took that lesson from Snape's interactions with > him, Snape showed his nature to Harry, Harry did not seek out to > find what Snape nature is IMO, not till Snape showed his nastiness > to Harry in all his glory. > > Does that make sense? > > It can also be a theme of Hero being wiser than his mentor > eventually, yes. > > After all, for all JKR denying comparisons with Star wars, she does > say that she works in hero journey genre as well, where wise mentor > has to die, where hero has to be alone, etc. > > And Luke journey for all huge differences with Harry's is a Hero > journey as well. > > And while it is a **very** loose analogy, I believe it works. > > Luke turns out to be, you know, **right** about his father, about > good being in his father and his mentor, you know, wrong. > > Does Star wars become any less compelling story, because the hero is > right and his mentor is not? Not to me. > > Now, of course this is a backwards analogy as to result, but the > principle is the same, so I think it may work quite well. Magpie: I don't.:-) Because in HP, Harry wouldn't be wiser than Dumbledore.He's based his belief that Snape is working for Voldemort not on wisdom but on anger. Understandable anger, but anger that makes him *unwise.* It makes him look for evidence that supports what he wants to be true, and it doesn't come from his heart or the still portion of his mind, but his angry desire for Snape to be wholly evil. (And also on his anger at things Snape has done, like kill Dumbledore right in front of him--everybody believes Snape's evil after that.) If Harry was right about Snape it wouldn't be because Harry has a feeling for these things--if Snape had been the same person and been nice to Harry I doubt Harry would have thought this way about him (he didn't with Fake!Moody, for instance). His wisdom would just be that he really doesn't like people who treat him like dirt. The other importance difference is that Luke, unsurprisingly, is the one with Dumbledore's view--the view that is more hopeful and sees human beings as more complex and redeemable. It's fine for the hero to surpass the mentor, but he needs, imo, to stand for something bigger than the mentor if he's going to do it, like Luke did. The risk Luke takes is more in keeping with his power being love, I think, than would be a Harry who was right about Snape, but didn't spend the rest of his life angry over it. -m From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Jan 25 21:02:42 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:02:42 -0000 Subject: Why Sirius did not apparate into GH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164179 I do not know if this has ever been suggested before so if it was than sorry for bringing it up again. I have seen in the archives (yes, yet again) that many wondered why Sirius used an enchanted motorcycle to go to GH instead of apparating or even why he did not use this in POA. I think the answer is rather simple. Apparations are monitored by the MOM and in VWI it was believed that LV had spies in the MOM, so it would not have been wise to use this way of transportation to visit James and Lily even if the location it self was protected by the Charm, it would still give a lot away about the location itself. Of course this is why he could not use it in POA they would have tracked him down. When Sirius went to see the Potters after not finding Peter at his hiding location, he did not know anything had happened to them so it would still be stupid to just apparate to the location because if there were okay than he would have jeopardized the safety of everyone visiting the Potters not just theirs, only after he saw what happened did he not need it anymore. Just my simplistic theory of course. Dana From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 00:10:22 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:10:22 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701251002s4797ad4av409ee23c93d0159b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164180 Jeremiah wrote: > You're right. I think that there is a lot to this character that has yet to be reveald. One could take the stance that Albus got the brains and all the junk went to Aberforth (and I agree that Aberforth is illiterate... JKR says so though DD). Carol responds: Actually, Dumbledore says jokingly that he's not even sure that Aberforth can read, which is hardly the same as a straightforward assertion that Aberforth is illiterate. We know that he's thin, grey-haired and grey-bearded (with a slight resemblance to Albus), not particularly concerned with hygeine, has an affinity for goats, and was a member of the original Order of the Phoenix. (Mad-eye Moody only met him once and thought he was strange. No doubt the impression was mutual.) And, yes, I agree with your snipped comment that Aberforth the barkeeper at the Hog's Head (another of JKR's puns--a hogshead is a barrel often used to store liquor.) In HBP, we see Aberforth having some sort of confrontation with Mundungus, whom we're told was permanently banned from the Hog's Head some twenty years before (but appears there disguised as a veiled witch in OoP). We know that he's the person who (ostensibly) kicked the eavesdropper (young Snape) out of the Hog's Head halfway through the Prophecy (yet somehow is still standing there with him when Trelawney comes out of her trance). He attends Dumbledore's funeral, but Harry still hasn't figured out that he's Dumbledore's brother. We also learn that Voldemort showed up in the Hog's Head with about four Death Eaters whose names Dumbledore knows on the night before Voldemort's DADA interview. Voldemort asks how DD knows all this, and DD says that he's friendly with the local barkeepers. I conclude from all this that Aberforth is one of Dumbledore's "useful spies" that Fudge refers to in PoA. Since Mundungus and Snape are also spies for Dumbledore, possibly there's a connection between Aberforth and one or both of the others. (I've always figured that he supplied the Bezoars for Snape's Potions classes, and perhaps for Slughorn's as well. I doubt that Snape and Aberforth were permanently estranged by the eavesdropping incident; even if they dislike each other, I think they work together.) The barkeeper's job is ideal for a spy since he only has to grudgingly serve drinks, take the customers' money, and stand there wiping the same dusty bottle with a dirty cloth, especially given the, erm, interesting clientele of the Hog's Head. I wouldn't be surprised if Aberforth reported to Albus that Hagrid had won a dragon's egg from a stranger who was asking him questions about Fluffy--and a great deal of other valuable information. Yes, indeed. We'll learn more about Aberforth in DH, and I'm betting that he's much more clever than he appears to be through Harry's eyes. (Harry's near-sightedness is figurative as well as literal, and he's a bit slow in putting two and two together in matters that don't directly concern him, including a scroungy old bartender and Dumbledore's ostensibly illiterate brother, who performed "inappropriate" charms on a goat. No, I doubt that we'll learn what the charm was, and I prefer to think it was related to Bezoars. ;-) ) Carol, looking forward to meeting Aberforth, the Order member we've already met but don't know much better than Harry does From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Jan 26 17:02:18 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:02:18 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? /James & Sirius married In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164181 > Alla: > > First and foremost let me say that I am not married to the idea of it > being a set up, definitely not. Because too often within the heated > discussion I find myself straying my argument from the POV I held to > answer exaggerated point and then my point gets exaggerated in turn, > etc ( not with you, but it certainly happened to me). So, please keep > in mind that the most I can say is that I just find it to be one of > the possibilities, that's all. Magpie: Heh--I was thinking the same thing. I mean, I know that this is just something you're considering, not something you're fighting for and believe is canon. It's just a possibility to question in light of ESE!Snape. Alla: > > Because you see I look at OOP and reread it now with much more > sinister Snape in mind than you do and I would not past **any** dirty > trick behind him. > > Certainly within the set up of DD!M Snape it could be the emotional > scene needed to introduce Snape's wounds that never healed, James and > Sirius as bullies, etc, etc. > > If one thinks about set up of Evil Snape or OFH!Snape or LID! Snape, > this scene can still be read as that, but it can also be read as > Snape for example getting all that he needed from Harry's mind for > Voldemort, exposing him enough, etc and figuring that he had enough > and those occlumency lessons must be stopped at all costs. Magpie: I definitely don't have a problem with ESE!Snape pulling dirty tricks. My problem with this particular trick is it seems to go against certain core characteristics of Snape--best exemplified by him allowing Harry to see him being humiliated and in his underwear. Based on what I know of Snape it's very hard for me to believe him allowing that to happen as part of his own plan or having enough distance from his feelings about James to fake anger over it. I feel like Snape's hatred of James is, if anything, even more deep than we might suspect, so I take all his emotional outbursts about it as true. Alla: > > It smells set up to me for example when Snape takes his memories of > the pensieve directly ** in front** of Harry and leaves the pensieve > right there. > > I mean, really if Snape did not want Harry to see it and know about > it, was it so difficult to do it **before** Harry comes and I do not > know, leave pensieve hidden? > > As to why Snape leaves this memory in, if this is a set up. No clue, > but if we are saying that some things are needed for the plot, why > not this one as well? Magpie: You mean that if ESE!Snape needs to get Harry to go into the Pensieve to stop the lessons it has to be there, so JKR used this to show us this memory at the same time? Like I said, I can believe a situation where Snape wanted Harry to do something wrong so that he could stop the lessons. But I can't believe this was a trap set up by Snape. Not when Snape's hung upside down in his underwear in front of Harry Potter. It would definitely be JKR's style to kill two birds with one stone (that's exactly what she is doing--showing us the memory and ending the lessons), but not at the expense of character. Alla: > Another possibility is that Snape wanted Harry to see that memory to > have more grounds to complain to Dumbledore and paint himself as > victim of Potter's son who could not contain his curiosity and > awakened his wounds that never healed. > > And what do you know, DD says that some wounds never healed. :) > Magpie: But again at the expense of making himself look foolish and weak (in his pov, from what I know of Snape). He has to present himself as wounded (even if he's also pretending to cover it up with anger) rather than presenting himself as angry and having Dumbledore conclude that he's wounded. > > Magpie: > > But of course Malfoy didn't call him out for something fictitious > so > > it's like proving a negative. There's no sign in canon that Snape > > put this memory there hoping Harry would see it. We just have to > > assume that he *would* have brought Malfoy in on it (inviting > Malfoy > > into lessons Snape was keeping quiet from him) if it hadn't worked. > > We'll just never know because he didn't have to do that. > > Alla: > > Um,yes, of course. I thought I stated clearly that I was only > speculating. The basis for that speculation of the sort is that even > in that set up when Snape gets called for real trouble, Malfoy is the > one who calls on him, basically somebody who would do whatever Snape > orders him. Magpie: But does that really give any evidence that it's a set up? Montague is really in the toilet, Malfoy doesn't know about the lessons Snape is giving to Harry. Snape probably could order Malfoy to interrupt him with a story and Malfoy would do it and keep quiet about it, but he didn't. So if it suggests in any direction, I'd say it's in the direction of it not being a set up. I understanding considering the possibility to see if ESE!Snape was working against DD all the time. I just don't see enough evidence for it to really work. Lydia: As for Sirius being unmarried at 23 when James was, I don't find that at all unusual. One of them fell in love and married, the other didn't. Neither situation is strange. They are just different. Magpie: Sorry, I must not have read clearly. I thought you were agreeing with the opposite side, I guess. My bad. I don't think it's odd that they were friends with one single and one married either. -m From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 19:05:50 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:05:50 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164182 There's an interesting discussion going on elsewhere (Snapecast Episode 9 interviewing PAM2002 of Leaky Lounge and Sylvanawood's LiveJournal) about Irma Pince being Snape's mother or grandmother. The last thing I saw in HPFGU about this was http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156280, between wynnleaf and juli17ptf, where they essentially agreed this could be true. To recap the evidence as it is now being discussed: 1) The anagram, "I'm A Prince - Irma Pince" -- similar to "I Am Lord Voldemort," although JKR had to stretch for the latter one. 2) The physical similarity, made more pronounced in HPB (hooked nose, parchment-like skin). 3) The fact that a chapter featuring Pince often follows a significant chapter for Snape, e.g., per PAM2002, ch. 11-12 of SS, ch. 9-10 of COS, ch. 25-26 of GOF, ch. 28-29 of OOTP. In all of these chapters, Pince mirrors Snape's behavior. The exception is HBP. 4) Pince's extra-effective (darkish?) library science skills. "Madam Pince has been known to add some unusual hexes and jinxes at times, besides the usual collection of library book spells." Quidditch Through the Ages, as quoted by Sylvanawood. 5) Pince's remaining at Hogwarts over the summer (Sylvanawood: "If you look at that funny little check-out page of Quidditch Through the Ages, you see that people borrow it from the library all through the year"). In fact, Pince never seems to leave the library, except for the funeral at the end of HBP -- and some speculate that may have been Snape in disguise, not Pince, who may be unable to leave the library. 6) Random things: similar irritable behavior, a "pincers-spider" correlation, books everywhere at Spinner's End. So, one theory is that, when Voldemort threatened Snape's family or when Snape was backed into a corner, maybe when he was caught listening to the Prophecy, Dumbledore offered to protect Snape's mother at Hogwarts and Snape became a spy. What is gained from this theory is that it parallels the offer made to Draco on the Tower (at least in the United States), and perhaps explains part of the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape and yet keeps the reason a secret. The secret is one of tremendous magnitude, the revelation of which could be seen as a betrayal, especially if revealed to someone with a wholly transparent mind like Harry Potter. The theory also humanizes Snape, showing that love of a kind can be a motivating factor for him. What bothers me about this theory, however, is that it makes Snape's return to Dumbledore less about remorse and more about opportunity, and it makes Dumbledore more of a calculating manipulator of others. Draco believed he could kill someone for his family, and acted on that belief, until Dumbledore offered him another option. If Draco had accepted the offer, he would have "owed" Dumbledore something. It is probably in Dumbledore's nature to let people make choices... on the other hand, the argument he had with Snape in the forest shows he does not really let go once a promise has been made. And Snape, for his part, may just be helping Dumbledore because it is advantageous to his family, not because he really wants to make amends for past actions or work for good. It's a kind of blackmail/deal-making on both Dumbledore's and Snape's parts, and less mercy-second chances-risks voluntarily taken on. Another theory is that Irma/Eileen went to Dumbledore to save her son, much as Narcissa went to Snape to save her son -- a story of mother love, without the sacrifice Lily made of her own life, and without the potential sacrifice of another that Narcissa engineered. Under this theory, Snape accepted the brokered deal, for whatever reason he may have had. None of this says that Snape didn't feel genuine remorse over his actions as a Death Eater and the revelation and subsequent interpretation of the Prophecy. But, while the Irma/Eileen theory explains many things, and perceiving the motive to save a family might be the only way Harry can ever forgive Snape, it still throws Snape into a non-redeemable area for me. His actions, while they can be perceived as self-sacrificing, can also be seen as selfish -- not that saving your family is the worst motive in the world. Thoughts? lealess From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 26 18:01:37 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:01:37 -0000 Subject: Aberforth. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164183 "finwitch" wrote: > maybe Aberforth has a difficulty when it comes to > reading? One that would, perhaps, also occur so > that he couldn't learn any *standard* spells, > but was all the more creative, doing things > with his wand that none of the professors had > seen before? Well put. I always thought of Aberforth as a man who could easily do things normal wizards found difficult but couldn't do things other wizards found easy; a sort of magical Rainman. He must have considerable talents to be in the Order of the Phoenix and he must be very odd indeed if even Mad Eye calls him strange. For some reason he also reminds me of Sherlock Holmes's older and smarter brother Mycroft. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 16:27:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:27:07 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: <003e01c740f1$1b8f7170$3478400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164184 Magpie: I don't.:-) Because in HP, Harry wouldn't be wiser than Dumbledore. He's based his belief that Snape is working for Voldemort not on wisdom but on anger. Understandable anger, but anger that makes him *unwise.* It makes him look for evidence that supports what he wants to be true, and it doesn't come from his heart or the still portion of his mind, but his angry desire for Snape to be wholly evil. (And also on his anger at things Snape has done, like kill Dumbledore right in front of him--everybody believes Snape's evil after that.) Alla: But that is what I am trying to say and obviously not saying well. If Harry is right about Snape, he does not need to go and look for additional evidence, the evidence is right there, in front of him, starting from Snape treating Harry like dirt in the classroom and escalating to Harry learning ( he did not go looking for this one either, it came to him, lol) that he gave Prophecy to Voldemort and going to the peak of it on the Tower. So, I guess I disagree that Harry based his belief that Snape works for LV based on anger. Oh, as we all know Harry is really, really, really angry with Snape, but he is angry because of what happened, so I am trying to say that Harry's wisdom in this situation may be shown as **seeing** clearly of what is happening around him in this situation. Not that he has those extraordinary powers of perception, just that he does not close his eyes to the obvious, as Dumbledore did, if Snape is not loyal to him. Magpie: If Harry was right about Snape it wouldn't be because Harry has a feeling for these things--if Snape had been the same person and been nice to Harry I doubt Harry would have thought this way about him (he didn't with Fake!Moody, for instance). His wisdom would just be that he really doesn't like people who treat him like dirt. Alla: Yes, what I said as well ? certainly not extraordinary powers of perception, but just not closing his eyes and um, of course if Snape treated him differently Harry would not have thought about him that way. He would have no reasons too. Observe fake Moody, certainly Harry did not see his evilness because of Moody treating him nicely. There was no **obviousness** in Fake Moody behavior IMO, and who knows maybe in case of Snape it would be obvious. Magpie: The other importance difference is that Luke, unsurprisingly, is the one with Dumbledore's view--the view that is more hopeful and sees human beings as more complex and redeemable. It's fine for the hero to surpass the mentor, but he needs, imo, to stand for something bigger than the mentor if he's going to do it, like Luke did. The risk Luke takes is more in keeping with his power being love, I think, than would be a Harry who was right about Snape, but didn't spend the rest of his life angry over it. Alla: Yes, as I said I was analogizing the **principle** - Hero being right and his mentor being wrong, NOT what they were right and wrong about. And in this situation Harry being right may stay for the humongous importance of learning why to trust people for yourself and not relying on second hand trust. I understand unwillingness of seeing JKR teaching that lesson ( not yours, DD!M Snape theorists in general), but I see nothing in the books that prevents her from exploring that angle. In fact, members of the Order looking like total idiots (IMO) with theirs we trusted him because DD did, may hint IMO that JKR really wants Harry not to be like them in years to come, IMO of course. Having said all that though, I must say that IF Snape is not fully DD! M and Harry would be at least partially right about his nature, I strongly suspect that JKR would not place much importance on Harry being wiser than DD or something like that. I think that would be shown as unfortunate thing, that is just happened and Harry forgiving that Snape too. And Harry would be shown as accepting DD lessons in forgiveness and/or mercy LOL and giving the bastard third or fourth chance. IMO of course. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 04:13:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:13:20 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164185 Magpie wrote: > Harry wouldn't be wiser than Dumbledore. He's based his belief that Snape is working for Voldemort not on wisdom but on anger. Understandable anger, but anger that makes him *unwise.* It makes him look for evidence that supports what he wants to be true, and it doesn't come from his heart or the still portion of his mind, but his angry desire for Snape to be wholly evil. Alla replied: > But that is what I am trying to say and obviously not saying well. If Harry is right about Snape, he does not need to go and look for additional evidence, the evidence is right there, in front of him, starting from Snape treating Harry like dirt in the classroom and escalating to Harry learning ( he did not go looking for this one either, it came to him, lol) that he gave Prophecy to Voldemort and going to the peak of it on the Tower. So, I guess I disagree that Harry based his belief that Snape works for LV based on anger. Oh, as we all know Harry is really, really, really angry with Snape, but he is angry because of what happened, so I am trying to say that Harry's wisdom in this situation may be shown as **seeing** clearly of what is happening around him in this situation. Not that he has those extraordinary powers of perception, just that he does not close his eyes to the obvious, as Dumbledore did, if Snape is not loyal to him. Carol responds to both: And yet Harry's belief that Snape is working for Voldemort begins in SS/PS when he believes, based solely on his dislike of a mean teacher and some partially overheard and misinterpreted conversations, that Snape is trying to steal the Sorceror's Stone. He thinks (perhaps rightly, perhaps not) that Snape hates him, but he doesn't yet hate Snape. He certainly doesn't yet feel the anger and the desire to blame Snape for everything that we first see in OoP, the result, as far as I can see, of Sirius Black's death. (I won't go into why he focuses on blaming Snape, but he finds it satisfying to do so, much more so than examining the situation objectively and acknowledging his own role and Black's, or blaming those who are primarily at fault, Bellatrix, voldemort, and Kreacher.) But in SS/PS, he's assuming that Snape is after the Stone, and that Snape tried to kill him, based on appearances and a general suspicion of Slytherin House. (He does the same thing, with more excuse given Draco's remarks about Mudbloods, with Draco Malfoy in CoS when he assumes that Draco is the Heir of Slytherin.) Harry is not yet angry, and he suffers no lasting harm or even resentment from Snape's exposure of his ignorance in the first Potions lesson. (Fortunately, the part about Bezoars remains in the back of his mind!) but he assumes, wrongly, that Snape made his scar hurt, and that Snape's favoritism of the Slytherins somehow makes him Voldemort's man. (Hagrid's misleading remark that all Dark wizards come from Slytherin is partly to blame here.) Harry assumptions are not based on wisdom or on natural superiority to Dumbledore in judging character. He completely misreads Quirrell, smiling encouragingly to him in the hallway. When Harry learns the truth, he seems to forget Quirrell's words ("Of course he hates you, but he doesn't want you dead!") or something to that effect and remembers, not that Snape saved his life, but that Snape hated his father and his father saved Snape's life, to Snape's lasting resentment, when they were boys. Dumbledore's simplistic explanation, that Snape worked so hard that year to protect Harry because of the debt he owed James, is apparently sufficient from Harry's perspective. Harry seems not to realize that Snape continues to protect him, trying to prevent him from going to Hogsmeade, for example, and conjuring the stretchers to get him and his friends off the grounds, away from werewolves and Dementors, in PoA. I don't think that Harry's near-sightedness, symbolized by his glasses, is merely physical. He really has trouble seeing what's in front of him, whether it's a DE disguised as a friend (Crouch!Junior) or the strange similarity between the Hog's Head barman and Aberforth Dumbledore, the Order member in the old photograph. Nor does he figure out the obvious candidate for the identity of the HBP despite having had him as a teacher for six years. (He's not the only one, of course; Ron is blind to his attraction to Hermione for almost six books. Not being able to see what's in front of us is a natural state for most people. "Bind, Trotwood! Blind!" says Aunt Bestsy in "David Copperfield," and she, old and crotchety though she is, turns out to be right.) At any rate, Harry tends, even in HBP, to judge by appearances, and in HBP, appearances seem to confirm his judgment for the first time in the books. However, HBP is only the first half of a two-part book, and I'll be very surprised if Harry, who has been wrong so often, turns out to be wiser than Dumbledore from the age of eleven, and to have learned nothing about judging people and things based on more than appearance in seven books. Alla: > > Yes, what I said as well ? certainly not extraordinary powers of perception, but just not closing his eyes and um, of course if Snape treated him differently Harry would not have thought about him that way. He would have no reasons too. Observe fake Moody, certainly Harry did not see his evilness because of Moody treating him nicely. There was no **obviousness** in Fake Moody behavior IMO, and who knows maybe in case of Snape it would be obvious. Carol responds: I doubt it, simply because Snape is anything but obvious in his loyalties. If he were genuinely ESE, he would conceal his antipathy to Harry and try to get close to him as Fake!Moody did. If snape gained Dumbledore's trust intending to betray him, wouldn't it make sense to gain Harry's trust, too? (Snape can be surprisingly polite and considerate when he wants to, as we see in "Spinner's End" with Narcissa.) I see no advantage in an evil Snape letting his dislike of Harry show so blatantly. But DDM!Snape can show the Slytherins, especially the DEs' children, from day one that the Boy Who Lived is no Dark wizard in the making for them to rally around, just an ordinary Muggle-raised kid who knows less than they do about magic. (It's a strategic advantage to have the other side underestimate your strength.) which is not to say that he doesn't get pleasure out of needling Harry, as he certainly does. > Alla: > In fact, members of the Order looking like total idiots (IMO) with > theirs we trusted him because DD did, may hint IMO that JKR really > wants Harry not to be like them in years to come, IMO of course. Carol: Or they may turn out to have been right because Dumbledore was right, in which case, they're "total idiots" for losing faith in Snape (and in DD's judgment) so quickly. (Of course, they have Dumbledore's death and Harry's version of events to seemingly corroborate that view, so it wouldn't really be idiotic, just natural, but it would still be wrong if Snape is DDM. > Alla: > Having said all that though, I must say that IF Snape is not fully DD!M and Harry would be at least partially right about his nature, I strongly suspect that JKR would not place much importance on Harry being wiser than DD or something like that. I think that would be shown as unfortunate thing, that is just happened and Harry forgiving that Snape too. And Harry would be shown as accepting DD lessons in forgiveness and/or mercy LOL and giving the bastard third or fourth chance. Carol: I'm quite sure that Harry is right about Snape's not being a nice person and not always being fair in his point deductions and detentions. But that has nothing to do with his loyalties, which I think are the key to Harry's forgiveness of Snape. If Snape killed Dumbledore *for Dumbledore*, because to do otherwise would have been disastrous (dead Dumbledore, dead Snape, dead Draco, dead Harry, DEs running unchecked through Hogwarts, Voldemort victorious), Harry will not be giving Snape a third or fourth chance (again, I think you're confusing mercy with forgiveness) but letting go his own resentment and desire for vengeance our of understanding and compassion. BTW, I realize that Dumbledore is not Gandalf and Harry isn't Frodo, but Gandalf remained wiser than Frodo even after Frodo completed his quest (with some help anticipated by Gandalf but not by Frodo himself). I think that Dumbledore, though dead, was wiser than any seventeen-year-old boy is capable of being, however heroic and courageous and dedicated to completing his quest. Harry's head is not the strongest part of him. Maybe he needs to start seeing not just Snape but the whole WW with his heart. I don't mean that he should "love" or even like Snape, only feel compassion for him and for all the others who have suffered, or committed wrongs that they would not otherwise have done, because of Voldemort. And that includes Draco Malfoy as well as Snape. Carol, hoping that Harry will learn to see Snape clearly as both a victim, like himself, and an enemy, like himself, of the real villain of the book, Lord Voldemort P.S. List Elves, I've lost count of my posts today because of Yahoo's slowness but am planning to delete a near-duplicate when it appears and reduce the count by one. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 16:33:15 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:33:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's Character Growth / Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > Eureka! Thank you all for that insight (talk about great minds > ). That is much more Dumbledore's thing: mercy, not blanket > forgiveness. Dumbledore doesn't have the power to forgive someone > all of their past wrongs. But he does have the ability to mercifully > allow someone a chance to do better, to make a better choice. > > And this is a lesson I can see Harry learning as part of his > character growth. Errmmm .... yeah, possibly. If mercy is tied to justice. Which involves Snapey-poo acknowledging his wrongs, including his reprehensible abuse of Harry and Neville, and humbly and sincerely asking for forgiveness. Otherwise, it amounts to an approval of the abuse of children, which leaves the books as contemptible mulch fodder. Actually, I doubt he will, which is why its just as well my yard will need plenty of mulch this season. Lupinlore, who never has understood all the fascination with the outworn tropes of the hero's journey that JKR so slavishly, and sometimes contemptibly, follows From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 05:01:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:01:52 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164187 Carol: > I'll be very surprised if Harry, who has been wrong so often, turns > out to be wiser than Dumbledore from the age of eleven, and to have > learned nothing about judging people and things based on more than > appearance in seven books. Alla: Harry clearly learns to not judge people by appearance IMO, it is just a possibility to me that he may learn that lesson not on the example of Snape. He does not judge Luna by her appearances anymore in HBP. Despite all appearances he listens to Sirius in PoA. So, I see plenty of possibilities for Harry to learn that lesson, and if just so happens that Snape's appearances are what they are, oh well. > Alla: > > In fact, members of the Order looking like total idiots (IMO) with > > theirs we trusted him because DD did, may hint IMO that JKR really > > wants Harry not to be like them in years to come, IMO of course. > > Carol: > Or they may turn out to have been right because Dumbledore was right, > in which case, they're "total idiots" for losing faith in Snape (and > in DD's judgment) so quickly. (Of course, they have Dumbledore's death > and Harry's version of events to seemingly corroborate that view, so > it wouldn't really be idiotic, just natural, but it would still be > wrong if Snape is DDM. > > Alla: What can I say? We shall see, I suppose in book 7 whether they were right to blindly trust Snape because Dumbledore said so, or whether they were right to kick themselves for doing so. Alla, who thinks that Harry seeing for himself that Draco lowered his wand may just be contrasted with second hand trust in Snape, but who can surely be wrong and had been wrong before many times. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 23:33:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:33:23 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164188 lealess wrote: > > There's an interesting discussion going on elsewhere (Snapecast > Episode 9 interviewing PAM2002 of Leaky Lounge and Sylvanawood's > LiveJournal) about Irma Pince being Snape's mother or grandmother. > The last thing I saw in HPFGU about this was > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156280, between > wynnleaf and juli17ptf, where they essentially agreed this could be > true. To recap the evidence as it is now being discussed: > > 1) The anagram, "I'm A Prince - Irma Pince" -- similar to "I Am Lord > Voldemort," although JKR had to stretch for the latter one. > > 2) The physical similarity, made more pronounced in HPB (hooked nose, parchment-like skin). Carol responds: I can see the anagram being a possibility, though I doubt that JKR would repeat this particular trick or device. But I read "parchmentlike skin" as meaning old and wrinkled, rather like a crepe-paper neck--hardly applicable to Snape, who is in his thirties throughout the books the same age as Lupin, who is twice referred to as "young" or "quite young"). Snape's skin is referred to frequently as "sallow" and occasionally as "pale." We aren't told Madam Pince's skin color. Snape's large hooked nose may resemble Pince's, but the skin connection is simply not there, IMO. Now if we knew her hair color or eye color. . . . lealess: > 4) Pince's extra-effective (darkish?) library science skills. "Madam Pince has been known to add some unusual hexes and jinxes at times, besides the usual collection of library book spells." Quidditch Through the Ages, as quoted by Sylvanawood. Carol: Madam Pince also thoroughly disapproves of the marginal notes in Harry's Potions book, which he has "desecrated" and I forget what else. Would someone who's fanatically protective of books have a son or grandson who interacts with them by underlining, crossing out, and writing in the margins? (Which, BTW, is what I normally do to books I own and have been known to do, in pencil, to a library book. Shh! Don't tell Madam Pince!) I wouldn't be surprised if Madam Pince is a Slytherin, though. The Hogwarts staff seems rather short on them. > lealess: > 5) Pince's remaining at Hogwarts over the summer (Sylvanawood: "If > you look at that funny little check-out page of Quidditch Through the Ages, you see that people borrow it from the library all through the year"). In fact, Pince never seems to leave the library, except for the funeral at the end of HBP -- and some speculate that may have been Snape in disguise, not Pince, who may be unable to leave the library. Carol: Which in itself is a bit odd, don't you think? How can students borrow a book over the summer if they're all on holiday? Just how do students return books due on 3 July or 12 august? By owl, I suppose. Maybe they magically check themselves in. But even if Madam Pince checks them in herself because, like Hagrid, she has no other home, that doesn't mean she's Snape's mother or grandmother (more likely grandmother, given her age and name. Eileen became Eileen Snape. Also, she was a Gobstones champion--deosn't seem like the kind of personality to become a librarian. Of course, anything is possible (even a flirtation between Madam Pince and Filch, for which we at least have some canon evidence. Ergh). And she could be a "protected person" (like Hagrid and Trelawney) for reasons other than being Snape's relative. > > 6) Random things: similar irritable behavior, a "pincers-spider" > correlation, books everywhere at Spinner's End. Carol: I don't know about the "pincers-spider connection," but the books at Spinner's End weren't collected to be protected by a vulturelike librarian. They're there, I'd bet every galleon I never owned, to be read (and no doubt written in--I'd love to see Snape's marginal notes!) lealess: The theory also humanizes Snape, showing that love of a kind can be a motivating factor for him. Carol: I have no doubt that Snape's mother loved him and he loved her, and that we'll find out womething to that effect in DH, whether or not he's related to Irma Pince. (We never see them interacting, and she doesn't come down to Christmas dinner with DD, Snape, McGonnagall, Trelawney, HRH, et al. in PoA.) I think he's already been humanized by the Pensieve memory and his compassion for Narcissa, and I don't doubt that his motives for rejecting Voldemort and turning to Voldemort will further humanize him, whether they involve his mother/grandmother or not. (FWIW, I used to think that Agnes the dog-faced woman was his mother, but the name Eileen put an end to that particular speculation--for me, at least.) > lealess: > What bothers me about this theory, however, is that it makes Snape's return to Dumbledore less about remorse and more about opportunity, Snape, for his part, may just be helping Dumbledore because it is advantageous to his family, not because he really wants to make amends for past actions or work for good. Carol: I don't think JKR will do anything to minimize Snape's remorse or its connection with the Potters. After all, the book is about Harry. If there's a secondary motive, I'm betting that it relates to RAB--Regulus Black--who was not much younger than Severus and in the same house with him. (Sirius's hatred of him could have something to do with 'corrupting" his younger brother.) JKR's "he will have seen--" (conveniently broken off) suggests to me that young Snape saw Regulus's murder, which might have been a powerful force for turning him back to Dumbledore's side ("back" is based on DD's use of the phrase "returned to our side" in GoF) if they were friends. lealess: > None of this says that Snape didn't feel genuine remorse over his actions as a Death Eater and the revelation and subsequent interpretation of the Prophecy. But, while the Irma/Eileen theory explains many things, and perceiving the motive to save a family might be the only way Harry can ever forgive Snape, it still throws Snape into a non-redeemable area for me. His actions, while they can be perceived as self-sacrificing, can also be seen as selfish -- not that saving your family is the worst motive in the world. Carol: I don't know about "nonredeemable," but it takes away from the focus on loyalty to Dumbledore and remorse for the eavesdropping, and seems to have no tie-in to the UV or the tower. Why would, erm, the Half-Blood *Pince* listen to Dumbledore on the tower? Simple gratitude for DD's protecting his mother? Wouldn't he just die trying to save DD rather than killing DD in response to "Severus, please" and getting Draco out of Hogwarts and the DEs off the tower before Harry could jump out and fight them? Why would IS! (Irma's son) Snape stop the DE from Crucioing Harry and order the DEs out of Hogwarts? What would Harry and the fate of the WW matter to him? He would only care about his mother's/grandmother's safety, of which we see no hint of interest on his part. All I see in any of this is an anagram, a veiled witch (suspicious only because we've seen Mundungus disguise himself as a witch), a similarity in noses, and a lot of coincidence. We might as well say that Rita Skeeter is related to Sirius Black because they're both (or were both) illegal Animagi. Possible but not likely. I think we're seeing another Mark Evans here. Now the Finch/Pince connection may go somewhere (Oh. I get the "pincers" pun now, but spiders don't have pincers--Crabbes, erm, crabs do), but I don't think there's a Prince/Pince connection. (On a sidenote, we have a number of persons whose whereabouts and safety will be of some concern in DH, including Florian Fortescue, Ollivander, Emmeline Vance if she's alive, Draco, Snape if he's DDM!, and possibly Trelawney and/or Slughorn. Do we really need another one?) Carol, who finds the theory interesting but not helpful to the crucial Snape/Harry relationship or particularly compatible with Snape's motives as we've seen them depicted in the books From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jan 27 07:30:48 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:30:48 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory & Snape's Return/Teaching timeline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164189 lealess > So, one theory is that, when Voldemort threatened Snape's family or > when Snape was backed into a corner, maybe when he was caught > listening to the Prophecy, Dumbledore offered to protect Snape's > mother at Hogwarts and Snape became a spy. What is gained from > this theory is that it parallels the offer made to Draco on the > Tower (at least in the United States), and perhaps explains part of > the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape and yet keeps the reason a > secret. The secret is one of tremendous magnitude, the revelation > of which could be seen as a betrayal, especially if revealed to > someone with a wholly transparent mind like Harry Potter. The > theory also humanizes Snape, showing that love of a kind can be a > motivating factor for him. Jen: Here's a way to put these elements together for a slightly different take, one that *might* explain some of the reservations you mentioned later on. In "The Seer Overheard" Dumbledore said this: "I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned---" This and Snape's remorse supply the motivation for Snape's return to Dumbledore's side but not his job at Hogwarts. Harry's accusation was, 'AND YOU LET HIM TEACH HERE AND HE TOLD VOLDEMORT TO GO AFTER MY MOM AND DAD!' Harry is the one who tied together Snape's teaching gig with the telling of the Prophecy for legitimate personal reasons as well as his talk with Trelawney. Dumbledore never connects the teaching job with Snape's remorse though, nor does he or any other character offer an explanation for why Snape started teaching except Snape saying Voldemort ordered it. I'm sure Voldemort *did* order it, there's just a hole in that explanation. First back to the idea that Snape's remorse was a separate event from his job at Hogwarts, likely by a couple of months. Voldemort targeted the Potters after Harry and Neville were born and although we don't know the exact time, there's canon that Snape tipped off Dumbledore about the Potters and DD urged them into hiding (POA). That tip made Voldemort's job of targeting the Potters that much harder and I'm speculating this event and Voldemort's fury over it were the catalysts for Voldemort's order to Snape. (The timing works because Snape likely started teaching in September right before the Halloween murders, based on his 14 years of teaching when Harry was 15 in OOTP.) Moving now to the hole in Voldemort's order to Snape. I found it curious Voldemort ordered Snape to get the job when Voldemort and Dumbledore both knew Snape was the DE who had turned over the prophecy to Voldemort--why exactly did LV think Dumbledore would agree to this? My answer is...he didn't think Dumbledore would agree. It was an impossible task, just like Draco killing Dumbledore, and Snape was sent in part as punishment for not delivering the entire prophecy and thus making Voldemort's job harder when the Potters escaped him (in Voldemort's mind). The motivation he offered to Snape for completing this impossible task? Same as Draco's, 'I'll kill your mum, Eileen the Muggle lover'. By this timeline, Snape did return to Dumbledore out of remorse, Dumbledore did believe his story, but Snape didn't immediately begin working at Hogwarts. Instead he started his double-agent role and attempted to help save the Potters from within the DE camp. When Voldemort ordered Snape to get the teaching job, Dumbledore saw a chance to save TWO lives and agreed to take in both Eileen and Snape. All Snape had to do was tell Voldemort that Dumbledore believed his story of remorse and Voldemort would buy it, thinking Dumbledore was acting like a 'fool who loves'. There was no need to kill Eileen after that because before Snape had time to prove his usefulness as a spy, Peter became SK. Is this believable or is it the same idea with the same problems, just in a different order?!? Jen, wondering how many hours this message will take to post. :( From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 18:12:42 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:12:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Aberforth and the goats(was re: Aberforth) In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470701251002s4797ad4av409ee23c93d0159b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470701261012k3a9a7ad9xc2f027b7d3ec6db9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164190 Jeremiah writes: "Hmmm.. one thing that stands out about Aberforth, and maybe it's because I'm an adult, is JKR hints by telling us he inappropriately uses goats..." va32h answers: That little bit has always struck me as JKR's Monty Python-esque humor coming out. I can just see John Cleese behind his newsreader's desk, saying "....where a local barman was acquitted of using inappropriate charms on a goat. And now for something completely different..." va32h ================ Jeremiah; I totally agree. I think if I were ever to be given the gift of writing I would do an entire series on Albus and Aberforth's childhood and life as young men. It would be hilarious, I think. It has always amazed me how children in a family can be so very different. It's like the Weasleys. Every one of the kids has a distinct personality. With the Dumbledore Bros. I see huge potential for back-story. I can see Albus saying how he wants to travel and teach and Aberforth saying "Screw it. I want to open a bar... it will have a real Hog's Head... Hey, now that's catchy... and it will drip blood! Now, where do I get the money... I have that goat thing going on... maybe I can make some fast cash off of that..." and then hilarity ensues. Of course, it would be during the 1850's to the mid 1900's. (Albus is 150 years old, I believe) and what a romp that would be! And now for something completely different... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sat Jan 27 13:17:36 2007 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 08:17:36 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Sirius did not apparate into GH References: Message-ID: <45BB50EF.000001.00460@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 164191 Dana said: I have seen in the archives (yes, yet again) that many wondered why Sirius used an enchanted motorcycle to go to GH instead of apparating or even why he did not use this in POA. I think the answer is rather simple. Apparations are monitored by the MOM and in VWI it was believed that LV had spies in the MOM, so it would not have been wise to use this way of transportation to visit James and Lily even if the location it self was protected by the Charm, it would still give a lot away about the location itself. Of course this is why he could not use it in POA they would have tracked him down. When Sirius went to see the Potters after not finding Peter at his hiding location, he did not know anything had happened to them so it would still be stupid to just apparate to the location because if there were okay than he would have Jeopardized the safety of everyone visiting the Potters not just theirs, only after he saw what happened did he not need it anymore. Just my simplistic theory of course. Donna replied: Good idea. But I always thought it was because he was a rebel at heart and just enjoyed riding the bike - wind in his hair, bugs in his teeth, sound of the rumble of the engine, the freedom. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 08:46:33 2007 From: irishshedevil333 at yahoo.com (irishshedevil333) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 08:46:33 -0000 Subject: Lupin's loyalties Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164192 irishshedevil Of all the characters in hp Lupin is by far my favorite. I can see how he would feel left out of his friend's fun at times, and that he feels a great deal of regret for the things in his past. My question is do you think that Lupin will prove to be a friend or an enemy in the end? He wouldn't be my first choice, what would casuse him to betray a lifelong friendship? I guess what I am wondering is do you think Lupin will stand with Harry in the end? Does he have some other agenda? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 15:01:52 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:01:52 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory & Snape's Return/Teaching timeline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164193 > Jen: > First back to the idea that Snape's remorse was a separate event from > his job at Hogwarts, likely by a couple of months. zgirnius; I find this to be suggested as well by Dummbledore's testimony in GoF. How could Snape spy 'at great personal risk' if he only 'returned' just in time to start teaching at Hogwarts? Who was he spying on? If on the other hand Snape 'returned' at some point before he started teaching, this comment could be in reference to his activities before he started teaching, spying from within the Death Eater camp, which makes more sense to me. Jen: > Moving now to the hole in Voldemort's order to Snape. I found it > curious Voldemort ordered Snape to get the job when Voldemort and > Dumbledore both knew Snape was the DE who had turned over the > prophecy to Voldemort--why exactly did LV think Dumbledore would > agree to this? My answer is...he didn't think Dumbledore would > agree. It was an impossible task, just like Draco killing > Dumbledore, and Snape was sent in part as punishment for not > delivering the entire prophecy and thus making Voldemort's job harder > when the Potters escaped him (in Voldemort's mind). The motivation > he offered to Snape for completing this impossible task? Same as > Draco's, 'I'll kill your mum, Eileen the Muggle lover'. zgirnius: This seems plausible to me. Minus Eileen, it is the story I've come up with for myself from the clues we have in Dumbledore's statements from HBP and GoF, Fudge statements in PoA, and Snape's statements in HBP (Spinner's End). Though, to make a correction, we have no indication Dumbledore knew 'officially' that Snape was a Death Eater. He might have suspected it after Voldemort's actions tipped him off to the fact that Voldemort knew the prophecy. Though even then, it could just indicate that Snape told the story to the wrong friends, friends canon suggests he had. Of course, once Snape approached Dumbledore, I presume he would have made a clean breast of that, but Voldemort would (at this point) not know that Snape had confessed to Dumbledore. And yes, if Dumbledore trusted in the genuineness of Snape's remorse, I think he would try to help him out of a tight spot such as the one you describe (Voldemort ordering him to get a job at Hogwarts). From a purely practical standpoint, Snape might retain some usefulness as a double agent at school, either by spreading misinformation, or through what he could learn from his (presumably less frequent) contacts with other DEs. Dead, he wouldn't. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 27 16:00:11 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:00:11 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164194 > Alla: > > What can I say? We shall see, I suppose in book 7 whether they were > right to blindly trust Snape because Dumbledore said so, or whether > they were right to kick themselves for doing so. > > Alla, who thinks that Harry seeing for himself that Draco lowered > his wand may just be contrasted with second hand trust in Snape, but > who can surely be wrong and had been wrong before many times. > Pippin: But the Order's trust wasn't second hand. Snape has given them valuable information, including the information that Harry was in danger at the MoM. And Harry's trust should not be second hand either; Snape has saved his life, and put himself at risk to come to Harry's aid. They have all seen Snape 'lower his wand', ie, not attack or allow Harry to be attacked when he had the opportunity to do so. I understand that Snape's cruelty and taste for revenge make him seem obviously unrepentant. The flaw in this argument is that we don't know what tempted him to join the DE's. If it was indeed to pursue cruelty and revenge, then DDM!Snape is probably headed for the bottom of Theory Bay. But if it was a thirst for recognition, his desire to be known as a brilliant and inventive wizard, then we see what appear to be a number of penitive acts. Snape labors as a spy, for whom recognition would be fatal, he settles into a career in the comparitively obscure and undervalued field of potions instead of the flashy and highly respected DADA, he does not publish his innovations, and while he almost certainly made the mandrake potion in CoS, he gets no credit while Sprout and Pomfrey do. Snape's nastiness, then, would have very little to do with the reasons he became a Death Eater, and so he would not have had any great reason to repent of it. Recognizing this would be an opportunity for Harry to grow. Finding out the opposite would not be growth, it would be stasis. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jan 27 16:15:51 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:15:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, References: Message-ID: <00cc01c7422e$6cbccd70$a198400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164195 Magpie: I don't.:-) Because in HP, Harry wouldn't be wiser than Dumbledore. He'sbased his belief that Snape is working for Voldemort not on wisdom but on anger. Understandable anger, but anger that makes him *unwise.* It makes himlook for evidence that supports what he wants to be true, and it doesn't come from his heart or the still portion of his mind, but his angry desirefor Snape to be wholly evil. (And also on his anger at things Snape hasdone, like kill Dumbledore right in front of him--everybody believes Snape'sevil after that.) Alla: But that is what I am trying to say and obviously not saying well. If Harry is right about Snape, he does not need to go and look for additional evidence, the evidence is right there, in front of him, starting from Snape treating Harry like dirt in the classroom and escalating to Harry learning ( he did not go looking for this one either, it came to him, lol) that he gave Prophecy to Voldemort and going to the peak of it on the Tower.So, I guess I disagree that Harry based his belief that Snape works for LV based on anger. Oh, as we all know Harry is really, really, really angry with Snape, but he is angry because of what happened, so I am trying to say that Harry's wisdom in this situation may be shown as **seeing** clearly of what is happening around him in this situation. Not that he has those extraordinary powers of perception, just that he does not close his eyes to the obvious, as Dumbledore did, if Snape is not loyal to him. Magpie: But the point is, if it's "evidence" that Snape is working for Voldemort that he treats Harry badly in class and gave the Prophecy to Voldemort then it's saying that someone being not nice to you means that they're working for the bad guy, and that people can't change. Not only are those fairly superifical, they both seem to be themes that the author's specifically working *against*. They're not evidence of Snape's loyalties anymore than Fake!Moody's treatment of Malfoy shows he's anti-Voldemort. Harry spent the whole first book thinking Snape is trying to steal the Stone because of Snape's behavior and he wasn't right. He made assumptions based on Quirrel's demeanor vs. Snape's (with Snape's behavior towards Harry as a starting point). Dumbledore knew that Snape gave the Prophecy to Voldemort back then--and Snape still wasn't trying to steal the Stone. Magpie: If Harry was right about Snape it wouldn't be because Harry has a feeling for these things--if Snape had been the same person and been nice to Harry I doubt Harry would have thought this way about him (he didn't with Fake!Moody, for instance). His wisdom would just be that he really doesn't like people who treat him like dirt. Alla: Yes, what I said as well - certainly not extraordinary powers of perception, but just not closing his eyes and um, of course if Snape treated him differently Harry would not have thought about him that way. He would have no reasons too. Observe fake Moody, certainly Harry did not see his evilness because of Moody treating him nicely.There was no **obviousness** in Fake Moody behavior IMO, and who knows maybe in case of Snape it would be obvious. Magpie: But Harry isn't seeing things others are not. Everyone sees how Snape treats Harry, including Dumbledore. Only Dumbledore has more information and has a view of Snape that incorportates him being on DD's side and being a jerk to Harry at the same time. Harry doesn't seem to have put quite as much reasoning into his own view of Snape being guilty. He's never approached the problem strictly rationally, and considers the idea of Dumbledore's version to be impossible based on his own limited interactions with Snape when those interactions don't cover Snape as a whole person. Magpie: The other importance difference is that Luke, unsurprisingly, is the onewith Dumbledore's view--the view that is more hopeful and sees human beings as more complex and redeemable. It's fine for the hero to surpass thementor, but he needs, imo, to stand for something bigger than the mentor if he's going to do it, like Luke did. The risk Luke takes is more in keepingwith his power being love, I think, than would be a Harry who was right about Snape, but didn't spend the rest of his life angry over it. Alla: Yes, as I said I was analogizing the **principle** - Hero being right and his mentor being wrong, NOT what they were right and wrong about.And in this situation Harry being right may stay for the humongous importance of learning why to trust people for yourself and not relying on second hand trust.I understand unwillingness of seeing JKR teaching that lesson ( not yours, DD!M Snape theorists in general), but I see nothing in the books that prevents her from exploring that angle. In fact, members of the Order looking like total idiots (IMO) with theirs we trusted him because DD did, may hint IMO that JKR really wants Harry not to be like them in years to come, IMO of course. Magpie: I suspect she's going for both by having Harry not trust Snape based on Dumbledore's word, but later coming to agree with him through his own experience. I think she started something similar with Draco--imagine, for instance, if it had been Ron under the Invisibility Cloak in the Tower who now had a drop of pity for Malfoy. I can't imagine Harry trusting Ron's assessment of the situation there and stopping thinking that everything in HBP just proved Malfoy was even worse than he thought he was and a DE through and through. Not trusting people based on what others say is fine--but it's not a lesson Harry can learn because he's never done it. It's more like everyone else having to learn they should trust Harry's instincts over Dumbledore's. But if Snape's nastiness in class and his prior bad acts are evidence that anyone should have seen to know that Snape couldn't be DDM, that's a rather closed-minded view of human nature, and one that's not really true in reality--or in the books. Alla: Having said all that though, I must say that IF Snape is not fully DD!M and Harry would be at least partially right about his nature, I strongly suspect that JKR would not place much importance on Harry being wiser than DD or something like that.I think that would be shown as unfortunate thing, that is just happened and Harry forgiving that Snape too. And Harry would be shown as accepting DD lessons in forgiveness and/or mercy LOL and giving the bastard third or fourth chance. Magpie: I think she'd have to explain how Dumbledore was tricked--the DEs were right, apparently, and he's just a sucker for a sob story (which doesn't seem IC based on what I've seen of DD). I think Harry's already partially right about Snape's nature in that he certainly gets that Snape hates him (even before anyone tells him that). He sees him being petty. It's not like in some theories where Snape's behavior towards *Harry* is explained away as part of the Master Plan. If there was no Voldemort storyline and Harry just thought Snape was a jerk teacher who was unfair to him, and other people said he wasn't really unfair to him, Harry would be completely right. He's often predicted Snape's behavior and been right about it when it came to their interactions in class. Of course, Harry also says that Snape's a great guy who wouldn't really want anyone to get hurt or ever be into Dark Magic--oops. Carol: > I'll be very surprised if Harry, who has been wrong so often, turns > out to be wiser than Dumbledore from the age of eleven, and to have > learned nothing about judging people and things based on more than > appearance in seven books. Alla: Harry clearly learns to not judge people by appearance IMO, it is just a possibility to me that he may learn that lesson not on the example of Snape. He does not judge Luna by her appearances anymore in HBP. Despite all appearances he listens to Sirius in PoA. So, I see plenty of possibilities for Harry to learn that lesson, and if just so happens that Snape's appearances are what they are, oh well. Magpie: I think Carol chose a slightly off word in that post when she said "appearance." Harry doesn't judge by appearance with Snape but by how Snape treats him and feels about him. That's not an issue with Luna. She likes Harry throughout OotP. There's no moment where Harry realizes he's been *wrong* about Luna or misjudged her or accused her unfairly--she's just as odd as she's always seemed. With Sirius Harry never judges him as a person because he doesn't know him. He's just believes the wrong story, but when Sirius shows up and explains himself Harry understand the right version. The one place Harry's had this kind of lesson before is in GoF with Fake!Moody where he did seem primarily swayed by Moody's liking and disliking the right people. But Harry wasn't personally invested in Fake!Moody the way he is with Snape. He didn't do half as much work trying to make Fake!Moody fit his view of him as he does with Snape. It's only with the Slytherins there's an issue of Harry disliking the person intensely, and being disliked in return, and so seeing them as the most likely suspects in crimes that sometimes have nothing to do with them. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 16:58:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:58:38 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: <00cc01c7422e$6cbccd70$a198400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164196 > Magpie: > But the point is, if it's "evidence" that Snape is working for Voldemort > that he treats Harry badly in class and gave the Prophecy to Voldemort then > it's saying that someone being not nice to you means that they're working > for the bad guy, and that people can't change. Alla: It is showing who Snape **is**, yes, if it is what they are and you know, sometimes people indeed do **not** change, so I would say it would be the lesson of Snape not able to change, not people in general. As an aside, but it is sort of relevant. Couple months ago me and my friend managed to have a very long Harry Potter related conversation, like couple hours long ( he does not go on Internet discussing HP, so I consider his brains to be untainted by all the theories, lol) We discussed many topics and of course we talked about Slytherin house a little bit, so I figured I would play a little devil advocate and started saying, oh why would she even imply that there are could be evil eleven years old, unless she pulls the rug and shows us that Slytherin house is prejudiced against, etc. My friend looked at me as if I had a third eye or something and said that he met evil five years old and he was not joking. He thinks that character at eleven year old is fully formed and if there is a propensity to share that purebloodist ideology, it would be there at eleven. My friend does not think that they are all evil, but that it is not that unrealistic that plenty of them are. How is it relevant to Snape not changing? Well, just that as in case of Slytherin house, it is just possible that Snape has not changed **yet**, but that he may change at the end, to commit one redemptive act, but not because that he was DD!M all along, but because he would see Harry in new light. OR he may not change indeed because that is who he is. Magpie: Not only are those fairly > superifical, they both seem to be themes that the author's specifically > working *against*. They're not evidence of Snape's loyalties anymore than > Fake!Moody's treatment of Malfoy shows he's anti-Voldemort. Alla: I do not see that author specifically works against of the evidence that someone who treats you like dirt in classroom is working for Voldemort. It may not be so, but I think that it is way too early to say so with certainty. Sure, Fake Moody treated Malfoy badly and he is Voldemort servant, but Lupin treats everybody nicely and he is not Voldemort servant ( unless you are Pippin of course ;)) I just do not see the trend, I think she deals with every case individually and in case of Snape I sure can see the possibility that he was treating Harry badly AND Voldemort's servant. Magpie: > Harry spent the whole first book thinking Snape is trying to steal the Stone > because of Snape's behavior and he wasn't right. He made assumptions based > on Quirrel's demeanor vs. Snape's (with Snape's behavior towards Harry as a > starting point). Dumbledore knew that Snape gave the Prophecy to Voldemort > back then--and Snape still wasn't trying to steal the Stone. Alla: The possibility is that JKR showed to us that Harry was seemingly wrong, wrong, wrong about Snape for six books and oooops, he really was not. :) And Snape may have been doing exactly what he tells Bella and Narcissa in Spinner end, no? >> Magpie: > But Harry isn't seeing things others are not. Everyone sees how Snape treats > Harry, including Dumbledore. Only Dumbledore has more information and has a > view of Snape that incorportates him being on DD's side and being a jerk to > Harry at the same time. Harry doesn't seem to have put quite as much > reasoning into his own view of Snape being guilty. He's never approached the > problem strictly rationally, and considers the idea of Dumbledore's version > to be impossible based on his own limited interactions with Snape when those > interactions don't cover Snape as a whole person. Alla: There is information missing for sure, but we do not know that Harry's interactions with Snape do not cover Snape as whole person. I remember the argument being made in the past that Snape does not spend nearly as much time thinking about Harry when Harry is not in front of him, as Harry thinks about Snape. I think now we had been given a possibility that Snape may have been doing just that - thinking about James and Harry if not all the time, but a lot of time. I think it is completely possible that all that it there to be would turn out about Snape's grudge and everything went from there. IMO of course. >> Magpie: > I suspect she's going for both by having Harry not trust Snape based on > Dumbledore's word, but later coming to agree with him through his own > experience. Alla: Possibly, or it would be Harry seeing who Snape is and still learning Dumbledore's lesson of second chances, without closing his eyes to who Snape is, without believing his spinning tales, just seeing his reasons for doing things and still forgiving it. Magpie: I think she started something similar with Draco--imagine, for > instance, if it had been Ron under the Invisibility Cloak in the Tower who > now had a drop of pity for Malfoy. I can't imagine Harry trusting Ron's > assessment of the situation there and stopping thinking that everything in > HBP just proved Malfoy was even worse than he thought he was and a DE > through and through. Alla: Sure, I can see that. Do not want to, but can :) Magpie: > Not trusting people based on what others say is fine--but it's not a lesson > Harry can learn because he's never done it. It's more like everyone else > having to learn they should trust Harry's instincts over Dumbledore's. But > if Snape's nastiness in class and his prior bad acts are evidence that > anyone should have seen to know that Snape couldn't be DDM, that's a rather > closed-minded view of human nature, and one that's not really true in > reality--or in the books. Alla: Sorry, but I disagree. How is it closed minded? There are evil people in the world, there are people who do not change, there are people who change, there are people who really really try to change but fail eventually ( maybe Snape is one of them) If Snape is an evil git or just the one who honestly wanted to go back to light, but some sort of temptation stopped him from it, how is it close minded if Harry sees it? Those things happen and I believe Harry can learn valuable lesson from that as well. > Magpie: > I think she'd have to explain how Dumbledore was tricked--the DEs were > right, apparently, and he's just a sucker for a sob story (which doesn't > seem IC based on what I've seen of DD). Alla: Why though? I could never understand that. Giving people second chances is good, I could never never consider it to be DD mistake. Whether he was fooled or not, it is great that he believes in second chances. It is the fault of the fool who does not appreciate being given second chance IMO. I would not blame DD one yota for that, if Snape fooled him. I would sympathise with him even more. Magpie: I think Harry's already partially > right about Snape's nature in that he certainly gets that Snape hates him > (even before anyone tells him that). He sees him being petty. It's not like > in some theories where Snape's behavior towards *Harry* is explained away as > part of the Master Plan. If there was no Voldemort storyline and Harry just > thought Snape was a jerk teacher who was unfair to him, and other people > said he wasn't really unfair to him, Harry would be completely right. He's > often predicted Snape's behavior and been right about it when it came to > their interactions in class. Alla: Yes, with that part I completely agree and thank you for saying that. > Magpie: > I think Carol chose a slightly off word in that post when she said > "appearance." Harry doesn't judge by appearance with Snape but by how Snape > treats him and feels about him. Alla: Oh, but of course ;) Truer words cannot be spoken. Magpie: It's only with the Slytherins there's an issue of Harry disliking the person > intensely, and being disliked in return, and so seeing them as the most > likely suspects in crimes that sometimes have nothing to do with them. Alla: Sometimes, yes and sometimes the crimes do connected with them :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 27 16:57:38 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:57:38 -0000 Subject: Lupin's falsehoods (was: Lupin and Sirius and being single) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164197 Carol: > Not being an ESE!Lupin advocate (I think that Lupin is perfectly > sincere when he tells Black that Harry has the right to know the truth > about Pettigrew, 350), I'm not sure what to make of all these lies and > half-truths, only that they cast doubt on the truth of Lupin's various > statements about Snape (other than "superb Occlumens," which is backed > by canon) and about himself. > > Carol, hoping that someone else will examine Lupin's remarks in OoP > and HBP to see whether they, too, show signs of evasiveness or deception > Pippin: If James was stealing spells from the Prince's book, how could Lupin know so little about it? He never says he doesn't know who the Prince is, only that there's no wizarding royalty, and that it certainly wasn't James. Then he sends Harry on a wild-goose chase by suggesting Harry look at the publication date. Hmm... Also, Lupin says he couldn't write to Harry because he was off on secret missions, but that doesn't explain why he told Harry to keep in touch at the end of OOP, and then didn't write to him even to say he'd be unavailable for a while. We know he didn't leave immediately because he was around for Harry's birthday party. Then there's Lupin's boggart, still described as a silvery orb in OOP, not a full moon as he implied in PoA, and his apparent inability to do the riddikulus spell. There's the look he and Sirius exchange when they start to tell Harry what's going on in OOP -- clearly they're warning each other not to say too much, but are they hiding things only from Harry or from other Order members as well? Pippin wondering how people can continue to trust Lupin even after they've agreed that he's a liar From ida3 at planet.nl Sat Jan 27 16:45:53 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:45:53 -0000 Subject: Why Sirius did not apparate into GH In-Reply-To: <45BB50EF.000001.00460@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164198 > > Donna replied: > > Good idea. But I always thought it was because he was a rebel at heart and > just enjoyed riding the bike - wind in his hair, bugs in his teeth, sound of > the rumble of the engine, the freedom. > > Dana Reply: I am pretty sure that is why he choose a motorcycle for transportation instead of a broom but I do think he choose a kind of untraceble way of transportation because of safety issues. Many people have made an issue of him taking a slower way of transportation instead of apparating when he his friends were in trouble and that it this proofed him being reckless but I think recklessness was not an issue here. For all he knew Peter could have very well been with the Potters instead of being where he suppossed to be, he could not have taken the risk of exposing the location of GH even if it the house itself would not been revieled. JMHO Dana From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 18:12:33 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:12:33 -0000 Subject: Lupin's loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "irishshedevil333" wrote: > > irishshedevil > Of all the characters in hp Lupin is by far my favorite. I can see > how he would feel left out of his friend's fun at times, and that he > feels a great deal of regret for the things in his past. My question > is do you think that Lupin will prove to be a friend or an enemy in > the end? He wouldn't be my first choice, what would casuse him to > betray a lifelong friendship? I guess what I am wondering is do you > think Lupin will stand with Harry in the end? Does he have some other > agenda? > Jenni from Alabama responds: Yes, I think Lupin will remain a friend to the members of the Order. They are his only friends and have been faithful and loyal to him. I really can't see him turning his back on the ones that have stood by him. I don't think he has another agenda. I think he will stand by Harry to the very end. Many of the students at Hogwarts were sad to see him go when he resigned his position, even though he was a werewolf. They said it didn't make a difference, he was still an awesome teacher and a great person. They spoke up for him when Umbridge tried to put him down. Though it was Harry who mainly did the speaking, the others agreed with him. On a side note, I've been wondering why Lupin is so worried about Tonks and he being in a relationship? I'm glad he changed his mind -whether on his own or persuaded by Tonks. The reason why I wonder why he's worried is because Tonks is a Metamorphmagus. During the times that Lupin transforms into a werewolf, she could change into a dog or a wolf and remain safe with him. Has anyone else has thought about this? Jenni From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 18:26:05 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:26:05 -0000 Subject: Second hand trust in Snape WAS: Would Harry forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164200 > Pippin: > But the Order's trust wasn't second hand. Snape has given them valuable > information, including the information that Harry was in danger at the > MoM. Alla: I do not recall anyone of the Order saying that they trusted Snape because of his wonderful deeds. I only recall "because DD trusted him" theme. Now it could be of course that JKR chose not to inform us of all Snape's deeds and maybe some order members indeed knew of those and trusted Snape because of them, but they are silent at least for now, so I am hesitant as well. Pippin: And Harry's trust should not be second hand either; Snape has > saved his life, and put himself at risk to come to Harry's aid. They > have all seen Snape 'lower his wand', ie, not attack or allow Harry > to be attacked when he had the opportunity to do so. > Alla: LOLOLOL. Harry's trust in Snape should not be second hand? That is after he learns of Snape involvement in Prophecy and sees Snape delivering AK at Dumbledore? I agree, Harry's trust in Snape should not second hand, after the end of HBP it should be non - existant I will be the first one to smack Harry, if he is given strong evidence in book 7 that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore and chooses to disregard them. I said many times I would immensely dislike if it will turn out that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him, but I would surely want Harry to accept it as a man, and move on with his life. ( Hopefully he will see such Dumbledore for he is, but for that I am certainly NOT holding my breath) But right now, I think that Harry reacts to Snape as any normal person would. Alla, who is still hopeful that no matter what flavor Snape we will get, JKR will give us at least one short scene when Snape would be powerless and Harry will hold all the cards. Please, JKR, pretty please :) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 27 18:35:49 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:35:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin's falsehoods (was: Lupin and Sirius and being single) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164201 "justcarol67" wrote: > he actually tells some flat-out lies [...] For example, he tells Harry that > Sirius Black "must have found a way > to fight [the dementors]" But that was the truth, it was how Sirius became the only wizard to escape from Azkaban. Eggplant From cat_mcnulty at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 27 18:39:10 2007 From: cat_mcnulty at sbcglobal.net (Cat McNulty) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:39:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: What made it Snape's Worst Memory? Message-ID: <260081.65201.qm@web82815.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164202 My apologies to all if this has already been discussed or proposed. I will try to be as concise as possible. Snape had been publicly humiliated by James and Sirius many times prior to this particular incident. This is canon. Ques - What made this particular memory worse than the others of degradation and humiliation at James' hand? Ans- Lily and Lily's part in the memory. When James attacked Snape and Lily came to his defense (Amer. OotP Pg. 648) James said, "you're lucky Evans was here, Snivellus--" ... Snape said, "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" "Lily blinked." (Maybe in disbelief at Snape's insult?) Then "'Fine,' she said coolly. 'I won't bother in the future. And I'd wash my pants if I were you, Snivellus.'" My contention is that it was his embarrassed outburst, that was meant to get back at James, actually insulted Lily (someone that he liked/cared about). Her hurt verbal reaction actually closed the door to any future friendship between Snape and Lily. That IMO was the worst part of the memory for Snape ... the loss of Lily as a friend and her using the name Snivellus. Cat >^-.-^< [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jan 27 19:12:57 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:12:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? What makes it Snape's Worst Memory? References: Message-ID: <011501c74247$282a98e0$a198400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164203 >> Magpie: >> But the point is, if it's "evidence" that Snape is working for > Voldemort >> that he treats Harry badly in class and gave the Prophecy to > Voldemort then >> it's saying that someone being not nice to you means that they're > working >> for the bad guy, and that people can't change. > > > Alla: > > It is showing who Snape **is**, yes, if it is what they are and you > know, sometimes people indeed do **not** change, so I would say it > would be the lesson of Snape not able to change, not people in > general. > > As an aside, but it is sort of relevant. Couple months ago me and my > friend managed to have a very long Harry Potter related > conversation, like couple hours long ( he does not go on Internet > discussing HP, so I consider his brains to be untainted by all the > theories, lol) > > We discussed many topics and of course we talked about Slytherin > house a little bit, so I figured I would play a little devil > advocate and started saying, oh why would she even imply that there > are could be evil eleven years old, unless she pulls the rug and > shows us that Slytherin house is prejudiced against, etc. > > My friend looked at me as if I had a third eye or something and said > that he met evil five years old and he was not joking. He thinks > that character at eleven year old is fully formed and if there is a > propensity to share that purebloodist ideology, it would be there at > eleven. My friend does not think that they are all evil, but that it > is not that unrealistic that plenty of them are. > > > How is it relevant to Snape not changing? Well, just that as in case > of Slytherin house, it is just possible that Snape has not changed > **yet**, but that he may change at the end, to commit one redemptive > act, but not because that he was DD!M all along, but because he > would see Harry in new light. OR he may not change indeed because > that is who he is. Magpie: Ah, the freedom of those untainted by fandom!:-) But I don't disagree with the fact that just because people can change doesn't mean they all do, and I think there's plenty of Slytherins (or DEs from other houses) that could have been well on their way at 11. Bellatrix LeStrange would have been raised the same as Regulus and believed this stuff, and in her early 40s she's just as committed to it as ever. Lucius Malfoy might have been dreadful at 11 and is still dreadful now. So I don't think Snape's having not changed would be a problem in itself. I don't think it's bad of Harry to say, "But what if he hasn't changed?" I'm talking about a slightly different issue about Snape's being wrong in the past is *evidence* that he's LV's man now, and that Dumbledore must be ignoring this obvious piece of evidence while Harry is not. That's the thing that's too negative. Snape's basic personality changing, too, is slightly different. Your personality being formed by 11 is different than your beliefs necessarily being set in stone at 11. Certain strong elements of your personality are probably in place by the age of 2--but those elements can be applied to different beliefs or objectives at 15 or 25 or 90. I think Snape's personality has remained constant. In fact, I'd say JKR as an author relies on personalities being pretty constant. The mystery with Snape is that while we do see his personality being constant, we haven't yet gotten what exactly makes him tick. Dumbledore's explanation that Snape felt great remorse over the Prophecy sounds flimsy to Harry--and understandably so, because Harry has never seen Snape show remorse for being cruel to anyone, certainly not a Potter. But I think that's why Dumbledore's hinted there's more to it--you have to understand Snape's whole situation and what's important to him, and Harry doesn't really get all that yet. He doesn't have the information to understand Dumbledore's view. > > Magpie: > Not only are those fairly >> superifical, they both seem to be themes that the author's > specifically >> working *against*. They're not evidence of Snape's loyalties > anymore than >> Fake!Moody's treatment of Malfoy shows he's anti-Voldemort. > > Alla: > > I do not see that author specifically works against of the evidence > that someone who treats you like dirt in classroom is working for > Voldemort. Magpie: It's not that, exactly. Lucius Malfoy's a jerk in his private life and works for Voldemort. There's not really many pleasant DEs that we've met (none that I can think of). But the issue is one having to be linked to the others. As Sirius says, the world isn't made up of good guys and DEs. Umbridge wasn't a DE, and she's even worse than Snape. Filch isn't a DE. All DEs may be unpleasant people, but not all unpleasant people are DEs. Regulus actually was a DE, but may turn out to be the first person to have tried to do what Harry's trying to do to destroy Voldemort. Alla:> > It may not be so, but I think that it is way too early to say so > with certainty. Magpie: Not with certainty, no. I think JKR's working hard to avoid that! Alla: > > Sure, Fake Moody treated Malfoy badly and he is Voldemort servant, > but Lupin treats everybody nicely and he is not Voldemort servant ( > unless you are Pippin of course ;)) Magpie: Hee! Yes, true. But that's the thing, one's demeanor and how one treats Harry in particular doesn't necessarily tell you how loyal they are to Voldemort. She does, as you say, deal with everyone individually, which is why although Snape *could* be a DE, the fact that he's mean to Harry isn't obvious evidence of it that everyone else has ignored. Quirrel states this outright in PS: he hated you, but he never wanted you dead. Lucius tells his son to hide his dislike of Harry. (His son doesn't or can't, yet of the two Lucius seems clearly the crueler of the two.) Crouch doesn't seem to have any dislike of Harry as a person, and he's fanatically loyal to LV. > Magpie: >> Harry spent the whole first book thinking Snape is trying to steal > the Stone >> because of Snape's behavior and he wasn't right. He made > assumptions based >> on Quirrel's demeanor vs. Snape's (with Snape's behavior towards > Harry as a >> starting point). Dumbledore knew that Snape gave the Prophecy to > Voldemort >> back then--and Snape still wasn't trying to steal the Stone. > > Alla: > > The possibility is that JKR showed to us that Harry was seemingly > wrong, wrong, wrong about Snape for six books and oooops, he really > was not. :) Magpie: Well, that's where we are right now. Everyone now thinks Snape is a bad guy, just as Harry thought. It didn't seem like it came across as much of a turnaround in the story, maybe because Harry's passing doubts about Snape's loyalties were usually just part of Snape's being a jerk. It doesn't even change all those times in the past where Harry thought Snape was out to get him and was wrong, because Snape's being LV's man now doesn't make him the one who went after the Stone, or the one who put Harry's name in the Goblet, or the one who opened the Chamber of Secrets, or the one helping Peter/Sirius Black or the one who got Sirius killed or the one who got the DEs into the castle. Alla: > And Snape may have been doing exactly what he tells Bella and > Narcissa in Spinner end, no? Magpie: That's a possibility--though Harry himself has never put together that sort of plan for Snape or asked the questions Snape's answering in that scene. (And of course the one thing Snape doesn't answer in that scene is why he alerted the Order to go to the Ministry, which is what defeated the DEs.Bella knows the Order showed up, but doesn't accuse Snape of calling them iirc.) >>> Magpie: >> But Harry isn't seeing things others are not. Everyone sees how > Snape treats >> Harry, including Dumbledore. Only Dumbledore has more information > and has a >> view of Snape that incorportates him being on DD's side and being > a jerk to >> Harry at the same time. Harry doesn't seem to have put quite as > much >> reasoning into his own view of Snape being guilty. He's never > approached the >> problem strictly rationally, and considers the idea of > Dumbledore's version >> to be impossible based on his own limited interactions with Snape > when those >> interactions don't cover Snape as a whole person. > > Alla: > > There is information missing for sure, but we do not know that > Harry's interactions with Snape do not cover Snape as whole person. > I remember the argument being made in the past that Snape does not > spend nearly as much time thinking about Harry when Harry is not in > front of him, as Harry thinks about Snape. > > I think now we had been given a possibility that Snape may have been > doing just that - thinking about James and Harry if not all the > time, but a lot of time. > > I think it is completely possible that all that it there to be would > turn out about Snape's grudge and everything went from there. IMO of > course. Magpie: Oh, I think Harry is completely right about some of the aspects of Snape that he does see. Most of what we do see of Snape I take at face value. I don't agree that Snape doesn't really spend much time thinking about Harry or hating James--I think he does and that it's a guiding force of his life. The twist isn't that Snape doesn't really hate Harry because he does hate Harry. It's what Snape's hatred of Harry makes him want otherwise that's hidden. >>> Magpie: >> I suspect she's going for both by having Harry not trust Snape > based on >> Dumbledore's word, but later coming to agree with him through his > own >> experience. > > Alla: > > Possibly, or it would be Harry seeing who Snape is and still > learning Dumbledore's lesson of second chances, without closing his > eyes to who Snape is, without believing his spinning tales, just > seeing his reasons for doing things and still forgiving it. Magpie: I admit I have a harder time imagining Harry getting to that place. I mean, he's at that place now in terms of feeling he's been proven right about Snape and he doesn't seem to blame Dumbledore for giving him a second chance because he's protective of Dumbledore's memory. He's primed to look at that situation as Dumbledore being just the best guy in the world and Snape taking advantage of him. Snape's the guy he sees as the bad guy here, not Dumbledore, who's dead and whose memory must be spoken of with the greatest respect. (He's furious when Dumbledore criticizes Sirius' actions and suggests they in any way contributed to his own death in OotP.) Thinking it was nice of Dumbledore to give Snape a second chance wouldn't really lead Harry to think it was the best thing to do. > Magpie: >> Not trusting people based on what others say is fine--but it's not > a lesson >> Harry can learn because he's never done it. It's more like > everyone else >> having to learn they should trust Harry's instincts over > Dumbledore's. But >> if Snape's nastiness in class and his prior bad acts are evidence > that >> anyone should have seen to know that Snape couldn't be DDM, that's > a rather >> closed-minded view of human nature, and one that's not really true > in >> reality--or in the books. > > Alla: > > Sorry, but I disagree. How is it closed minded? There are evil > people in the world, there are people who do not change, there are > people who change, there are people who really really try to change > but fail eventually ( maybe Snape is one of them) Magpie: Like I said earlier, it's not that it's closed-minded to accept the fact that there are people in the world who are evil and who do not change, or try to change and fail. (Tom Riddle at least is clearly in the first category.) What's closed-minded is seeing someone's having done wrong in the past as *evidence* that they are wrong now, because those things just don't always go together. It's understandable to consider them (if one person used to be a thief, and something gets stolen, that person's going to be under suspicion because they were a thief), but it's not any kind of proof that they have to have been the thief now. It's also wrong-headed to consider someone being unpleasant to you personally as evidence that they must hold certain beliefs that are different from yours, because things just don't always work that way. Snape could certainly still be LV's man, but his dislike of Harry Potter doesn't have to lead to that. It can be an independent part of his personality. Alla: > If Snape is an evil git or just the one who honestly wanted to go > back to light, but some sort of temptation stopped him from it, how > is it close minded if Harry sees it? Magpie: It wouldn't be closed minded of Harry to see it, but Harry hasn't seen it-at least not yet. If that's what happened to Snape then Harry didn't see it at all, he just happened to wind up on the same side that Harry thought he was on all along. It's like if you think of a Snape fan who interprets all his actions as being secretly nice. If Snape turned out to be DDM, that person might be correct in that they "saw" that he was on Dumbledore's side, but they wouldn't have necessarily have "seen" the way Snape really was, or what he was going through. It would be more like they loved Snape, so always wanted him to be in the right, and in this case he was. Same with Harry in that case. Harry would be learning that he was wrong about Snape if later he learned that Snape did *try* to change, but it doesn't seem to fit the way Rowling usually writes, imo, because it's got Snape going through changes we've no way of seeing and don't seem to depend on the story we've read, that we just hear about in retrospect even though they happened during the story (as opposed to hearing what Snape went through before we met him that made him who he always was to us). You'd have to hear, "Snape was on DD's side up until OotP, when he flip-flopped offscreen. It seems like it would wind up being a cautionary tale for the good guys, somehow linking them to Snape's fall. >> Magpie: >> I think she'd have to explain how Dumbledore was tricked--the DEs > were >> right, apparently, and he's just a sucker for a sob story (which > doesn't >> seem IC based on what I've seen of DD). > > > Alla: > > Why though? I could never understand that. Giving people second > chances is good, I could never never consider it to be DD mistake. > Whether he was fooled or not, it is great that he believes in second > chances. It is the fault of the fool who does not appreciate being > given second chance IMO. I would not blame DD one yota for that, if > Snape fooled him. I would sympathise with him even more. Magpie: Do you mean why do I think it's OOC for DD to fall for a sob story? It's not because I think it would be OOC for Dumbledore to be wrong-he's been wrong before. It's that I think DD is also shown to be a shrewd judge of character, one who doesn't judge poeple based on what they say about themselves. So if Dumbledore has been wrong about Snape, I think he will have been wrong the way he's been about people in the past. He won't have been suckered in by what sounds like a transparent act. (It's also hard for me to imagine Snape being a great enough actor to pull that feat off. I think he's a successful spy on the DEs because it goes more naturally with his personality. Most people in these stories are bad actors, perhaps so that young readers can see what's going on clearly when they read in retrospect. I remember for years people complained that the rare times people wrote about Peter they made him too much like the rat he turned out to be...and then JKR wrote him the same way in the Pensieve.) > Magpie: > It's only with the Slytherins there's an issue of Harry disliking > the person >> intensely, and being disliked in return, and so seeing them as the > most >> likely suspects in crimes that sometimes have nothing to do with > them. > > Alla: > > Sometimes, yes and sometimes the crimes do connected with them :) Magpie: Yes--but when the crimes do connect to them that's clear through things other than their being a general jerk. Even with Malfoy, for instance, Harry's suspicion of him included some empathy and understanding of his individual nature. It wasn't just that he had to be the culprit because he's Malfoy. I don't think it's a coincidence that the one time Harry is right about Malfoy it's the book where he's understanding Malfoy's motivations personally. Cat McNulty: My contention is that it was his embarrassed outburst, that was meant to get back at James, actually insulted Lily (someone that he liked/cared about). Her hurt verbal reaction actually closed the door to any future friendship between Snape and Lily. That IMO was the worst part of the memory for Snape ... the loss of Lily as a friend and her using the name Snivellus. Magpie: Originally I thought getting pantsed is enough to make it Snape's Worst Memory--which is good because it's all we've got to go on in OotP. I still think it wodl be, but since HBP I have started to think along the same lines, that Lily's role in the scene makes it all far worse. I do we could be seeing the death of a Snape/Lily friendship in that scene when he calls her a Mudblood. Though I wouldn't say his "Mudblood" comment was meant for James and accidentally hurt Lily. I think it was chosen to hurt Lily because her intervention had made him feel furious at her in that moment (I think due to the combination of her having to save him and the incident obviously being part of a mating game between her and James). -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 27 19:07:41 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:07:41 -0000 Subject: Second hand trust in Snape WAS: Would Harry forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164204 > Alla: > > I do not recall anyone of the Order saying that they trusted Snape > because of his wonderful deeds. I only recall "because DD trusted > him" theme. Pippin: Lupin "But I do not forget that during the year I taught at Hogwarts, Severus made the Wolfsbane Potion for me every month, made it perfectly, so that I did not have to suffer as I usually do at full moon...He kept me healthy. I must be grateful." I can hardly imagine that Lupin would have chosen to drink the potion, and thought he should be grateful for it, if he thought the only thing keeping Snape from poisoning him was fear of Dumbledore. LOL! > > Alla: > > LOLOLOL. Harry's trust in Snape should not be second hand? That is > after he learns of Snape involvement in Prophecy and sees Snape > delivering AK at Dumbledore? > > I agree, Harry's trust in Snape should not second hand, after the > end of HBP it should be non - existant Pippin: Of course I am talking about before the tower. And yet...you wonder that Dumbledore should not have given Sirius the benefit of the doubt, and come to his defense even when there was ample evidence that Sirius had betrayed the Potters and the testimony of many witnesses that he had murdered not one but thirteen people? Yes, Harry has been hoodwinked by Snape, the question is, were he and the rest of the order hoodwinked by DE!Snape for six years, or was it just once, by DDM!Snape, on the tower. Which is more plausible? Pippin noticing that Lupin did indeed thank Severus very much for the potion From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 19:24:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:24:21 -0000 Subject: Second hand trust in Snape WAS: Would Harry forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164205 > Pippin: > Lupin "But I do not forget that during the year I taught at Hogwarts, > Severus made the Wolfsbane Potion for me every month, made it > perfectly, so that I did not have to suffer as I usually do at full > moon...He kept me healthy. I must be grateful." > > I can hardly imagine that Lupin would have chosen to drink the > potion, and thought he should be grateful for it, if he thought > the only thing keeping Snape from poisoning him was fear of > Dumbledore. LOL! Alla: Why so? I absolutely can imagine that possibility , only I would formulate it that the only reason Snape would agree to do that for Lupin would be per DD insistence. > > > > Alla: > > > > LOLOLOL. Harry's trust in Snape should not be second hand? That is > > after he learns of Snape involvement in Prophecy and sees Snape > > delivering AK at Dumbledore? > > > > I agree, Harry's trust in Snape should not second hand, after the > > end of HBP it should be non - existant > > Pippin: > Of course I am talking about before the tower. > > And yet...you wonder that Dumbledore should not have > given Sirius the benefit of the doubt, and come to his defense > even when there was ample evidence that Sirius had betrayed the > Potters and the testimony of many witnesses that he had murdered > not one but thirteen people? > > Yes, Harry has been hoodwinked by Snape, the question is, were > he and the rest of the order hoodwinked by DE!Snape for six > years, or was it just once, by DDM!Snape, on the tower. > Which is more plausible? Alla: Do I even have to answer the **crucial** difference that I see between Dumbledore and Sirius' situation and Harry and Snape, because that is too easy? :) Okay, I will. If we will learn that Dumbledore seen with his eyes, personally how Sirius killed the muggles and betrayed the Potters, I would certainly ease up on him, I promise. And conversely, if Harry was not personally present at the Tower, and somebody else would have told him that Snape killed Dumbledore, I would have been a bit harder on him to double check and investigate for himself. And which is more plausible? You know what I think :) JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 19:46:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 19:46:26 -0000 Subject: Questions about Apparition (Was: Why Sirius did not apparate into GH?) In-Reply-To: <45BB50EF.000001.00460@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164206 Dana wrote: > > I have seen in the archives (yes, yet again) that many wondered why Sirius used an enchanted motorcycle to go to GH instead of apparating or even why he did not use this in POA. I think the answer is rather simple. Apparations are monitored by the MOM and in VWI it was believed that LV had spies in the MOM, so it would not have been wise to use this way of transportation to visit James and Lily even if the location it self was protected by the Charm, it would still give a lot away about the location itself. Of course this is why he could not use it in POA they would have tracked him down. When Sirius went to see the Potters after not finding Peter at his hiding location, he did not know anything had happened to them so it would still be stupid to just apparate to the location because if there were okay than he would have Jeopardized the safety of everyone visiting the Potters not just theirs, only after he saw what happened did he not need it anymore. Just my simplistic theory of course. Carol responds: *Is* Apparition/Apparation monitored by the MoM? If so, why doesn't Rufus Scrimgeour know where Dumbledore went on the day of his death? As for Sirius Black at GH, I think that he just preferred the motorcycle (which he "loved," according to Hagrid) and didn't think about Apparating to the Potters. It was his usual mode of transportation just as a 1991 Ford Taurus is mine.(And, of course, JKR needed the flying motorcycle for the plot and for the humorous effect of having Hagrid riding it.) Of course, if Apparition *is* monitored, flying on Buckbeak after the events in the Shrieking Shack would have been safer for Black than Apparating, but wouldn't the MoM have been able to trace his movements *before* that and know before Dumbledore did that he was in Hogsmeade (or had somehow gotten past the Dementors a second time and was on the Hogwarts grounds, which DD didn't know until he slashed the Fat Lady's painting on Halloween)? The Dementors were guarding the entrances and searching the Hogwarts Express weeks (nearly two months?) before Harry's "Grim" showed up at the Quidditch game, and Hermione reports at some point that Black has been sighted (I forget when and where because, unfortunately, the uncanonical film version is more vivid in my mind than the book version). However, *if* Apparition can be monitored, the MoM would know not only where Dumbledore went on the day of his death but that Narcissa and Bellatrix had Apparated to someplace near Spinner's End (not the street itself, but the town) around the second week of July (which would make Spinner's End an unsafe hideout for Snape if it isn't already). Might that be the reason that Narcissa, a DE's wife visiting a supposed DE, didn't Apparate directly to the house itself, not because she was protecting Snape's whereabouts but because she didn't want the MoM to know where *she* was going? (Surely, she didn't avoid landing on his doorstep out of courtesy like Dumbledore's in not Apparating directly to Slughorn's "borrowed" Muggle home. And I don't see how she could not know the exact address since she ended up there eventually. Possibly, Snape had anti-Apparition spells on the house that forced her to land half a mile or so away?) And yet, if an Apparator's movements could be traced by the MoM, why would Bellatrix, a wanted fugitive, dare to follow Narcissa? (Surely, she'd care more about staying out of Azkaban than keeping her sister from visiting Snape?) Maybe the MoM merely knows that *someone* is Apparating, just as they know that *someone* performed a Hover Charm at the Dursleys in CoS and that *someone* cast a Patronus in a Muggle neighborhood in OoP. That makes more sense to me than having the MoM know who Apparated where. Fugitives like Bellatrix (and now Snape) would be easy to catch if that were the case, and the WW would be a virtual police state, with everyone's movements monitored, rather than the corrupt and hopelessly inept bureaucracy it appears to be. And while we're exploring this topic (Apparition/-ation), how did Bellatrix, who clearly didn't know where Snape lived ("He lives *here,* in the Muggle dunghill?"), follow Narcissa? If the Destination (one of the three D's) can be a *person* (Narcissa, in Bellatrix's case), why can't the Aurors just locate fugitive DEs and Voldemort himself by mentally naming the person as their destination? (Could that be the means that the DEs used to find Voldemort in GoF, or were they already familiar with this Muggle father's burial place, in which case, they'd know that LV was a Half-Blood?) If, like owls, a witch or wizard can find a person without knowing his location by naming the person as their destination ("Padfoot is Sirius, Hedwig. Find him, okay?"), the Aurors' job would be all too easy, and it wouldn't have taken Moody six months to track down Karkaroff during VW1. (And how did the DEs, who *don't* monitor Apparition, track him down to kill him, anyway?) So, do plot needs override consistency and logic not only for young Sirius Black and his flying motorcycle but for Apparition in general, or am I the only one who's confused? Carol, pretty sure after thinking about it that the Aurors can't track a person down by monitoring his Apparition but still having more questions than answers on Apparition in general From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 20:20:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:20:02 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? What makes it Snape's Worst Memory? In-Reply-To: <011501c74247$282a98e0$a198400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164207 > Magpie: > Ah, the freedom of those untainted by fandom!:-) Alla: It is so fun sometimes :) But in the interest of full disclosure my friend also thinks that Dumbledore may have ordered Snape to kill him or at least something else will be uncovered about Tower. My friend despises Snape, but finds Tower to be suspicious. The thing why I can accept my friend's view is because he really does not consider DD to be moral compass of Potterverse, so that DD could pull stunt like that. Anyways, back to us. Magpie: > But I don't disagree with the fact that just because people can change > doesn't mean they all do, and I think there's plenty of Slytherins (or DEs > from other houses) that could have been well on their way at 11. > So I don't think Snape's having not changed would be a problem in itself. I > don't think it's bad of Harry to say, "But what if he hasn't changed?" Alla: Cool, agreed so far. Magpie: > I'm talking about a slightly different issue about Snape's being wrong in > the past is *evidence* that he's LV's man now, and that Dumbledore must be > ignoring this obvious piece of evidence while Harry is not. That's the thing > that's too negative. . Alla: Okay, please, please explain that to me, because I do not understand. You agree that some people are just evil, but if Snape did not change, it is too negative? How is it too negative? Magpie: But I think > that's why Dumbledore's hinted there's more to it--you have to understand > Snape's whole situation and what's important to him, and Harry doesn't > really get all that yet. He doesn't have the information to understand > Dumbledore's view. Alla: You mean additional reason to trust Snape? Sure, that is possibility and as I said yes, information is missing, probably, but what if it does not, what if Snape deepest remorse was all that there was? > > Magpie: > It's not that, exactly. Lucius Malfoy's a jerk in his private life and works > for Voldemort. There are not really many pleasant DEs that we've met (none > that I can think of). But the issue is one having to be linked to the > others. As Sirius says, the world isn't made up of good guys and DEs. > Umbridge wasn't a DE, and she's even worse than Snape. Filch isn't a DE. All > DEs may be unpleasant people, but not all unpleasant people are DEs. > Regulus actually was a DE, but may turn out to be the first person to have > tried to do what Harry's trying to do to destroy Voldemort. Alla: Oh, man. I do not know what to snip here. Yes, I agree with everything you wrote in this paragraph, with absolutely everything. My problem is what does it have to do with Snape? Why cannot Snape NOT change if some of these people different? Did JKR specifically say that Snape just has to change? As you said there are many unpleasant people who are DE in the books and plenty of people who are unpleasant but not DE, so I guess my question is who says that Snape necessarily belongs in second category? Does it make sense? > Magpie: > It's also wrong-headed to consider someone being unpleasant to you > personally as evidence that they must hold certain beliefs that are > different from yours, because things just don't always work that way. Snape > could certainly still be LV's man, but his dislike of Harry Potter doesn't > have to lead to that. It can be an independent part of his personality. Alla: Mmmmm, see I keep saying yes, to a lot of what you wrote and am loosing the gust of our disagreement again. : I think Harry had seen or learned about things that Snape did that are not personal, although they are mixed with personal, I guess and that may point to Snape working for LV. How is it wrong to think that person who killed DD ( the most significant example) is working for Voldemort? It happened outside of the classroom after all. There are also mixed reasons ? like knowing Snape hatred of his father and that Voldemort attacked his parents, surely it can be a sign that Snape is Voldemort man? Does that make sense to you? Snape disliking Harry Potter can absolutely be an independent part of his personality, but the fact that Harry is on Voldemort most wanted list and Snape dislikes him as well, can point to something here IMO. Like for example if say Hanna Abott said Professor Snape dislikes me and he is Voldemort's man, then yes, there would have been a huge disconnect for me between two parts of this sentence. But with Harry it is a different story, solely because Harry and LV fates are so connected ( and thanks to Snape too, aren't that ironic?) > Magpie: > Do you mean why do I think it's OOC for DD to fall for a sob story? It's not > because I think it would be OOC for Dumbledore to be wrong-he's been wrong > before. It's that I think DD is also shown to be a shrewd judge of > character, one who doesn't judge people based on what they say about > themselves. So if Dumbledore has been wrong about Snape, I think he will > have been wrong the way he's been about people in the past. He won't have > been suckered in by what sounds like a transparent act. (It's also hard for > me to imagine Snape being a great enough actor to pull that feat off. I > think he's a successful spy on the DEs because it goes more naturally with > his personality. Most people in these stories are bad actors, perhaps so > that young readers can see what's going on clearly when they read in > retrospect. I remember for years people complained that the rare times > people wrote about Peter they made him too much like the rat he turned out > to be...and then JKR wrote him the same way in the Pensieve.) > Alla: No, I was asking why you would think that in this instance JKR would have to explain how Dumbledore was tricked. It read to me as if it would have been DD fault, you know? And I would never consider it to be DD fault. Oh, I want to ask you that question for few days, but could not find a posy where you said that DD is good at understanding people, so thank you for mentioning it here. Could you give me an examples of where DD was been a shrewd judge of character, him being extremely good at reading people, etc. Now, I will give you that on the Tower he may have understood Draco and I don't think that is a given either, just the path in that direction is open. But besides that, I remember plenty of examples where DD understanding of people really sucked IMO. Let's see he admits that he forgot how youth feels in OOP as to Harry and Sirius, he hoped that Dursleys would treat Harry as their son, etc. Thanks, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 20:33:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:33:40 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: <00cc01c7422e$6cbccd70$a198400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164208 Carol earlier: > > > I'll be very surprised if Harry, who has been wrong so often, turns out to be wiser than Dumbledore from the age of eleven, and to have learned nothing about judging people and things based on more than appearance in seven books. > > Alla: > > Harry clearly learns to not judge people by appearance IMO, it is just a possibility to me that he may learn that lesson not on the example of Snape. > > He does not judge Luna by her appearances anymore in HBP. Despite all appearances he listens to Sirius in PoA. > > So, I see plenty of possibilities for Harry to learn that lesson, and if just so happens that Snape's appearances are what they are, oh well. > > Magpie: > I think Carol chose a slightly off word in that post when she said "appearance." Harry doesn't judge by appearance with Snape but by how Snape treats him and feels about him. That's not an issue with Luna. She likes Harry throughout OotP. There's no moment where Harry realizes he's been *wrong* about Luna or misjudged her or accused her unfairly--she's just as odd as she's always seemed. With Sirius Harry never judges him as a person because he doesn't know him. He's just believes the wrong story, but when Sirius shows up and explains himself Harry understand the right version. The one place Harry's had this kind of lesson before is in GoF with Fake!Moody where he did seem primarily swayed by Moody's liking and disliking the right people. But Harry wasn't personally invested in Fake!Moody the way he is with Snape. He didn't do half as much work trying to make Fake!Moody fit his view of him as he does with Snape. > > It's only with the Slytherins there's an issue of Harry disliking the person intensely, and being disliked in return, and so seeing them as the most likely suspects in crimes that sometimes have nothing to do with them. Carol responds: How about preconceptions, then? Harry starts out prejudging the Slytherins thanks to Hagrid and Draco, to the point that he thinks "Not Slytherin! Not Slytherin!" when the Sorting Hat is placed on his head, and he's told that Snape favors the Slytherins (which seems to be borne out by Snape's singling him out to ask the Bezoar question, etc.). So when he finds out that someone is out to steal whatever is hidden in the third-floor corridor, his natural suspect is Snape, and he interprets the "evidence" (Snape's rushing off to the corridor on the night the Troll appears, the bite on Snape's leg, the overheard conversations with Quirrell, one of which is actually with Voldemort) to fit his preconceived view of Snape, which is reinforced by Snape's behavior in the classroom, his always seeming to follow Harry around at night. He assumes that the pain in his scar is caused by Snape's looking at him (he should have realized that it wasn't when Snape first looked deeply into his eyes in Potions class) and (along with Ron and Hermione) that it's Snape who's hexing his broom in the Quidditch match. Even though he finds out that it's Quirrell (whom he certainly does judge based on appearances) who tried to kill him and that Snape is saving his life (Hermione or no Hermione, he'd have fallen from his broom if it weren't for Snape's countercurse), he holds onto his view that Snape is evil. The personality conflict and misunderstanding escalates throughout the books, so that by the time Sirius Black is killed, he's ready to blame Snape for that death rather than accepting the truth, that he and his friends are alive because Snape sent the Order to the MoM and that Black is dead because Kreacher tricked both him and Harry and because Bellatrix's spell sent him through the Veil. (It's more complicated than that, but even Harry knows that Black didn't die because Snape taunted him about being a coward.) Anyway, I do think that Harry judges people based on appearances (Neville, Luna, Quirrell, Fake!Moody and possibly Cho being the most prominent examples), and it's only their subsequent behavior that has caused him to (unconsciously) change his views. (I don't include Sirius Black here since Black's behavior really was that of a man who murdered someone and what changed Harry's view is the realization that Black wanted to murder the traitor Pettigrew, not him. Still, I suppose that qualifies as judging by appearances.) However, his attitude toward Snape is more complex. No matter how many times Snape saves or tries to save his life, no matter how carefully Snape explains what Occlumency is and why he needs to learn it (Snape can't tell him about the Prophecy orb, but he tells him everything else), no matter who the real villain of each book turns out to be, Harry's preconceptions about Snape are reinforced by appearances (Snape's favoritism of the Slytherins and his obvious dislike of Harry and Harry's father must mean, in Harry's view, that Snape is on Voldemort's side). So, whether the word I'm looking for is "appearances" or "preconceptions" or something else, Harry prejudges Snape as evil in SS/PS and that assumption is reinforced throughout the books by his increasing anger at and eventual hatred of Snape, and Dumbledore's " " trust in Snape merely makes Harry more determined to hate him. Trelawney's revelation that young Snape was the eavesdropper and the murder of Dumbledore make Harry certain that he was right. And yet, all along, he's been refusing to see and accept the times that Snape has helped or tried to help him--saving his life in SS/PS, conjuring stretchers in PoA, sending the Order to the MoM in OoP. Nor does he see Snape's Healing powers in HBP. All he sees is Snape *appearing* to help Draco with the "job" that Voldemort has assigned him--which fits nicely with Harry's heavily reinforced preconception that Snape, head of Slytherin House and (ostensibly) interested in the Dark Arts, not to mention an unpleasant person with an intimidating manner, must be evil. Carol, hoping that her point is clearer this time around and still sure that Harry is myopic figuratively as well as literally From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jan 27 21:08:46 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:08:46 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: <00cc01c7422e$6cbccd70$a198400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164209 > Magpie: > I don't.:-) Because in HP, Harry wouldn't be wiser than Dumbledore. > He's based his belief that Snape is working for Voldemort not on > wisdom but on anger. Understandable anger, but anger that makes him > *unwise.* It makes him look for evidence that supports what he > wants to be true, and it doesn't come from his heart or the still > portion of his mind, but his angry desirefor Snape to be wholly > evil. (And also on his anger at things Snape has done, like kill > Dumbledore right in front of him--everybody believes Snape's evil > after that.) > Alla: > Harry clearly learns to not judge people by appearance IMO, it is > just a possibility to me that he may learn that lesson not on the > example of Snape. > Magpie: > Harry doesn't judge by appearance with Snape but by how Snape > treats him and feels about him. The one place Harry's had this kind > of lesson before is in GoF with Fake!Moody where he did seem > primarily swayed by Moody's liking and disliking the right people. > But Harry wasn't personally invested in Fake!Moody the way he is > with Snape. He didn't do half as much work trying to make Fake! > Moody fit his view of him as he does with Snape. > It's only with the Slytherins there's an issue of Harry disliking > the person intensely, and being disliked in return, and so seeing > them as the most likely suspects in crimes that sometimes have > nothing to do with them. Jen: This seems like a good place to insert a question on my mind during the discussion. I don't really understand the emphasis on Harry being right or wrong about Snape and how that will end up being a huge lesson Harry needs to learn. Why are people certain JKR will emphasize this aspect so much? I understand the loyalty issue needs to be fully revealed, and see why Harry has to understand how destructive his hatred and resentment toward Snape are, that his feelings are undermining what should be the more important issue of defeating Voldemort. The theme I see more vividly is Harry coming to terms with the gray area of life rather than being completely right or wrong about Snape, Draco or Slytherins in general. The most important aspect of realizing Snape is loyal would not be for Harry to discover his vision of the world is skewed and he can't trust his judgement so much as realizing, like Dumbledore did, that you can ally yourself with people whom you don't necessarily like or have anything in common with except a specific goal. That's how I read Harry's shifting perception about Draco after the bathroom scene and on the tower, that Draco was not exactly the person Harry perceived him to be, but Draco does believe in pureblood elitism to an extent and Draco's and Harry's values aren't compatible even if Draco has many good traits and chose to be different from his father (huge choice for Draco). OOTP really hits this theme hard, summed up by Sirius' "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters" and then in HBP the theme was continued with the introduction of Slughorn and the shifting with Draco. Harry is learning what most kids do when they transition from the black/white world of childhood to the gray area of adulthood, that choices are not so clear and the rules for making choices get murkier and murkier as a person forms a moral system to call on when faced with ethical dilemmas. Maybe I'm misreading what people expect to happen in DH, but I really expect the biggest growth for Harry will be integrating all the lessons Dumbledore has emphasized over the years and those lessons Harry has learned himself. One of these 'aha' moments will likely include Snape, but the big picture will include many important realizations on the continuum of good/evil and right/wrong. In that respect, Harry being wrong shouldn't be front and center to resolving the Snape conflict because it would be a regression of all the hard work JKR has put into growing Harry into a moral adult who needs to rely on his own instincts and judgments for his decision-making. Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 21:22:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:22:02 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164210 Alla wrote: > How is it relevant to Snape not changing? Well, just that as in case > of Slytherin house, it is just possible that Snape has not changed > **yet**, but that he may change at the end, to commit one redemptive > act, but not because that he was DD!M all along, but because he > would see Harry in new light. OR he may not change indeed because > that is who he is. Carol responds: I thought the discussion wasn't about Snape changing but about Harry seeing who he really is and has been all along, not a nice person (does *anyone* think that?) but loyal to Dumbledore and genuinely remorseful. It isn't necessary to the point I've been trying to make for Snape to change, only for Harry to see him clearly, feel compassion for him, and forgive him. (As for Magpie, I *think* she's referring to young Snape's change of heart and loyalties, which happened before Godric's Hollow.) > Alla: > > I do not see that author specifically works against of the evidence > that someone who treats you like dirt in classroom is working for > Voldemort. > > It may not be so, but I think that it is way too early to say so > with certainty. > > Sure, Fake Moody treated Malfoy badly and he is Voldemort servant, > but Lupin treats everybody nicely and he is not Voldemort servant ( > unless you are Pippin of course ;)) > > I just do not see the trend, I think she deals with every case > individually and in case of Snape I sure can see the possibility > that he was treating Harry badly AND Voldemort's servant. Carol: What about Umbridge, who treats Harry much worse than Snape does but overprotects the other students by refusing to let them learn DADA? Just as Fake!Moody cultivates a gruff friendliness toward Harry, in keeping with the real Mad-eye Moody's personality and to conceal his true loyalties, Umbridge pretends to be sweet, even to the point of wearing pink Alice bands, speaking in a little-girl voice, and decorating her walls with gamboling kittens? Despite appearances, she's sadistic and despotic, as evil in her way as the Voldie fanatics Barty Jr. and Bellatrix Lestrange, and yet she's not a Voldie supporter. Snape, in contrast, is sarcastic toward Harry, never cultivates the appearance of kindness or friendliness (at least, not when Harry is watching), but never physically abuses him. Umbridge tries to Crucio Harry; snape saves him from a Crucio. Umbridge insists that Voldemort is not back and the students are in no danger from him; Snape reveals his Dark Mark to Umbridge's boss, Fudge, in a vain attempt to prove to him that Voldemort is back. As Sirius Black says, and Umbridge demonstrates, "The world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters," Harry. And I think that Snape is the best illustration in the books of that point. > Alla: > > And Snape may have been doing exactly what he tells Bella and > Narcissa in Spinner end, no? > Carol: Funny how he doesn't tell them that he sent the Order to the MoM and saved Dumbledore from the ring Horcrux. He doesn't even tell them the nature of DD's injury and tells them the same story that DD tells everyone (or lets everyone assume), that his reflexes have slowed. Nope, I don't think that Snape is telling the truth--certainly not the whole truth--in Spinner's End. He certainly has not remained at Hogwarts as a way of staying out of Azkaban; the charges against him have been dropped. (He lets Bella and Narcissa think that he used the same defense as the DEs who were found innocent by reason of Imperius, when, in fact, he was never even tried. The charges were dropped before the trial when Dumbledore revealed to Crouch Sr. that Snape was spying for him "at great personal risk.") Snape is concealing a great deal from Bella and Narcissa. I don't think we can take him completely at his word when he explains his reasons for thwarting Quirrell or not killing Harry. Even if it were true in the first place (and I've shown why it isn't), the reason he gives Bella for not killing Harry no longer applies at the end of HBP, where he gives a different reason why the DEs should not Crucio Harry, or by implication kill him). Why not just tell Bella that Harry is for the Dark Lord if that's his real reason? And if it isn't, why not just kill Harry himself now that DD is dead? Carol, noting that we've strayed a bit from the subject line and are back on Snape rather than Harry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 21:36:43 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:36:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin's loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164211 Jenni from Alabama wrote: > On a side note, I've been wondering why Lupin is so worried about Tonks and he being in a relationship? I'm glad he changed his mind -whether on his own or persuaded by Tonks. The reason why I wonder why he's worried is because Tonks is a Metamorphmagus. During the times that Lupin transforms into a werewolf, she could change into a dog or a wolf and remain safe with him. Has anyone else has thought about this? Carol responds: As I understand it, a Metamorphmagus can change her (or his) appearance, for example, her hair color or the shape of her nose, and she has twice transformed herself into an older woman, but there's no evidence that she can turn herself into an animal. According to Tonks, being a Metamorphmagus is an ability you're born with (though no doubt, like most innate abilities, it can be improved with practice) whereas becoming an Animagus is an acquired ability, learned through study and practice. James Potter seems to have had a talent for Transfiguration, and maybe the others did, too (Peter Pettigrew isn't as talentless as everyone seems to assume), but they weren't born with that ability. They had to study and practice for something like three years, presumably at the expense of their homework in subjects other than Transfiguration, to become (illegal) Animagi. So while the Marauders' ability to transform into animals protected them from werewolf!Remus, I don't think that Tonks's transformations would protect her at all. She'd still be human. Carol, thinking that Lupin's best hope, short of more reasonable werewolf legislation, is to forgive and befriend the man who brewed the wolfbane potion for him in PoA From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 21:58:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:58:02 -0000 Subject: Second hand trust in Snape WAS: Would Harry forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164212 Alla wrote: > I will be the first one to smack Harry, if he is given strong > evidence in book 7 that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore and chooses to > disregard them. I said many times I would immensely dislike if it > will turn out that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him, but I would > surely want Harry to accept it as a man, and move on with his life. > ( Hopefully he will see such Dumbledore for he is, but for that I am > certainly NOT holding my breath) Carol responds: If Dumbledore would have died in any case, either from the poison or the DEs, and having Snape kill him (and send his body over the battlements) was the only way to protect Harry and Draco, get the DEs out of Hogwarts, and allow Snape to infiltrate the DEs and somehow undermine Voldemort, how does that make Dumbledore despicable? Granted, he was asking Snape to split his soul, but it was Snape's choice. Better Snape, an adult, than Draco, a not-quite-seventeen-year-old boy whom no one seems to regard as an adult. And if Snape's action saved not only Draco but Harry, the hope of the wizarding world, how is that despicable? It seems to me that not only Dumbledore, who asked to be murdered to prevent an even worse outcome, victory for Voldemort, but Snape, who chose to sacrifice his career, his freedom, and perhaps his soul, chose to do what was right rather than what was easy. Dumbledore must have spoken to Snape about this possibility, about what might happen if they could not prevent the UV from being activated, and about why it could be for the best for Snape to choose to keep rather than break the UV. If I'm right, if Dumbledore acted for the good of the WW in begging Snape to keep his vow rather than breaking it and dying with him, I see that as a brave and noble action. He saved Snape's life, and in doing so, enabled Snape to save Draco and get the DEs off the tower before they attacked Harry. If any other DE had killed Dumbledore, or if he had dropped dead from the poison, Snape would have been forced to reveal his loyalties or die from the vow, Fenrir Greyback would have had Dumbledore for "afters," Draco would have been killed by Voldemort for failing to kill DD, Harry would have come out from the Invisibility Cloak and been killed by the DEs, and the DEs would have run through Hogwarts, killing and destroying at will (as the broken Gryffindor hourglass perhaps signifies). Carol, thinking that DD's begging Snape not to kill him just to save Snape's soul would have been almost as cowardly and despicable as begging for his own life because he was afraid to die From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Jan 27 22:52:42 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:52:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Second hand trust in Snape WAS: Would Harry forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164213 Carol: If I'm right, if Dumbledore acted for the good of the WW in begging Snape to keep his vow rather than breaking it and dying with him, I see that as a brave and noble action. He saved Snape's life, and in doing so, enabled Snape to save Draco and get the DEs off the tower before they attacked Harry. If any other DE had killed Dumbledore, or if he had dropped dead from the poison, Snape would have been forced to reveal his loyalties or die from the vow, Fenrir Greyback would have had Dumbledore for "afters," Draco would have been killed by Voldemort for failing to kill DD, Harry would have come out from the Invisibility Cloak and been killed by the DEs, and the DEs would have run through Hogwarts, killing and destroying at will (as the broken Gryffindor hourglass perhaps signifies). Sherry now: All of this is only speculation, as we don't really know how weak Dumbledore was at the time of Snape's cowardly act, nor what would have happened if Snape had chosen to act as a faithful soldier and friend. No matter what the reasoning behind what Snape did, it's still not heroic or forgivable. I could never forgive someone who murdered my loved one or mentor. I realize this is based on personal feelings and experience, but I hope Harry doesn't have to forgive a murderer in order to succeed, because I would find that one of the more unrealistic things in the entire series. He may have to work with him, if Snape indeed did it out of a supposed greater good, but working with doesn't have to mean forgiving. Sherry, who could never forgive it, so good thing she's not the hero of the story! From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Jan 27 22:58:20 2007 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:58:20 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164214 Carol: James Potter seems to have had a talent for Transfiguration, and maybe the others did, too (Peter Pettigrew isn't as talentless as everyone seems to assume), but they weren't born with that ability. They had to study and practice for something like three years, presumably at the expense of their homework in subjects other than Transfiguration, to become (illegal) Animagi. Sherry now: There is no canon to suppose they didn't do their other homework or schoolwork. Yeah, we've had this debate before here on this list, but I find the fact that James and friends became animagi to help a friend to be remarkable and commendable, not something to sneer at and belittle. It was probably fun and exciting as well, but that doesn't negate the talent and hard work it could have taken to do it or the incredible expression of friendship it was. Friendship means more to me than anything, and this is one of the most special stories in canon for me. Far more compelling and moving than a friend murdering a friend for the greater good. Sherry, who knows what it's like to have such loyal friends, though they can't become animals at will. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Jan 27 23:32:12 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:32:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? /Lupin's Loyalties References: Message-ID: <017801c7426b$5f686700$a198400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164215 Magpie: > I'm talking about a slightly different issue about Snape's being wrong in > the past is *evidence* that he's LV's man now, and that Dumbledore must be > ignoring this obvious piece of evidence while Harry is not. That's the thing > that's too negative. . Alla: Okay, please, please explain that to me, because I do not understand. You agree that some people are just evil, but if Snape did not change, it is too negative? How is it too negative? Magpie: Sorry--even I can see I'm getting kind of confusing! First, Snape is the *one* character who has allegedly changed and yet still is unpleasant. It's not like he's just one more bad guy who remains bad, he's the one living example of a bad guy changing sides despite obviously still being unpleasant. We've got two other potential examples in Regulus, who died before the series began, and Draco who could potentially stop before he crosses the line. For an example of someone who really switched sides, and went from being an active DE to someone actively working against LV (at great risk to himself), there's only Snape. So having him turn out to be bad through and through too carries more weight than just some bad people not changing. It takes the one central redemption story and ends it in failure. All the good guys were always good. Throughout the series Snape has been about this conflict: bad guy or good guy? He genuinely hates our hero and is out to get him as a teacher, yet also works against the real villain who wants Harry dead. Then we find out that Snape actually was once a DE--that already is a point in the "Harry was right about Snape being a bad guy" right there. He *was* a bad guy, he *did* support Voldemort. He even set him after Harry to begin with. Only now he's allegedly a spy, and the question is: why did he change sides, because it's not like he seems all that chastened or like he's become a good guy. Dumbledore won't tell us--but he says he trusts him completely, and that he was genuinely repenent. Harry's left frustrated not because he really sees Snape doing things that *must* make him a DE (until he kills DD), but because Snape continues to do petty things to him and to hate him, and since he's not acting like he wants Harry's life saved and as if he's on Harry's side it's hard for Harry to deal with that. That, to me, makes it negative because it ultimately validates an emotional, angry and simplistic judgment to a person over a judgment that's based more on empathy and understanding the person from his own pov, even if it's confusing. And the person in question is our one character who was a DE and changed sides to become an agent for Dumbledore. Magpie: But I think > that's why Dumbledore's hinted there's more to it--you have to understand > > Snape's whole situation and what's important to him, and Harry doesn't > really get all that yet. He doesn't have the information to understand > > Dumbledore's view. Alla: You mean additional reason to trust Snape? Sure, that is possibility and as I said yes, information is missing, probably, but what if it does not, what if Snape deepest remorse was all that there was? Magpie: I think the "more" doesn't have to be some other thing besides remorse (like a UV or whatever). It's explaining how Snape could actually feel this remorse. To use an opposite example, Peter switched sides too. Imagine if Snape was told that Peter switched sides and didn't believe it any more than Harry does about him; if he said, "Peter's always been James Potter's fan boy. He'd never hurt him. Voldemort's being tricked--Peter's just pretended to be with him." The understanding of how Voldemort could believe Peter isn't double-crossing him would depend on understanding Peter, more than anything else. Understanding that yes, he loves James BUT he's a coward who always sucks up to the biggest bully and he came to believe Voldemort would win, so he jumped ship. It's totally understandable why in HBP Harry didn't find the remorse story convincing. The trouble is we've not yet really gotten a reason to understand why Dumbledore thought it was convincing. > Magpie: > It's not that, exactly. Lucius Malfoy's a jerk in his private life and > works > for Voldemort. There are not really many pleasant DEs that we've > met (none > that I can think of). But the issue is one having to be linked to the > > others. As Sirius says, the world isn't made up of good guys and DEs. > > Umbridge wasn't a DE, and she's even worse than Snape. Filch isn't a DE. > All > DEs may be unpleasant people, but not all unpleasant people are DEs. > > Regulus actually was a DE, but may turn out to be the first person to > have > tried to do what Harry's trying to do to destroy Voldemort. Alla: Oh, man. I do not know what to snip here. Yes, I agree with everything you wrote in this paragraph, with absolutely everything. My problem is what does it have to do with Snape? Why cannot Snape NOT change if some of these people different? Did JKR specifically say that Snape just has to change? As you said there are many unpleasant people who are DE in the books and plenty of people who are unpleasant but not DE, so I guess my question is who says that Snape necessarily belongs in second category? Does it make sense? Magpie: It does make sense--but remember if Snape is in a second category, he's the only one. The only living character that we've seen go from active DE to actively helping Dumbledore. If Snape's one more Lucius Malfoy, that's a lot of weight on Lucius' side. All we've got in the other category are Regulus whom we've never met and who didn't live after his redemption and potentially Draco who might only prove he was never DE material in the first place. As the story stands now...and this is harder to explain because maybe it's just me as an editor "feeling" the way the story seems to be pulling...it seems like Snape's the one who has changed (before the series started). If Harry is right about Snape still being a DE that's already been revealed halfway through the story--it's the way it stands now. Everyone thinks Snape's killing Dumbledore shows he's really LV's man, and thinks they were misguided to trust Dumbledore on that. All we really need is for Snape to probably have a "stupid old man!" speech, and for Harry to then on his own decide that even though Dumbledore was wrong, he was still right to have given Snape a second chance in principle (presumably this decision will be made with Snape still properly dead or in jail, of course). That's where he is now, I think. He loves Dumbledore, and forgives him for making the wrong decision about Snape--but it was the wrong decision. > Magpie: > It's also wrong-headed to consider someone being unpleasant to you > personally as evidence that they must hold certain beliefs that are > different from yours, because things just don't always work that way. Snape > could certainly still be LV's man, but his dislike of Harry Potter doesn't > have to lead to that. It can be an independent part of his personality. Alla: Mmmmm, see I keep saying yes, to a lot of what you wrote and am loosing the gust of our disagreement again. : I think Harry had seen or learned about things that Snape did that are not personal, although they are mixed with personal, I guess and that may point to Snape working for LV. How is it wrong to think that person who killed DD ( the most significant example) is working for Voldemort? It happened outside of the classroom after all. Magpie: Oh, that's not wrong. I think killing DD at this point seems like the reveal that Snape was indeed LV's man. (I believe we'll get further information that shows that was misleading, but right now it seems like he's just declared himself for LV.) Believing that Snape is LV's man because he killed DD seems to prove Harry was right all this time--Harry's subjective pov didn't have anything to do with that conclusion. He saw him kill Dumbledore. If it had been Lupin who did it instead of Snape Harry would think he was LV's man too. Alla: There are also mixed reasons - like knowing Snape hatred of his father and that Voldemort attacked his parents, surely it can be a sign that Snape is Voldemort man? Magpie: I would say no, not exactly, because this is something that's already known. Harry's not really picking apart DDM!Snape as we know him, because DDM!Snape has always been an ex-DE who set LV on Harry's parents. He attacked Harry's parents before he was DDM, and in fact that very act that's supposedly wrapped up in his changing of sides. So attacking Harry's parents can't be evidence against DDM because DDM!Snape has always incorporated that fact. Alla: Snape disliking Harry Potter can absolutely be an independent part of his personality, but the fact that Harry is on Voldemort most wanted list and Snape dislikes him as well, can point to something here IMO. Magpie: But why? Especially when we even know that Snape's dislike of Harry has to do with James? And when Snape has protected Harry himself instead of letting him die when he had the chance? Others have pointed out that it would make more sense for ESE!Snape to suck up to Harry, and while I wouldn't say that Snape's being obnoxious to Harry means he can't be a DE, it doesn't much prove he is either. As we see in HBP, a DE like Bellatrix doesn't care if Snape likes Harry or not. She wonders why he didn't kill him as she would have. Alla: Like for example if say Hanna Abott said Professor Snape dislikes me and he is Voldemort's man, then yes, there would have been a huge disconnect for me between two parts of this sentence. But with Harry it is a different story, solely because Harry and LV fates are so connected ( and thanks to Snape too, aren't that ironic?) Magpie: Yes, but their fates being connected doesn't necessarily mean that Snape has to *dislike* Harry. Barty Crouch didn't seem to dislike him. Plus Snape's not a difficult person to get to dislike you. He doesn't like Neville either, or Hermione. Alla: No, I was asking why you would think that in this instance JKR would have to explain how Dumbledore was tricked. It read to me as if it would have been DD fault, you know? And I would never consider it to be DD fault. Magpie: I think she'd have to exlain it because it's already out there as something that must be explained. Dumbledore *almost* explained it in HBP and then didn't. So it's got a big circle around it saying WATCH THIS SPACE. Dumbledore knew Snape hated James as much as Harry knows it. Why did he trust him completely? Harry asked him, iirc, and Dumbledore didn't lay it out. Then everyone later claimed he never told them either. Not giving us anything else would leave us with the explanations we've already gotten: Dumbledore wants to see good in people so was suckered by a tale of remorse (a tale that sounds laughable to others). He just believed Snape's act. It's essentially the flipside of Harry's own desires with Snape--he wanted him to repent so believed him when he repented. Harry wouldn't blame DD because Snape must be blamed and DD must be mourned, but the lesson would still be: Don't get suckered in by DEs claiming to feel remorse like Dumbledore did. Alla: Oh, I want to ask you that question for few days, but could not find a posy where you said that DD is good at understanding people, so thank you for mentioning it here. Could you give me an examples of where DD was been a shrewd judge of character, him being extremely good at reading people, etc. Now, I will give you that on the Tower he may have understood Draco and I don't think that is a given either, just the path in that direction is open. But besides that, I remember plenty of examples where DD understanding of people really sucked IMO. Let's see he admits that he forgot how youth feels in OOP as to Harry and Sirius, he hoped that Dursleys would treat Harry as their son, etc. Magpie: I think he does understand people in those instances. His mistake there isn't that he misunderstands but that he over or underestimates. He understands what Sirius was going through. He knew he was condemning Harry to dark years with the Dursleys. He didn't buy Tom Riddle's act when everyone else did. He *hoped* they would be able to rise to the occasions they were put in and they could have, but they didn't. That's not misunderstanding them, it's giving them a chance or a challenge despite understanding them. It's not a mistake of misunderstanding what makes the individual tick, it's not taking other things into account (things like youth or how Sirius' treatment of Kreacher might lead to the right trap or Harry's stumbling right onto Snape's sore spot). What you quoted about Dumbledore not remembering how youth feels is a good example, imo. It's not that he doesn't understand the individuals he's dealing with as individuals--he gets basically why they do what they do. It's just that's not all there is to it. That's why once somebody does do something Dumbledore didn't plan for--like when Harry goes to the MOM--he doesn't need it explained to him why. He immediately sees what he missed. With Snape's remorse he's going beyond that. From what I've seen he seems to know Snape really well, even if Snape doesn't always do what Dumbledore wants him to do. If Snape's remorse was fake Dumbledore's completely misunderstood him as an individual. Jen: This seems like a good place to insert a question on my mind during the discussion. I don't really understand the emphasis on Harry being right or wrong about Snape and how that will end up being a huge lesson Harry needs to learn. Why are people certain JKR will emphasize this aspect so much? I understand the loyalty issue needs to be fully revealed, and see why Harry has to understand how destructive his hatred and resentment toward Snape are, that his feelings are undermining what should be the more important issue of defeating Voldemort. Magpie: It may seem like the right or wrong part is a bigger issue just because we've all become embroiled in a discussion about which one we think is better for the story.:-) But even so, JKR has already emphasized it a great deal. Snape's a big mystery character in canon with more things coming back to him without being revealed. The whole reveal of the first book is about Harry's being wrong about Snape being the bad guy, then we've got books of Snape being a good guy but a rotten person who hates Harry...and now he kills Dumbledore? I think that's an important issue! Jen: The theme I see more vividly is Harry coming to terms with the gray area of life rather than being completely right or wrong about Snape, Draco or Slytherins in general. Magpie: But that's part of it. There's gray and then there's black. Right now Harry's all about the black when it comes to Snape. There will be plenty of other things going on, but I think Snape's true story is going to be an important thing for Harry to deal with. Carol: James Potter seems to have had a talent for Transfiguration, and maybe the others did, too (Peter Pettigrew isn't as talentless as everyone seems to assume), but they weren't born with that ability. They had to study and practice for something like three years, presumably at the expense of their homework in subjects other than Transfiguration, to become (illegal) Animagi. Sherry now: There is no canon to suppose they didn't do their other homework or schoolwork. Yeah, we've had this debate before here on this list, but I find the fact that James and friends became animagi to help a friend to be remarkable and commendable, not something to sneer at and belittle. It was probably fun and exciting as well, but that doesn't negate the talent and hard work it could have taken to do it or the incredible expression of friendship it was. Friendship means more to me than anything, and this is one of the most special stories in canon for me. Far more compelling and moving than a friend murdering a friend for the greater good. Magpie: JMO, but I didn't think what Carol said belittled their abilities. She was just describing a difference between Animagi and Metamophagi--one's a skill you learn yourself, one's something you're born with. I would think that showed MWPP as being the more skilled of the two, since Tonks' skill is just a trick of birth while there's is proof of ability put to hard work all on their own. I would take that as a compliment. (Though I agree they could very well have continued doing their homework all that time--it took years while they were learning, iirc.) -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 28 00:03:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:03:49 -0000 Subject: Second hand trust in Snape WAS: Would Harry forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164217 > > Pippin: > > I can hardly imagine that Lupin would have chosen to drink the > > potion, and thought he should be grateful for it, if he thought > > the only thing keeping Snape from poisoning him was fear of > > Dumbledore. LOL! > > > Alla: > > Why so? I absolutely can imagine that possibility , only I would > formulate it that the only reason Snape would agree to do that for > Lupin would be per DD insistence. Pippin: So, you're saying Lupin took the potion from someone he didn't trust because Dumbledore said it was okay? Why? He didn't *have* to take the potion, he could have suffered through his transformations the way he usually does. Either Lupin trusted Snape to make the potion correctly, or he didn't care if it was safe or not, or he's an idiot. Which Lupin are you arguing for? > Alla: > > Do I even have to answer the **crucial** difference that I see > between Dumbledore and Sirius' situation and Harry and Snape, because that is too easy? :) > > Okay, I will. If we will learn that Dumbledore seen with his eyes, > personally how Sirius killed the muggles and betrayed the Potters, I > would certainly ease up on him, I promise. > > And conversely, if Harry was not personally present at the Tower, > and somebody else would have told him that Snape killed Dumbledore, > I would have been a bit harder on him to double check and > investigate for himself. > > And which is more plausible? You know what I think :) > Pippin: It seems to me that the person benefitting from second hand trust is Harry. Everyone (except Hagrid) accepts Harry's account without question, him being such an objective and skilled observer, and all. (not.) Nobody double checks and investigates for themselves. I suppose they feel guilty that Harry was doubted over Voldemort's return. But that doesn't mean he can't ever be wrong. What makes you think he can't be mistaken just like the Muggles were? His glasses aren't magical, you know. They're ordinary Muggle glasses, that he needs because his eyesight is *defective* in exactly the same ways that Muggle eyesight can be. They're the key to his vulnerability, remember? Pippin From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Sun Jan 28 01:03:35 2007 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:03:35 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6147F64F-AE6B-11DB-BBEF-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 164218 Jenni from Alabama wrote: > On a side note, I've been wondering why Lupin is so worried about Tonks and he being in a relationship? I don't see a lot of people arguing my own POV. Maybe he simply doesn't feel attracted to Tonks. He doesn't have to be: gay repressed paranoid noble or have feelings of inadequacy... maybe he just plain doesn't find her sexy! Some of us are quite picky, even when our family and friends are driven to frustration by that pickiness! And the sweetest guys always find it really hard to tell a friend that they don't find her attractive. IMO Tonks should back off and take 'No' for an answer. Jocelyn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jan 28 01:36:25 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 01:36:25 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? /Lupin's Loyalties In-Reply-To: <017801c7426b$5f686700$a198400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164219 > Magpie: > It may seem like the right or wrong part is a bigger issue just > because we've all become embroiled in a discussion about which one > we think is better for the story.:-) Jen: Yes, that could be it ;). Magpie: > But even so, JKR has already emphasized it a great deal. Snape's a > big mystery character in canon with more things coming back to him > without being revealed. The whole reveal of the first book is about > Harry's being wrong about Snape being the bad guy, then we've got > books of Snape being a good guy but a rotten person who hates > Harry...and now he kills Dumbledore? I think that's an important > issue! Jen: It *is* important, I think it's important too. What I don't see is how either one benefits from being right in this situation. There's no victory in the scenario JKR has set up, there are no winners. If Harry is right and Snape is not trustworthy, then Harry loses because he won't be helped by Snape, the one man on the inside of Voldemort's camp who has both the power and the knowledge to make a big difference in bringing down Voldemort. And Snape loses because he ruined his second chance or never took it seriously to begin with, not to mention he never fulfilled his potential as the HBP. If Harry is wrong and Snape has been loyal all along, Snape still loses because while salvaging a bad situation he ripped his soul, killed his mentor and lost what life he'd put back together after being a DE. His bitterness and resentment are even more pronounced since once again a Potter played a perceived role in his downfall. And what does he look forward to for his troubles? A one-way ticket to Voldemort. Harry loses because he lost the 'last and greatest of his protectors' and will believe he weakened Dumbledore and contributed to his death by feeding him the potion (because that's how he *thinks*), he will have to live with yet one more person he loved dying in part to save him. I can't see how the discovery that Snape AK'd Dumbledore to save him, Draco and the other students will lead to any great growth for Harry, just more hatred, guilt and sadness. So one of them gets to be all alone in Rightsville. The big revelation is both lost their way and allowed hatred and resentment to cloud their judgement and actions--where's the growth there? Where's a space for love in all this? > Magpie: > But that's part of it. There's gray and then there's black. Right > now Harry's all about the black when it comes to Snape. There will > be plenty of other things going on, but I think Snape's true story > is going to be an important thing for Harry to deal with. Jen: I'm with you here, and that's why I look to Lily at this point and hope that her story can somehow turn around what has happened between Snape and Harry. Maybe if they can't see each other, can't find common ground, there will be a person who can bridge the gap for them in Lily. *Then* I will feel JKR's theme of love has truly played a role in their relationship. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 28 02:23:22 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:23:22 EST Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164220 >Carol I'd be angry, too, if someone did that to me. [re: looking in the Pensieve] Nikkalmati I would too. In fact, I was shocked and horrified at Harry's behavior. Nikkalmati >Carol >And we don't know what the other memories are. If one of them is the eavesdropping memory, Snape would be angry at what he *might* have seen and would want to stop the lessons to stop a repeat performance. (Also, it's near the end of the year and it's clear that Harry isn't trying to learn Occlumency and that the lessons aren't preventing his having those dreams. Dumbledore may have agreed with Snape that the lessons were a waste of time and maybe even doing more harm than good. It's clear that DD didn't order Snape to resume them or he would have done so, however grudgingly and resentfully.o >Carol, glad that we got the excursion into Snape's memory showing that Snape's resentment of James has a very real basis and that young James, despite his popularity as a Quidditch star and his later heroism, was an arrogant, bullying little berk Nikkalmati Wasn't DD gone from the school at that time? I am not sure when or if DD ever got the full story of the Pensieve, but he was not in any position to order Snape to recommence the lessons at that time. BTW where was DD when he left Hogwarts and Umbridge took over? Any ideas? Could he have been staying with Aberforth? Also, when he said to Harry that some wounds are too deep to heal [not an exact quote], was DD talking about Snape's hatred of James in general or was he talking about that exact scene in the Pensieve? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jrbb96 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 28 00:56:49 2007 From: jrbb96 at yahoo.com (BECKY BROWN) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:56:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin's loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164221 > Jenni from Alabama responds: > Yes, I think Lupin will remain a friend to the members of the Order. > They are his only friends and have been faithful and loyal to him. I > really can't see him turning his back on the ones that have stood by > him. I don't think he has another agenda. I think he will stand by > Harry to the very end. Becky: Lupin's loyalty has always been to the Order of the Phoenix. He was devastated when Lily and James were killed. I don't see how he could be called into question. From misslita77 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 27 21:30:23 2007 From: misslita77 at yahoo.com (CLAUDIA) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:30:23 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164222 Hello everyone I am new to this group so please forgive me if I don"t make any sense. It is understandable that HP doesn't trust Snape and that he was looking for evidence that proves Snape is evil, but not nothing who he was after all these years, he can only go by what the people who are close to him say. So seeing Snape Kill DD in front of him, well you can't blame HP at all. As for Draco, yes it's clear his hatred for Muggles and muggleborns, but don't forget, HP is also half wizard because of his maternal grandparents and Draco did try to make friends with him in the first book. I think Draco will play a big role in the seventh book, but not in the way LV would like. As far as the way HP thinks about Snape, He's a teenager. How naive were we all at that age, I wouldn't have trusted Snape anymore than HP does. As of right now, actions speak louder than words claudia From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 28 02:50:17 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:50:17 EST Subject: Snape, a Deatheater. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164223 >Magpie: >I think I was saying that I didn't think he was surprised he was asked to do the task, that he was prepared for it, and that's why he was able to stop himself from showing that his instinct was to pull away, reducing it to just a twitch. Thinking honestly about how different that would be if he didn't know the task, I suppose if the third Vow wasn't a surprise to him and he'd already decided to agree to it even without knowing what the task was, it wouldn't play much differently. Nikkalmati I think our discussion has gotten to unwieldy to handle. I can't really tell what comments we are responding to anymore. It has not exactly inspired the listees to join in either. I just want to say that if Snape knew about Draco's assignment when the ladies came to his house, it would not take very much time for him to guess why Narcissa was there. As OFH!Snape, if he swore to kill DD because he thought he probably would have to do it in the natural course of events or would be ordered to do it by LV, - that is just a flavor of ESE!Snape. If he knew Draco was ordered to kill DD and he is DDMan, he and DD must have discussed it how to handle the situation with Draco prior to Spinners End (and after DD damaged his hand). He is then acting in accordance with a possible plan hatched by DD and himself, when he agrees to carry out Draco's task. That means he and DD discussed whether he would eventually have to kill DD and agreed it was a possibility? >big snip> >Magpie >I admit it pains me you have no opinion on the Vanishing Cabinet issue. It would probably pain me more if you held the opposite opinion of me, but it's still to me like somebody saying, "I have no opinion on the issue of whether it was Peter or Sirius who was the Secret Keeper. Canon and fan theory is totally equal. Nikkallmati Sorry, That discussion just got too complicated for me too and I couldn't keep track of everyone's opinion. Every time I read a comment, it seemed convincing, until I read the next one! Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Jan 28 03:59:23 2007 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:59:23 EST Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164224 Nikkalmati: 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? I felt very much for Harry who had to witness the killing and then tried to reverse it by chasing after Snape. He then had to show Hagrid the body and tell Hagrid and later everyone else what had happened. I think we all must feel for Harry, as his is the POV we are given. 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) In this chapter, McGonagall and Tonks ask the same questions that fans have been asking for years, namely: what did Snape tell Dumbledore to make him trust him? Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked Dumbledore? How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could have convinced him? What themes that the books have already visited would Snape's tale (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, and how could his ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's story? I think that we are meant to be confused here by Harry's telling everyone that Snape felt remorse after the Potters were killed. Canon tells us Snape had come to DD before the killings. I would not be surprised if Snape had been remorseful over more that telling the prophesy to LV, but I also think DD's trust depended on all Snape's actions after he was given a second chance - all 16 years of loyalty. Oh yeah, this is ESE!Snape. Well, I think DD would accept Snape into the fold on the story that he did not want the Potters killed, but he would keep a close eye on him (just like he did Tom). If Snape were able to fool DD for all that time, he must be a better actor than he appears to be. He may be an Occlumens, but he doesn't have the ability to assume a false identity or he would keep his surly self under cover. He must also be keeping DD from knowing he is using Occlumency against him while seeing him almost every day. If Snape has deceived DD, the next book must be going to show Harry is wiser than DD and that he has a sense of who is on his side. Remember how he knew right away that Draco was the wrong sort? It also means it is not a good idea to give people second chances and that ugly, nasty people are probably evil too. 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Since Ron, Neville and Ginny weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? I don't find the girls to be gullible. They were following the directions of a teacher to do something necessary in an emergency. It would not have been a good idea for them to try to stop Snape in any case. We should also see this as Felix working to keep them safe. 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have known a spell we didn't [?] After all, he was the Defence against the Dark Arts teacher?" We all know Snape had been teaching potions for fifteen years before that, so what do you make of this sudden respect for his knowledge of DADA? Do you think the teaching posts confer something special on their holders? Does this give us any clues as to why Voldemort particularly wanted to have the DADA job? Or do you think McGonagall could be alluding in some way to the curse? She noted that they could not pass through but Snape could easily. It is a reasonable assumption that he did it with a spell, although how did he know instantly what spell to use? I think everyone on the faculty knows and respects Snape's ability in DADA. No, I don't think the post itself gives the holder any powers or knowledge. I thing LV wanted the job because he wanted to be at Hogwarts and knew he was qualified . I don't see how MM could be talking about the curse. 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all right; she only has eyes for Bill. Do you find that surprising? How do you interpret her different reactions to the dramas at the ends of CoS, GoF and HBP, and how do they reflect upon her assertion in OotP that Harry is as good as her son? It appears Molly and Arthur already had heard that DD was dead before they came to the hospital and it is merely confirmed to Arthur. Molly is naturally concerned with Bill and what can be done for him, before she reacts to DD's death. I think she does consider Harry her son, but he doesn't need her now as much as Bill does. 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and centre ?" yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with Ginny? I do think Lupin considers himself unfit for Tonks (and maybe he is right). We haven't seen how Tonks fell for Lupin or how long they have been together. It seems precipitous and unwise to me too. However, it is consistent with Lupin's character to isolate himself. I do see a parallel with Harry and Ginny in that both Lupin and Harry want to keep their girlfriends from harm. However, Lupin is protecting Tonks from himself or the consequences of being involved with a werewolf. I don't think either Tonks or Ginny will go along with it. 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is sleeping peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? If so, what do you think it signifies, and if JKR had wanted to signify the opposite, how do you think she would have done it? Yes, it is emphasized that DD's portrait is peaceful. I think if she wanted the opposite to be true, she would not have shown a portrait. . What do you make of McGonagall's statement about closing the school: "? I must say that Professor Dumbledore's murder is more disturbing to me than the idea of Slytherin's monster living undetected in the bowels of the castle?" Do you find this statement surprising? Do you agree with it? Do you think it might reflect the fact that she was a student at Hogwarts the first time the Chamber opened? Do you think it reflects JKR's opinion? I do find it reasonable that a murder of one of the faculty by another is more disturbing. It is more unexpected and contrary to the social order. A basilisk can be expected to kill and once it is dead it is gone, but the treachery inherent in this murder is more unanticipated and cannot be put to rest easily. 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay for the funeral? How does this compare with his manner with Dumbledore in chapter four? If the school reopens, do you think he will stay on as potions master and head of Slytherin, and do you think Dumbledore's death will affect his decision? I thought it was an interesting revelation of Slughorn's character and a twist on what every one else is saying. Instead of saying I should have known (or in Harry's case I really did know all along), Slughorn is revealing that he had a very different view of Snape. I think Slughorn is shaken because he has a high opinion of his ability to evaluate people. 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he went with Dumbledore? Would you have had the courage (or stubbornness) to do the same at his age? Do you think that he did what Dumbledore would have wanted? McGonagall will almost certainly ask Dumbledore's portrait where he took Harry when it wakes up; what do you think it will tell her? Since all the portraits are sworn to help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to turn into an Umbridge, or worse? After reading the comments, I agree he was reasonable not to open up to her right away. At first, I thought he was being arrogant, but now I think cautious is a better word. At his age I would have told her everything, unless I had a reason to suspect her. I think we will see that Harry continues to be loyal to DD through thick and thin and that it turns out to be the right path. I have no doubt DD will put MM off with some misdirection and soft comments. I am not sure how much the portraits know about horcruxes. Would DD have let them know? Does MM know the portraits can talk? The portraits will certainly wait until MM is confirmed to consult with her. No, if she is not ESE already, she will not become an Unbridge. 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry & co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? Harry didn't tell her what he knows about the Unbreakable Vow either (despite the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the Horcruxes). Do you think she will find out, and if she did how do you think she would react? What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to piece together from the information he has? At that point, I don't think she would ask. That is past and in the circumstances she has much more on her mind. I think she and Harry will have more discussions, but Harry will not reveal anything to anyone that they don't need to know in order to help him. She may find out, and in that case, she will probably see it as a reason for Snape to kill DD. I do not think Harry will reflect very deeply on the relationship between Malfoy and Snape under the circumstances. He will certainly see them as partners in crime and believe that Snape will use his influence to confirm Draco as a DE. Draco is lost, in Harry's POV, if he goes with Snape// 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is conspicuous? Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school opens or not, because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has just been burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of Grawp, or do you think he might have another reason that we don't know about? Yes, I was moved, but I do think his lack of comment on Snape is telling. I don't know if he has been given a role to play by DD, is that what you mean? I think he is one of those who will keep DD from ever truly leaving Hogwarts, because he is one of those loyal to DD. 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Do you think that JKR ought to tell us one way or another before book 7? I suspect the school will remain open, even if the Trio is not in attendance, just to that all the other student and the faculty can be available for plot purposes. I would really hate to not see any more of the school. It is almost a character in itself. 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's death suspicious? Do you think that we may find out something in book 7 which will make us view this hospital-wing scene in a different light (even if you can't imagine what it is yet)? I am sure when we look back we will see something suspicious that we should have noticed. I think we did not see a lot of what must have gone on between DD's death and the funeral. The hospital scene is just the first reaction and we did not see anything from Flitwick and not much from Hagrid. BTW where is Trelawney? 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? They've often been vocal in the past when Harry and Dumbledore were alone together; is their silence in this scene conspicuous? How do you think Phineas Nigellus, for example, reacted to news of Dumbledore's death, and when did he hear? No, I am not surprised. I think the portraits mostly keep quiet. It is only under unusual circumstances that we have seen them talk. I think Harry is a special case; he was witness to the portraits talking to DD except for Phineas at Grimauld Place. I hope we see more of him too. 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left the school, had left the world ? had left Harry." Did you find this ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? Yes, it is poetic and uses Fawkes as a symbol of the great loss Harry is feeling. I think he will be back, but as a symbol of DD and of his influence. Thank you for these excellent questions. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Jan 28 04:35:50 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 04:35:50 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape remove *that* memory? Was:Taking memories out of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164225 > Nikkalmati: > > Wasn't DD gone from the school at that time? I am not sure when or if DD > ever got the full story of the Pensieve, but he was not in any position to > order Snape to recommence the lessons at that time. zgirnius: Yes, the incident occured after Dumbledore was forced out of the school. However, if we look at what Dumbledore says to Harry in their post MoM conversation, we see that Dumbledore did not talk to Snape that night. Snape talked to Sirius, and to other Order members, but not Dumbledore himself. Yet he is aware the lessons ended, and seems to have sopme idea why. I surmise he stayed in touch with the Order members at Hogwarts through some means, Snape included. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jan 28 04:29:07 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 04:29:07 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory & Snape's Return/Teaching timeline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164226 zgirnius; > I find this to be suggested as well by Dummbledore's testimony in > GoF. How could Snape spy 'at great personal risk' if he > only 'returned' just in time to start teaching at Hogwarts? Who was > he spying on? If on the other hand Snape 'returned' at some point > before he started teaching, this comment could be in reference to > his activities before he started teaching, spying from within the > Death Eater camp, which makes more sense to me. Jen: Good point. There needs to be a period he was already working as a double-agent for it to be a 'great' risk, likely right around the time the Potters went into hiding since they were the reason he went to DD in the first place. I've always been curious how long Sirius was SK and how long they were in hiding. > zgirnius: > This seems plausible to me. Minus Eileen, it is the story I've come > up with for myself from the clues we have in Dumbledore's > statements from HBP and GoF, Fudge statements in PoA, and Snape's > statements in HBP (Spinner's End). Jen: Eileen doesn't have to be included although I like the parallel with Draco's situation and how Snape's own experience might have influenced his decision to take the UV. For someone like me who still finds the UV questionable, this would supply at least a partial motivation for why Snape risked his own and Dumbledore's life to help Draco rather than simply agreeing to help him and following through with his promise. (I have mutiple working theories for the UV ). zgirnius: > Though, to make a correction, we have no indication Dumbledore > knew 'officially' that Snape was a Death Eater. He might have > suspected it after Voldemort's actions tipped him off to the fact > that Voldemort knew the prophecy. Though even then, it could just > indicate that Snape told the story to the wrong friends, friends > canon suggests he had. Jen: Rather than saying 'Voldemort and Dumbledore both knew Snape was the DE who had turned the prophecy over to Voldemort' a better way to phrase it would be 'both knew Snape was the eavesdropper'. This would make Snape at least a concern in Dumbledore's mind for working at Hogwarts, whether he was certain of Snape's DE status or not. And by the time Voldemort's actions tipped DD off it wouldn't have mattered if Snape delivered the prophecy himself or told friends, he wouldn't have been given a job without his story of remorse. zgirnius: > Of course, once Snape approached Dumbledore, I presume he would > have made a clean breast of that, but Voldemort would (at this > point) not know that Snape had confessed to Dumbledore. Jen: Voldemort knew that Dumbledore knew that Snape was the eavesdropper . That seems like enough in my mind for Voldemort to suspect Dumbledore would not jump at the chance to employ him. I thought after HBP that Voldemort wanted Snape placed next to Dumbledore for the day when Voldemort would move against DD, that the actions in HBP were later than intended but always planned in some form. Now when considering Snape was not much older than Harry, Draco, et. al., and that he was the eavesdropper who overheard the prophecy, he doesn't seem the most *likely* person to send to Hogwarts for a job anymore. >Carol, who finds the theory interesting but not helpful to the >crucial Snape/Harry relationship or particularly compatible with >Snape's motives as we've seen them depicted in the books. Jen: Do you get tired of people responding to your signature lines? :) They're always such a nice summary to launch a new discussion. The Eileen Prince connection could be a separate issue from the Snape/Harry relationship and explain some murky issues in its own right. Besides explaining why Snape started teaching at Hogwarts--as opposed to why he returned to Dumbledore--there's also the issue of Hagrid seeming to know more about Snape than he lets on. He did go to school with Eileen and also worked on the grounds during the time she was there. He's a much more observant person re: human relationships than McGongall and might have recognized Eileen in disguise. There are two other reasons looking outside the story: 1) JKR conceived a storyline for Eileen which placed her in Slytherin house at the time of Riddle and could foreshadow a role for her beyond being the reason Snape was in Slytherin and why he called himself the HBP. 2) JKR formally introduced Snape's parents into a series rife with male characters who make pivotal decisions based on their relationships (or lack of) with parents: Riddle, Sirius, Crouch Jr., Draco, Percy & Regulus off the top of my head. Harry is on this list even though I think his truly pivotal moment is yet to occur. In addition to expanding Snape's backstory, this twist could influence Harry, who would understand Snape's desire to save his mom just as he understood Draco's. Jen From misslita77 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 28 03:37:23 2007 From: misslita77 at yahoo.com (CLAUDIA) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:37:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin's loyalties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "BECKY BROWN" wrote: > > > Jenni from Alabama responds: > > Yes, I think Lupin will remain a friend to the members of the Order. > > They are his only friends and have been faithful and loyal to him. I > > really can't see him turning his back on the ones that have stood by > > him. I don't think he has another agenda. I think he will stand by > > Harry to the very end. > > > Becky: > Lupin's loyalty has always been to the Order of the Phoenix. He was > devastated when Lily and James were killed. I don't see how he could > be called into question. > I don't think that the Order has anything to worry about when it comes to Lupin, it actually was refreshing to read that he was holding hands with Tonks. You know you are in love when one becomes your patronus. 'Claudia' From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jan 28 05:32:28 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:32:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? /Lupin's Loyalties References: Message-ID: <01d601c7429d$b3c32d80$a198400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164228 Jen: > So one of them gets to be all alone in Rightsville. The big > revelation is both lost their way and allowed hatred and resentment > to cloud their judgement and actions--where's the growth there? > Where's a space for love in all this? Magpie: I think there would be a big difference between thinking Dumbledore was killed by a snake he'd taken to his bosom by mistake and Dumbledore dying for...well, for some other reason. We can't know until we find out why he was killed. But if he and Snape both loved Dumbledore and are both broken up over his death, and have even had similar experiences with Dumbledore getting them to do something like feed him poison or kill him, that's a big thing they can connect over. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 20:30:21 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:30:21 -0000 Subject: Harry looking in the Mirror after HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164229 --- "Jen Reese" wrote: > ... > Jen: > ... > > JKR said this in the TLC/Mugglenet interview after HBP: > > MA: If Harry was to look in the Mirror of Erised at the > end of book six, what would he see? > > JKR: He would have to see Voldemort finished, dead > gone, wouldn't he? Because he knows now that he will > have no peace and no rest until this is accomplished. > > Jen again: > > ... > > ... > > More important than my appreciation of Harry's task is > Harry understanding the magnitude himself! I didn't > really sense pure resolve and desire in Harry from > that one scene at the funeral even though he exhibited > a greater purpose and seriousness than ever before. > ... > Draco was the one moving on with a single-minded > purpose in HBP, not Harry. Whatever the value of his > choices, Draco 'put away childish things' and took on > the tasks of an adult. > bboyminn: But is Draco really being that 'grown up' in his actions? While Draco is moving forward with a single-minded purpose, it it not because he wants to accomplish the task of being a grown up. What he wants for himself and his family not to die. I see Draco as being very childish, independant of his apparent single-minded purpose. He strikes me as someone who thought he could /play/ at being a Death Eater. He strikes me as someone who thought he could ingratiate himself to Voldemort and his own Father, and just bask in the glow of that appreciation. He thought he could just dip a toe in the DE waters, and quickly found himself being suck into the quicksand that is service to Voldemort. No guts or glory, just obedience or death. So, Draco is moving with single-minded purpose and he has set aside childish things, but not because he wants to. He if forced to by circumstances that are tearing him up inside. He doesn't want to die, but failure means death. He doesn't want to fail, but the task at hand appears to be far beyond his abilities. I think Draco desperately longs for 'childish things'. Harry on the other hand, though reluctantly, accepts his fate. He is not torn the way Draco is. Certainly he wants things to be different, he wants to be normal, he wants to be free, but at the same time, he is not afraid to die for others. He is not afraid to sacrifice himself for the greater good. Dumbledore told him he could walk away, but Harry would never do that. If anyone had told Draco he could just quietly walk way, he would have been gone like a shot. Harry has many wants and desires, but no matter how strong they are, they are all tained by the presence of Voldemort. He can never carry out his love for Ginny as long as Voldemort is around. He can never live a quiet normal life as long as Voldemort is around. Every where he goes, every thing he does is corrupted by the existance of Voldemort. So that regardless of his deepest conscious desire, his much much much deeper subconscious desire is for Voldemort to be gone. Notice I resisted flat out saying that Harry wants Voldemort dead. I don't think he wishes death on anyone, not even his greatest enemy, but at the same time, I think he realizes that death is probably the only way out. Though I'm sure if he could or does find another way, he would certainly prefer it. > Jen: > > ... Maybe Steve/bboy will get his wish after all, a > Harry who will arm himself in any number of ways as he > searches for the Horcruxes and sets *his* sights on the > defeat of Voldemort, not only for himself and his own > peace, but for all those who cannot defend against > Voldemort's power. > > Jen, bboyminn: Keep in mind that from the perspective of a reader, I don't think Harry preparing himself will make that much difference. I suspect there will be a few circumstances along the way where it will prove beneficial, but in the big climax, I have no doubt that JKR has a huge plot twist in store for us. But when I put myself in Harry's head, I think it is irrational for him to do any less. He knows what he is facing, he knows the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against him. He knows there is so much he must know but does not, that it seems completely irrational for him to do anything less than everything possible to make himself ready for the tasks ahead. It's the difference between what /I/ think and what I think /Harry/ thinks. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 15:31:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:31:29 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164230 Lupinlore wrote: > Which points to the reason Snapey-poo almost certainly has to bite > the big one/kick the can/travel to that great Ministry in the > sky/etc. The entire character is oriented "backwards" so to speak, > in that whatever alphabetical flavor you like with your Snapey-poo, > he is as a character defined and motivated by the past. Once the > issues rooted in the past are resolved, what on Earth would he do? > The entire purpose of his character would be complete, and he would > then be in a world to which he had no real reference -- a world in > which he does not belong. For Snapey-poo, growth means resolution, > and resolution means death. > > So here's to hoping for plenty of growth to the reprehensible and > indefensible, child-abusing twerp! > > > Lupinlore, who finds that idea vastly amusing as the justice in it is quite poetic > Carol reponds: I shouldn't even respond to such an outburst of subjectivity, but I just want to say, not necessarily. For those of us who see Snape's remorse as genuine and his aid to Harry as essential to the defeat of Voldemort, poetic justice will have an entirely different form. While there is no hope of redemption for Voldemort or the insane fanatic Bellatrix or the self-serving coward Wormtail, Snape has been set up for redemption since the first book, in which Harry mistakes him for the villain and he saves Harry's life. Killing him would be both unoriginal and unimaginative. We've already seen Boromir, thank you, and there's no topping that death scene. Nor can I imagine a dying Snape telling us everything that Harry and the reader needs to know.I agree that a revelation of Snape's past is necessary to clarify his motives and loyalties, but I don't think his character growth ends there. What's the point of redemption without a second--make that third--chance? But no apology for "child abuse," please. It would be out of character and anticlimactic, not to mention unnecessary (and, for me, nauseating in the extreme). Carol, who expects Lupin and Hagrid to die but Snape to survive as a researcher for St. Mungo's, perhaps writing vastly improved textbooks for DADA and Potions on the side From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 16:41:21 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:41:21 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > What would be the point of forgiving a wholly evil Snape? (Snape in > any variety is unlikely to ask Harry's forgiveness; I think it will > have to be extended vouluntarily.) Which is why so many Forgiven!Snape scenarios are, at the very least, problematic. They do, I think, rely heavily on this idea that Harry will change while Snape does not. Which amounts to being an approval of child abuse, which is, in any flavor and under any circumstances, utterly reprehensible. This of course ties in with the failure of the "epitome of goodness" and his utterly reprehensible policies of allowing the abuse of children to continue. Which is inexplicable and unforgiveable barring further explanation -- and "it was all part of Harry's growth and learning" doesn't cut it for one second. Lupinlore, fascinated by the utterly contemptible corner JKR has painted DD into, and wondering how she will try to wriggle him out this time. From ida3 at planet.nl Thu Jan 25 20:20:37 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:20:37 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164232 ibchawz: > > I see the pensieve memories working 2 different ways. First, > > one may make a copy of the memory to place in the pensieve. > > This works much like the "copy and paste" feature in many > > computer programs. The copying leaves the original intact > > and allows for multiple copies to pasted. The second way > > is to remove the memory from the mind and place it in the > > pensieve. This is the same as the "cut and paste" feature. > > > > Dana Again: I am sorry that I cannot give more reasonable comments to all the suggestions made. But I found this quote on the accio quote website and it still makes me think that the pensieve is not a device that is used to hide memories. This is what JKR had to say about it *Pensieves "recreate" the entire reality of the memory and are free of any personal interpretations or biases. Even things not initially noticed are recorded.* http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/list2005.html I think it is very interesting to see that the device is used to watch a more exclusive reality than it would in someone's head. Of course this does not contradict the cut and paste theory but it still gives me the feeling the memory would be much safer from Harry or anyone else in Snape's own head than in a pensieve, that Harry knows is there while the chance he would run into it in Snape's head would be relatively small or at least the amount of information accessible in Snape's head would be far less because Snape could intervene and you cannot see entire stories at one given time just images which when interpreted correctly can give you an idea of what occurred or if some one is lying and there is no reason to assume that Harry would be able to interpret them correctly at all even if he caught glimpses of it. I do understand it is a plot device but I am far from sure that the James/ Snape interaction was the thing Snape was hiding and to some extent with this quote I am not even sure he was hiding anything because the memory removal apparently does not include removing feelings as well and according to Snape in OotP, feelings are different than visual memories (or at least there is no canon evidence that you would feel any differently once you remove the memory and the pensive does not record it or at least does not display it), they are not specifically attached to one another although of course the visual memory would invoke the emotional memory in that specific person but you do not need an entire memory for that, parts of memories or sometimes even just similar situations or even smelling something in RL can invoke these feelings as well. But still it makes it less presumable that he removed them to control his feelings about James and thus being able to deal with Harry less emotional. Looking at Harry alone would be able to invoke these emotions he would not even have to remember the visual memory in order to tap into these feelings; we have six books of proof of that. The brain is not an open book so you can not stroll around it and see everything one likes to see. Legillimency (sp?) is not mind reading but to some extent the pensieve is just that because you can see everything even if the person themselves are not aware it was there. I am also not convinced he was trying to hide these images from LV because Snape would have to take them out every time he would have going to see him and these memories where already there before Snape decided to switch sides so if there was anything interesting there to see LV has already seen it. Also because the pensieve is not his own and if these memories where so sensitive they needed hiding, than he would have stored them a long time ago because he would never know when LV would show up again or when he would want Snape to come see him, it is even factual you do not need a pensive to remove them at all but even if you did, if Snape was so into hiding and extracting his memories you would think he would own a pensieve himself but that is not how he hid things as we know from canon, occlumency is how he hid things from LV so there is no reason for him to think Harry would be a greater threat to discover these specific memories even with LV in his head. If Snape would have decided after the break in thing that something needed to be removed I would have bought it but he is doing this before lesson 1. I am sorry for rambling on and not responding to each post separately but to me it makes no sense why he would extract them to prevent Harry seeing them and I certainly do not believe he removed them to prevent LV seeing them. There is no canon evidence that Snape removed these memories for LV before and we know he is a *suburb* occlumens which makes removal of memories unnecessary. Even with the oops shield charm, Harry only got a few glimpses. He was never a threat to any of his memory not even this one. Also and maybe I have missed this in one of the post I assume Snape is very aware of what a pensieve is, so I totally do not understand its presence because in a bottle these memories where not accessible to anyone but with a pensieve it is like saying just push the play button and watch the show. JMHO Dana From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Jan 26 18:42:36 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:42:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The DADA curse and Harry In-Reply-To: <002f01c740ec$1963d120$06570043@D6L2G391> References: <002f01c740ec$1963d120$06570043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: <948bbb470701261042i578db73ckebe1fc5dd72d2fd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164233 Eric Oppen : People in the fandom seem to think that Harry avoided the curse, because he wasn't ever the _official_ DADA instructor. However, in his fifth year, Harry lost not only his romance with Cho Chang (which was probably doomed from the beginning; Cho was clearly still grieving over Cedric and casting around for a "Cedric-substitute") but his closest link to his dead parents, his godfather, Sirius Black. To make it worse for Harry, Black's death could be laid at Harry's door---his refusal to practice his Occlumency left his mind open to Lord Voldemort, and that allowed Voldemort to plant the visions in his mind that led to the confrontation at the Ministry of Magic. Also, in common with the other DADA teachers, Harry didn't return, at least not as a DADA teacher. While he was at the school his sixth year, "Dumbledore's Army" was apparently dead. Even though Harry had enjoyed teaching, and his students had learned a lot, he didn't teach again. So-o-o...did Harry avoid the curse, or did it fall on him, too? ================== Jeremiah: Well, I think you have it right when you say that Harry was never the "official" DADA professor. I believe the "Curse of the DADA Teacher" has to do with the hiring process of the professor. Harry was not hired to teach. He was elected by his peers and not by Dumbledore. (Though I'm sure DD would have voted for him just for encouragement... and to spite Umbridge... and 'cause he knows it would be kind of funny...) You had a list of the tragic demise of each of the known DADA Professors and I somehow can't bring myself to think that losing Cho Chang or losing Sirius has any relationship to having you brain obliviated or being locked in a trunk for nine months. (give or take a month or two), being wrangled by Centaurs, or having LV living out the back of your head... besides, Cho was wierd. Pretty as she is and very likeable, but losing her meant Harry got to date Ginny (and I hope he still does...) Yes, Sirius was/is a tragic loss but I think I'd chose to lose a loved-one rather than have LV growing out the back of my head... and I look terrible in turbins, so take that for what you will... Well, the DA had to go the way of the dinosaurs because Umbridge had been extricated from Hogwarts. There was no need to have DA meetings when there were bigger fish to fry. Andm let's be honest, who from the DA did not come out of it doing defensive spells like a rock-star compared to when they went in? I agree that it would be fun to have kept the group together but each one of them had risen to a new level that will take them further than they had ever thought possible. Jeremiah: Who wishes boys could wear raddish earrings like Luna, but is kinda glad they don't. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Jan 28 16:11:09 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:11:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry looking in the Mirror after HBP References: Message-ID: <003601c742f6$ed1e6a50$527e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164234 > bboyminn: > > But is Draco really being that 'grown up' in his actions? > While Draco is moving forward with a single-minded > purpose, it it not because he wants to accomplish the > task of being a grown up. What he wants for himself and > his family not to die. > > I see Draco as being very childish, independant of his > apparent single-minded purpose. He strikes me as someone > who thought he could /play/ at being a Death Eater. He > strikes me as someone who thought he could ingratiate > himself to Voldemort and his own Father, and just bask > in the glow of that appreciation. Magpie: Actually, I think Draco clearly does want to accomplish the task of growing up, absolutely and independently from keeping his family alive--though that, too, is a maturing situation. This is the model for adulthood he has. This is what Death Eaters do (including ingratiating themselves with the Dark Lord), and being a Death Eater is being an adult. He didn't want to play at being a DE, he wanted to be a DE. He was given what he thought was a man's job to do and tried to rise to the occasion and do it. He discovered that the reality wasn't what he imagined, that his views of being a DE were childish fantasies--and that was part of his personal growing up. (Which is how the author describes what he's doing during the year.) Steve: > > Harry on the other hand, though reluctantly, accepts his > fate. He is not torn the way Draco is. Certainly he wants > things to be different, he wants to be normal, he wants to > be free, but at the same time, he is not afraid to die > for others. He is not afraid to sacrifice himself for the > greater good. Dumbledore told him he could walk away, but > Harry would never do that. If anyone had told Draco he > could just quietly walk way, he would have been gone like > a shot. Magpie: Of course Harry would walk away quietly if he could. The trouble is he can't walk away and still have Voldemort be defeated, so he can't walk away. That's a mature decision. Draco's is slightly different. He, too, can't walk away without his family being killed, so he, too, reluctantly accepts his fate. He is afraid to die, yes, but that's not exactly childish--in general children are less afraid of death than adults. He's got a monster snake man threatening him--I'd be scared too. What's different is that the task Draco's being told to do is a bad one. Where Harry not killing Voldemort would be leaving a problem for others to deal with, Draco's not killing Dumbledore would be the right thing to do. There's nothing objectively good about Dumbledore being murdered. They're facing different situations tailored to their different characters by the author. So I'd say both of them have gone through different processes of growing up, but we can't use one as the model for the other, or punish them for where they start out or the individual road they are following. -m From va32h at comcast.net Sun Jan 28 17:00:36 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:00:36 -0000 Subject: The DADA curse and Draco's Childishness (or Not) In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701261042i578db73ckebe1fc5dd72d2fd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164235 va3h: Can I just say that I absolutely *hated* the notion of the DADA curse. As an unfortunate coincidence that potential teachers imagined was a curse, it was a humorous little detail. Having each teacher leave for different, yet each entirely valid reasons, was a good plot device for bringing new characters into each book. But turning it into an actual curse was just...hackneyed. It goes against what she has already written (PS strongly implied that Quirrel was not in his first year of teaching) and it just wasn't necessary. That DADA professors began leaving Hogwarts under unusual circumstances beginning the year that Harry started school is perfectly plausible, given that Harry's re-entrance into the wizarding world caused so many other disruptions in the "force", for lack of a better word. And, IMO a better way to go with the story. But enough of that rant! bboyminn writes: I see Draco as being very childish, independant of his apparent single-minded purpose. He strikes me as someone who thought he could /play/ at being a Death Eater. He strikes me as someone who thought he could ingratiate himself to Voldemort and his own Father, and just bask in the glow of that appreciation. He thought he could just dip a toe in the DE waters, and quickly found himself being suck into the quicksand that is service to Voldemort. No guts or glory, just obedience or death. va32h here: I see a slightly different take on Draco. He seemed proud to have been given his task while on the Hogwarts Express. And he doesn't have any aversion to violence, as seen by his bullying ways the past several years (although he does like to have his minions do his bullying for him). I do think Draco was eager to put far more than a toe in DE waters. But being young and foolish, he didn't have any idea of what it would really mean, how it would feel, to kill someone. Growing up with his father, he surely heard all kinds of tales about DEs power, but Draco himself grew up during a time of peace. Adults are constantly telling the trio that they can't understand what it was like during that time, and the same is true for Draco. And Lucius is not the type to sit down with his son and discuss any guilt or regrets that he (Lucius) may have had. I think that Draco imagined himself killing Dumbledore and being heaped with praise and glory, but when the school year began and he actually had to find a way to do it, he found himself unable. His first two attempts, the necklace and the poison, were passive ones. They might kill Dumbledore, but at least Draco would not have to be there to watch. And Draco could rationalize his guilt away. "Well I sent him the poison, but he didn't have to drink it." or "I sent him the necklace but he didn't have to touch it." That's adolescent logic. Even his final attempt involved getting a bunch of other DEs into the castle, who might do the job for him. Focusing on fixing the Vanishing Cabinet was a welcome distraction, it allowed him to stop thinking about what he would have to do after it was fixed. It also postponed his unpleasant task...much the way children decide to take up a lengthy task shortly before bedtime. The inevitable will come anyway, but to the childish mind, delaying it for even a few minutes is worthwhile. Of course Draco is also worried about his parents' lives and his own life, but those are largely at risk because he is reluctant to do what he has been charged to do. When he is crying in the bathroom, I think his frustration is not only about not being able to fix the Vanishing Cabinet but also disgust with himself for not being evil enough to kill. This is probably just a longer version of what bboyminn said, but I do think Draco was not playing at being DE - he *wanted* to be a DE. He just didn't realize what being a DE really meant. va32h/Barbara From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 28 17:07:12 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:07:12 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164236 justcarol67" wrote: > those of us who see Snape's remorse as genuine Let's see, where in 6 books has Snape ever expressed genuine remorse? Well, there were several times when he couldn't get Harry expelled, and of course Snape was heartbroken and near tears when the Dementors were unable to suck the soul of Sirius Black out of his mouth; but other than that I come up blank. > Killing him would be both unoriginal and unimaginative. So not killing him would be original and imaginative? Examples of the goody two shoes hero of a children's book being too noble to kill are a dime a dozen. But how about the hero of a "kid's book" not only killing a villain but enjoying himself when he did it, how many times have you seen that? > Carol, who expects Lupin and Hagrid to die but Snape to survive I would bet you money you're wrong about that. No matter what smiley face you paint on it the fact remains that Snape murdered Dumbledore, and a price must be paid for that. Eggplant From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jan 28 17:28:18 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:28:18 -0000 Subject: Harry looking in the Mirror after HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164237 > bboyminn: > I see Draco as being very childish, independant of his > apparent single-minded purpose. He strikes me as someone > who thought he could /play/ at being a Death Eater. He > strikes me as someone who thought he could ingratiate > himself to Voldemort and his own Father, and just bask > in the glow of that appreciation. > So, Draco is moving with single-minded purpose and he has > set aside childish things, but not because he wants to. > He if forced to by circumstances that are tearing him up > inside. He doesn't want to die, but failure means death. > He doesn't want to fail, but the task at hand appears to > be far beyond his abilities. I think Draco desperately > longs for 'childish things'. Jen: Well yes, I agree with everything you've said, I just perceive these events to be exactly what happens when a person leaves behind the safety of one life to reach for another. Don't most people trot off to their first job glowing with satisfaction and blissfully unaware of the complexities of the real world? Draco doesn't understand he is getting in over his head and probably does long for the life he left behind and yet he can't go back--that's the life of an adult. Substitute fear of failure, needing the money/benefits, etc. for a death threat and it's the same difference to me. bboyminn: > Harry on the other hand, though reluctantly, accepts his > fate. He is not torn the way Draco is. Certainly he wants > things to be different, he wants to be normal, he wants to > be free, but at the same time, he is not afraid to die > for others. He is not afraid to sacrifice himself for the > greater good. Dumbledore told him he could walk away, but > Harry would never do that. If anyone had told Draco he > could just quietly walk way, he would have been gone like > a shot. Jen: Technically Harry can't walk away either. He has a death threat on his head just as surely as Draco since Voldemort is after him. He does accept his fate though, doesn't fear dying for a greater good and is meant to be exceptional in that way--full of the power in the locked room. That's not something he's *worked* for though, that's who he *is*. As for Draco being gone like a shot, that wasn't apparent from my reading of him. He refused help from Snape, from Narcissa, and accepted only what help from Bella he needed to do his job. In the past he's run to Lucius to fix his problems and he wasn't doing that this time around even though Snape was offering to be a father substitute of sorts. He was attempting to work out his own situation in his own way despite the fear of death hanging over him and his family. And I'm not saying the task he was doing was noble or good, just talking specifically about how he approached the turn of events he didn't expect when threatening Borgin or bragging on the train. Steve/bboy: > Harry has many wants and desires, but no matter how strong > they are, they are all tained by the presence of Voldemort. > He can never carry out his love for Ginny as long as > Voldemort is around. He can never live a quiet normal life > as long as Voldemort is around. Every where he goes, every > thing he does is corrupted by the existance of Voldemort. > So that regardless of his deepest conscious desire, his > much much much deeper subconscious desire is for Voldemort > to be gone. Jen: Your perspective explains what JKR meant by Harry seeing 'Voldemort gone' in the Mirror after HBP & helps me understand her quote. It's worth noting that having a life tainted by Voldemort is something Harry and Draco share now and perhaps that will be a point of connection for them in DH. Draco willingly walked into his situation unlike Harry, who had it forced upon him by Voldemort's intepretation of the prophecy, but Harry has a protection that people like Draco, Snape and Slughorn don't have against the Dark Lord's power. bboyminn: > Keep in mind that from the perspective of a reader, I > don't think Harry preparing himself will make that much > difference. But when I put myself in Harry's head, I think > it is irrational for him to do any less. He knows what he is > facing, he knows the odds are overwhelmingly stacked > against him. He knows there is so much he must know but > does not, that it seems completely irrational for him to > do anything less than everything possible to make himself > ready for the tasks ahead. Jen: Right, I got that part last time we went through the discusssion and understand exactly what you are saying about Harry's perspective vs. the reader's. It's a good perspective to consider in most of the debates here since we're privy to information Harry doesn't have, like author interviews! He doesn't know what JKR said he would see in the Mirror after HBP . To tie this back to Draco, Harry coming up with his own plan for the horcrux search and taking his destiny in his own hands would be an example of what I meant as a more adult approach to things. Given the fact his task is enormously large compared to what Draco was doing, Harry has had much help, protection and guidance along the way from various people. Seeing him use Dumbledore's wisdom and that of the people he trusts (and maybe one he doesn't ), to chart his own course would be an interesting change of pace for the character. Jen From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jan 28 17:59:41 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 28 Jan 2007 17:59:41 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 1/28/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1170007181.18.5648.m46@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164238 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday January 28, 2007 1:00 pm - 1:00 pm (This event repeats every week.) Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Notes: Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour. To get to the HPfGU room follow this link: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574 Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want to be called. Enter the password: hpfguchat Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. Chat start times: 11 am Pacific US 12 noon Mountain US 1 pm Central US 2 pm Eastern US 7 pm UK All Rights Reserved Copyright 2007 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 28 18:52:06 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:52:06 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164239 Eggplant: > So not killing him would be original and imaginative? Examples of the > goody two shoes hero of a children's book being too noble to kill are > a dime a dozen. But how about the hero of a "kid's book" not only > killing a villain but enjoying himself when he did it, how many times > have you seen that? > Pippin: You want a brutal, sadistic hero who enjoys killing? Why go to all the trouble to turn Harry into something he isn't, when we already have such a character? Eggplant, meet DDM!Snape. Pippin From va32h at comcast.net Sun Jan 28 19:54:14 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:54:14 -0000 Subject: Snape's Remorse (Was Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164240 Eggplant wrote: Let's see, where in 6 books has Snape ever expressed genuine remorse? va32h: Of course I can't speak for Carol, but I think she may have been referring to the remorse Snape showed to Dumbledore. Which I admit, is not much to hang our hats on at the moment. Snape doesn't treat Harry as if he is the least bit remorseful for killing his parents. Dumbledore says that Snape resents James having saved his life, and I wonder if there is more to that than we know. Dumbledore says James saved his life, but Lupin tells us the story of James preventing Snape from discovering werewolf Lupin. Did Dumbledore ever confirm that's what he was referring to? Could there have been a separate occasion upon which James saved or spared Snape? James and Lily are candidates for the prophecy because they have defied Voldemort three times. Well, Frank and Alice Longbottom were Aurors, no surprise there that they would have defied Voldemort. What did James and Lily do to defy Voldemort three times? Could any of these acts of defiance have involved Snape? And what is the nature of a wizard's debt anyway? Does it *have* to be repaid? What would happen to say, Wormtail, if he chooses never to repay Harry? If Snape owes James a life-debt, and not only fails to repay it, but actually causes the death of the person to whom he owes the debt, is that magically binding him in some way? That might be why Snape regrets causing James' death - it has made the life debt even worse - while not actually regretting that James is dead? justcarol wrote: Killing him would be both unoriginal and unimaginative. va32h here: Do you mean Harry's killing Snape? Or JKRs killing Snape? I honestly think Snape will have to die in the end. He's a doomed character, IMO. No matter what happens between Snape and Harry, there will be too many people who only know that Snape is the one who killed Dumbledore. He can't go back to teaching, he won't be needed as a spy once the war is over, and what else has he ever done in his life? I also think that Snape will be the sacrificial character that so many readers want Harry to be. Which *is* unoriginal, but JKR has done plenty of imaginative things with unoriginal themes before. va32h/Barbara, who can never thing of pithy comments to make in her signature. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jan 28 21:28:38 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:28:38 EST Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > What would be the point of forgiving a wholly evil Snape? (Snape in > any variety is unlikely to ask Harry's forgiveness; I think it will > have to be extended vouluntarily.) Lupinlore: Which is why so many Forgiven!Snape scenarios are, at the very least, problematic. They do, I think, rely heavily on this idea that Harry will change while Snape does not. Which amounts to being an approval of child abuse, which is, in any flavor and under any circumstances, utterly reprehensible. Julie: So now not only is JKR condoning child abuse and reprehensible, but those of us who can envison a forgiven Snape without him apologizing specifically for his actions toward Harry as a teacher are now also condoning child abuse and reprehensible? Thank you very much, though I have to ask who died and made you God? Really, Lupinlore, you have to learn to look outside yourself and consider that your views are NOT the be-all and end-all of ethical and moral rectitude. You're starting to sound like those religious fundamentalists who believe those who don't hold their particular beliefs are lacking basic human worth and should be forcibly reeducated or smoted from existence. (I'm not saying you are like that, but your words can easily support such a stance.) Clearly I am insulted by your words, Lupinlore, as they can and do read as a judgment of your fellow HPFGU members, and I believe that is strictly against the rules here. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but your tendency to state your arguments in absolutes does lend that interpretation. You are free of course to state that YOUR moral code won't allow you to accept a Forgiven!Snape scenario without the direct and remorseful apology you crave, but please avoid passing your judgment on others. Julie, who does believe Harry forgiving Snape can change Harry even if it does not change Snape, and that this release of resentment and hatred in Harry will have little to do with Snape's "child abuse" during Harry's school years which only set the emotional stage, because Harry perceives Snape's *true* crimes against him to be the betrayal of his parents to Voldemort and the murder of his mentor Dumbledore (and perhaps aiding in Sirius's demise, though I suspect even Harry knows Snape had no real part in that). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 28 22:00:47 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:00:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and redemption WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character In-Reply-To: <017801c7426b$5f686700$a198400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164242 > Magpie: > Sorry--even I can see I'm getting kind of confusing! > > First, Snape is the *one* character who has allegedly changed and yet still > is unpleasant. It's not like he's just one more bad guy who remains bad, > he's the one living example of a bad guy changing sides despite obviously > still being unpleasant. We've got two other potential examples in Regulus, > who died before the series began, and Draco who could potentially stop > before he crosses the line. > > For an example of someone who really switched sides, and went from being an > active DE to someone actively working against LV (at great risk to himself), > there's only Snape. So having him turn out to be bad through and through too > carries more weight than just some bad people not changing. It takes the one > central redemption story and ends it in failure. All the good guys were > always good. > > That, to me, makes it negative because it ultimately validates an emotional, > angry and simplistic judgment to a person over a judgment that's based more > on empathy and understanding the person from his own pov, even if it's > confusing. And the person in question is our one character who was a DE and > changed sides to become an agent for Dumbledore. > Alla: I did rather big snipping and again it may have been rather arbitrarily, although I tried to make it as relevant as possible. I just wanted to leave another round of ** Snape and Snape again** with understanding that we do understand each other POV. So, I **think** I get why Snape not changing would be too negative for you. Basically because you think that Snape story is the central story of redemption of the series, yes? Without Snape you think there would be no redemption story, yes? So, as I said I think I understand, you think that this is just too good of example for redemption for JKR to pass up upon, yes? If I got it, just tell me, okay? I am not necessarily buying it, but at least I get where you are coming from. I am not necessarily buying it because IMO JKR is quite clear now that Draco is headed for redemption ( oh boy, did I just say that?) and that implies for me that the story of redemption, the central one **may be** the story of someone from Harry's generation. Now, I suspect we differ plenty here, because you think ( I know I am on a dangerous road here telling you what you think, so feel free to smack me if I am wrong) that Draco really has nothing to be redeemed from ( again, this is my assumption based on our past discussions, so feel free to correct me if you do not think so), but for me Draco has **a lot** to redeem himself from, especially after HBP. I think that would be the central story of redemption. Now, granted there is nothing that stops JKR from writing more than one story of redemption, but I just do not see how JKR is obligated to do that with Snape, even if he is a nasty guy, who supposedly changed sides. Maybe his story is not the story of redemption, maybe it is, but maybe it is falling from grace story. Yes, I think the redemption story should play out in older generation as well, but despite the fact that we never met Regulus, I suspect that the amount of information we actually ** know** not assume about Snape on page and about Regulus are not that different in size, so I think it is plausible if Regulus has a redemption story, maybe instead of Snape yes. JMO, Alla From va32h at comcast.net Sun Jan 28 22:10:40 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 22:10:40 -0000 Subject: Snape, redemption & Regulus WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164243 Alla writes: (a bunch of other stuff and) > Yes, I think the redemption story should play out in older > generation as well, but despite the fact that we never met Regulus, > I suspect that the amount of information we actually ** know** not > assume about Snape on page and about Regulus are not that different > in size, so I think it is plausible if Regulus has a redemption > story, maybe instead of Snape yes. va32h wonders: Could Regulus' story involve Snape? They simply had to have known each other. In the same house, a few years apart in age, both Death Eaters, Regulus the brother of one of Snape's biggest enemies...did Regulus' disappearance coincide with Snape's conversion to Dumbledore's side? I wanted to believe that Regulus, being RAB, was the one Dumbledore had once made appear dead, but I am not sure if that can be reconciled with Dumbledore's only suspecting the horcruxes after CoS, and waiting so long to pursue them, and bothering with the cave at all if he knew there was no real horcrux there. va32h, who is wasting her five posts per day by thinking out loud. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 00:38:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:38:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164244 In her chapter summary for "The Phoenix Lament," dungrollin asked: > 11. What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to > piece together from the information he has? Carol responds: I notice that no one has responded to this part of the question, and I promised to come back to it, so here I am. Unfortunately, I can't go into the depth I'd like to, but I can at least touch on the topic in hopes that someone else is also interested. First, we know what Harry *doesn't* know. He isn't present for the conversation at "Spinner's End," so he doesn't know the details of the Unbreakable Vow (or anything else that happened in that room), and he doesn't know, any more than we do, Snape's motives for taking the vow. He doesn't see what appears to be Snape's genuine concern for Draco (and Narcissa). Later, of course, he misses (as we do) all of the conversations between Snape and Dumbledore, so he has no way of confirming Dumbledore's assertion that perhaps he knows more than Harry about this matter. All he knows, or thinks he knows, is what he has gleaned from following Draco in Knockturn Alley and spying on him aboard the Hogwarts Express, the overheard conversation between Snape and Draco (he misses the beginning and can't see the speakers' faces), the partial and not wholly reliable report of the argument in the forest (Hagrid's assumption that Snape is feeling overworked probably misses the mark), what he and the two house-elves observe Draco doing, what he hears Draco say before the Sectumsempra incident, and what he can gather from Draco's conversation with Dumbledore on the tower. Early on, he sees Draco threatening Borgin and learns that he has some connection with Fenrir Greyback (whose identity and character Harry later discovers), that he appears to have the Dark Mark (though neither Harry nor the reader can be sure), that he wanted something held for him and something repaired, and that the Dark Lord has given him a "job." None of this has anything to do with Snape, who appears first to Harry is his role as (unpleasant) Order member and soon afterwards as DADA teacher. (Harry hopes that the "jinx" will kill him but doesn't connect him with Draco.) At Christmas, he learns that Snape (who is playing the DE role as well as acting as Draco's HoH) has sworn an Unbreakable Vow to Draco's mother to protect Draco (nothing about the third provision), he knows that Draco has had more success than Harry has learning Occlumency and is using it (rather clumsily, IMO) against Snape, he knows that Snape suspects Draco of involvement in the cursed necklace incident, and he knows that Draco is concealing his "plan" (which turns out to be fixing the Vanishing Cabinets) from Snape. He also notes that Draco is behaving disrespectfully to Snape. He does not seem to note that Snape calls Draco by his first name rather than "Mr. Malfoy," nor does he seem to realize that Snape is not in on Draco's plan, nor does he seem to register that Snape has put Crabbe and Goyle in detention (presumably to question them). Perhaps Harry takes at face value Draco's accusation that Snape is trying to "steal his glory." Certainly, he sees Snape as a Death Eater and his attempts to keep Draco from using amateurish tactics as a mature DE advising a novice against clumsy attempts that will lead to detection. He deduces that Draco is trying to kill someone and assumes that Snape is trying to help him do so. (Earlier he sees Snape's anger at Draco and notes that he looks pale and "a little afraid," but doesn't try to figure out why Snape is feeling these emotions.) He knows that Snape and Dumbledore argued in the forest and that it has something to do with investigations into Snape's house; he knows that DD trusts Snape *completely* despite his own claims that Snape is working with Draco; he knows (eventually) that Draco is polyjuicing Crabbe and Goyle and that he's doing something in the Room of Requirement; he knows or ought to know after the Sectumsempra incident that Draco is under threat of death for being unable to carry out his plan (and so desperate as to be crying in the bathroom); he sees Snape save Draco's life and escort him to the hospital wing to take dittany; and, of course, he sees Draco disarm DD, claim he's there to kill him, hears Draco call Snape a double agent and DD a "stupid old man" for trusting him, and sees Snape push Draco aside and, after DD speaks his name twice, kill Dumbledore, seemingly corroborating Draco's view of the matter--and Harry's own. And he sees Snape snatch Draco by the nape of the neck and practically drag him off the tower, through Hogwarts, and across the Hogwarts grounds, only letting go and yelling "Run, Draco!" when Harry tries to hit him with a Stunning spell. It seems to me that Harry is missing a few clues, notably Snape's concern for Draco, whom he is clearly trying to protect both from murder and the act of murder, and Draco's refusal to cooperate with him by telling him exactly what he's up to. Snape clearly doesn't know what Draco is doing in the RoR any more than Harry does (though he does seem to know that Draco is trying to kill someone under his master's orders) but it's not clear that this lack of cooperation registers with Harry. (Clearly, they're *not* working together as Harry wants to think.) Harry also knows that Snape was in his office when Draco and the DEs arrived on the tower, indicating that he was not in on Draco's plan to smuggle the DEs into Hogwarts, but Harry hasn't realized that, either. Nor does he fully understand the danger Snape was in from the Unbreakable Vow or the choice he was forced to make on the tower. I really hope that Harry talks things over with Hermione and that she can point out to him (without getting her head ripped off) that not all of thepieces fit together. Carol, hoping that others will respond to this overlooked question in case I missed or misinterpreted something From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 29 01:42:18 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:42:18 EST Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164245 First, some questions to ponder about McGonagall: 1. Why do we know less about McGonagall's past than we do about any other major adult characters (heck, than some of the minor adult characters)? We know some snippets about Snape's family and his past, about Dumbledore, Lupin, James, Lily, Sirius, Hagrid, Molly and Arthur, etc. But nothing of any substance about McGonagall...except that she did go to school at the same time as Tom Riddle, Hagrid, and Eileen Prince. In addition, JKR has said virtually nothing about McGonagall. She's stated her thoughts and feelings about most of the other adult characters, how she would pick Lupin as a teacher, how Sirius is a good man even though he is clearly damaged from his time in Azkaban, about Dumbledore's goodness, about the different values of James' and Lily's sacrifices for their infant son, Tom's lack of love, plenty about Snape ("There's more to him than meets the eye," "You shouldn't think he's *too* nice," "Really, who would want Snape to love him")--all cryptic as befits the uncertain status of his character. Is this lack of notice just because McGonagall is essentially a one-note and rather boring character? Or is there some reason JKR as revealed so little about McGonagall? 2. Why isn't *she* Dumbledore's confidante? The two have known each other since McGonagall was a student herself--for more than 50 years--and have been at Hogwarts as colleagues most of that time. McGonagall aligns herself firmly against Voldemort, she is part of the Order (the second coming anyway), she has plenty of courage, determination and level-headedness, she's been right there during all the major events of Harry's life, from the moment he was brought to the Dursleys right through all his school years. Additionally she is his head of house and thus well-positioned to help protect him and mold him toward his prophetic future (even though she strangely maintains her emotional distance from Harry most of the time). She seems a natural choice for Dumbledore to confide in. Yet, she's less of a confidante when it comes to Harry's welfare and to Order matters than is Snape, and probably several others (Lupin, Moody, Arthur and Molly, perhaps Hagrid). In fact, when it comes to the Order, we don't know of any specific task McGonagall performs, though most the other Order members are occupied in spying, making alliances, fashioning curses and weapons for the war, etc. Is McGongall just too focused on Hogwarts, either at her own insistence or on Dumbledore's orders? Is it because she's more useful there, or is it a way for Dumbledore to give the appearance that she is involved in the Order while not allowing her any significant role? Which leads to... 3. Why does Dumbledore never share any sensitive information with McGonagall? He evades her questions and gives half-answers from the first scene between them in front of the Durlseys house, right through HBP where she has no idea about any of Dumbledore's activities (the hand damage, the Horcrux hunt with Harry, the Prophecy, etc). Clearly Dumbledore parses out information on a need to know basis, and most of the Order members don't know everything or even most of what is going on with Dumbledore. But is McGonagall the only one who seems to know *nothing*? 4. Is McGonagall capable of being evil? Of all the adults she comes off as the most straight-forward, with her no-nonsense style. She's never cryptic like Snape (or Dumbledore), nor is she secretive like Lupin. She's very much a "what you see is what you get" character (much like Hagrid). If she is outright evil and in league with Voldemort, then she is putting on one *incredible* act (she makes Snape look like a high-school amateur in comparison!). And I don't know if anyone can act that well for that long. Yet, something seems strange about McGonagall. And the lack of confidence and full communication between two such old friends who seem to have the same goals as Dumbledore and McGonagall doesn't seem right either. Maybe they really aren't as close as seemed implied from the beginning, and as would be natural from their long shared history and similar values. Maybe McGonagall is so unimaginative and focused on Hogwarts that Dumbledore just doesn't bother with her. Maybe he's in love with her and is keeping her safe. Or maybe he has reason to believe anything McGonagall learns will go straight to Voldemort's ears. It's that last one that intrigues me. What if it's true? What if all these years Dumbledore has known that any information he gives McGonagall will ultimately find its way to Voldemort? I know, this would presumably mean McGonagall is evil, and one incredible actor. Not to mention, why has Dumbledore allowed it to go on? I suppose he could be feeding her only as much as he wants Voldemort to know, but why even bother? He can have Snape do that. Not only is it hard for me to fathom an evil McGonagall who's pulled the wool over everyone's eyes for *decades*, it's hard to understand why Dumbledore wouldn't have taken her down long ago, let alone why he'd allow her to teach, and be Head of House! So what's the alternative to ESE!McGonagall? ESE!McGonagall, of course! That is, ESE!--Ever-So-Enchanted!--McGonagall. A McGonagall who has been "enchanted" by Tom Riddle, perhaps since their school days. And here I use enchanted to mean she's been literally brainwashed or hynotized, not that she finds him so charming or fascinating that she'll willingly do anything for him. And while I could just say McGonagall is Imperioed, I think it's more--or at least *different*--than a simple Imperius. For one thing, I think it's possible Dumbledore *knew* Voldemort hadn't died at Godric's Hollow because he realized McGonagall was still under the enchantment, which Dumbledore detected at some point before Godric's Hollow--perhaps long before--and was able to monitor in some way. (I know the counter-argument here is that Dumbledore already knew about the Horcruxes, but this flies in the face of his assertion that Tom Riddle's diary in COS gave him the first clue, and if he did know so early, why wouldn't he have been hunting the Horcruxes long before Harry even started at Hogwarts?) How does an Ever-So-Enchanted!McGonagall work for the story? It explains why Dumbledore doesn't seem to confide any vital information to her, yet seems determined to let her believe she *is* in the loop. And why he hasn't done anything to stop her. Because McGonagall doesn't KNOW she was enchanted by Tom Riddle. She doesn't know she has (probably) betrayed Order secrets to Voldemort before, and would do so again if the opportunity arose. Because McGonagall IS the upstanding wizard she appears to be, the fine teacher and Head of House (and perhaps soon-to-be Headmaster) who's dedicated her life to her students and their welfare, up to and including seeing Voldemort defeated and the WW safe for all wizards again. And Dumbledore is determined to protect her from that knowledge, that she is Voldemort's puppet, which she can't change (and apparently he can't either, or he would have done so already). It explains that early scene in PS/SS at the Dursleys, and Harry in HBP keeping his word to Dumbledore not to tell *anyone* about the Horcruxes, even when McGonagall tries to get it out of him in the Headmaster's office. McGonagall wouldn't do anything consciously to hurt the Order or Harry, but she can't be trusted. And Dumbledore has known it all along. It also provides a perfect tie-in between Tom Riddle and McGonagall, something substantial related to their shared past for JKR to exploit while avoiding any supposed physical attraction between them during their school days--YUCK. Want to bet Minerva was one of the few female students impervious to Tom's charms? Yep, more irony! Admittedly I haven't thought much about the exact nature of this Enchantment/ultraImperius spell (though I have wondered if it could be the spell whose title JKR was having trouble naming). Clearly it would have to be focused on specific types of information McGonagall might hear, or maybe on a certain object or even place that would be enchanted to elicit information from her, maybe at set times... Well, I'll have to leave the mechanics to JKR! And to everyone here to start punching holes in this theory. Take your aim... Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 01:48:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:48:02 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164246 Dana wrote: I am far from sure that the James/ Snape interaction was the thing Snape was hiding and to some extent with this quote I am not even sure he was hiding anything because the memory removal apparently does not include removing feelings as well > But still it makes it less presumable that he removed them to control his feelings about James and thus being able to deal with Harry less emotional. Looking at Harry alone would be able to invoke these emotions he would not even have to remember the visual memory in order to tap into these feelings; we have six books of proof of that. The brain is not an open book so you can not stroll around it and see everything one likes to see. Legillimency (sp?) is not mind reading but to some extent the pensieve is just that because you can see everything even if the person themselves are not aware it was there. > > I am also not convinced he was trying to hide these images from LV > because Snape would have to take them out every time he would have > going to see him and these memories where already there before Snape > decided to switch sides so if there was anything interesting there > to see LV has already seen it. Also because the pensieve is not his > own and if these memories where so sensitive they needed hiding, > than he would have stored them a long time ago because he would > never know when LV would show up again or when he would want Snape > to come see him, it is even factual you do not need a pensive to > remove them at all but even if you did, if Snape was so into hiding > and extracting his memories you would think he would own a pensieve > himself but that is not how he hid things as we know from canon, > occlumency is how he hid things from LV so there is no reason for > him to think Harry would be a greater threat to discover these > specific memories even with LV in his head. If Snape would have > decided after the break in thing that something needed to be removed > I would have bought it but he is doing this before lesson 1. > > I am sorry for rambling on and not responding to each post > separately but to me it makes no sense why he would extract them to > prevent Harry seeing them and I certainly do not believe he removed > them to prevent LV seeing them. There is no canon evidence that > Snape removed these memories for LV before and we know he is a > *suburb* occlumens which makes removal of memories unnecessary. Even > with the oops shield charm, Harry only got a few glimpses. He was > never a threat to any of his memory not even this one. Also and > maybe I have missed this in one of the post I assume Snape is very > aware of what a pensieve is, so I totally do not understand its > presence because in a bottle these memories where not accessible to > anyone but with a pensieve it is like saying just push the play > button and watch the show. JMHO Carol responds: I think most of us on this list are familiar with the way a Pensieve works (it enables a person to observe a memory, or a collection of memories, more clearly than if the memory were in a person's head, and it provides an objective record of what happened, including things that the person himself was not aware of at the time). Pensieves are apparently not used for long-term storage; such memories are placed in vials for later use. (I wonder if they can be retrieved and placed back in the bottle? we don't see what happens to, say, Bob Ogden's memory or Hokey's after Harry and DD explore it.) Pensieves appear to have more than one use. Dumbledore uses his in GoF to remove a collection of related memories to explore their connections. (I think he's trying to figure out who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire by exploring memories related to the possible suspects: Karkaroff, Barty Sr., etc., but that's a topic for another post.) He also uses it to show Harry memories, his own and other people's, some of which they enter and some of which they only partially observe through revolving figures speaking out of context--Trelawney, Caractacus Burke, Bertha Jorkins, et al.) Clearly, Snape is putting his memories into Dumbledore's borrowed Pensieve for some other purpose that relates to the Occlumency lessons. He isn't showing them to Harry and he isn't studying them. He carefully puts them back in at the end of each Occlumency lesson. While I certainly agree that Snape does not routinely take out his memories and place them in a Pensieve to conceal them from Voldemort (as you say, he uses his superb Occlumency skills for this purpose), it seems to me quite logical that he would want to conceal them, or any part of them, from Harry, who is certainly not a Legilimens but could accidentally reveal part of one of these memories with a Protego. If Harry saw it, it's possible that Voldemort would see it because of the mind link between Harry and Voldemort. So Snape is taking no chances, protecting a few particular memories that he ordinarily shields from LV using Occlumency, or perhaps has no need to shield if Legilimency reveals the thoughts at the forefront of a person's mind, such as Harry's Potions book. As you say, Snape has informed us that the mind is not a book that the Legilimens can explore at will. So Snape's use of a Pensieve to temporarily store (not "sieve" and study) these memories appears to be highly unusual. I can think of only one reason why he would do so; he's afraid that they'll interfere in some way with the lessons. Your idea that he doesn't want the *emotions* associated with the so-called worst memory to affect him during the lessons is interesting. While he still clearly dislikes Harry and insists on being called "Professor" or "Sir," it's interesting that he's focusing on Harry and the Voldemort link here. He never once insults Harry or refers to James. Instead, he comes close to praising Harry ("For a first attempt, that is not as bad as it might have been"). He tells Harry what Legilimency is, what Occlumency is, what Harry has to do to protect himself from the Legilimens spell. He seems most concerned (or angry) when memories that are not Harry's own show up in the lessons ("How did that man and that room come to be in your head, Potter?") This is as close as Snape comes to fair, objective teaching--if only Harry himself weren't so full of anger and distrust. And, of course, Harry's inability to resist entering the Pensieve and Snape's subsequent anger brings the lesson to a disastrous end. I still think that Snape was keeping the memories from Harry, and his rage when his privacy is violated seems to me to support this view, but it's just possible that removing the memories also removed the emotions associated with them and made him better able to focus on the lessons themselves and not on his dislike of Harry. But for Snape's motive to be to control his emotions in dealing with Harry? It seems unlikely but Possible. I think he normally uses Occlumency to keep his emotions under control. From the first time Harry looks into them, they look like dark, empty tunnels--as if he's shielding his thoughts and emotions at all times. But Occlumency fails him on two or three occasions, when the mask slips and the rage is revealed, and all of them have to do with James. So, for one reason or other, best to keep James out of the Occlumency lessons. As for those other memories, it's a safe bet that one of them was the eavesdropping incident, which he would want to conceal from harry at all costs. The other is a toss-up in my mind, either the so-called Prank involving Teen!Snape and werewolf!Lupin or his coming to Dumbledore to offer to spy for him. I'm beginning to think that Voldemort by this time knew about Snape's tale of remorse (which he believed was false), if not about Snape's spying for Dumbledore, so probably it was the Prank. If so, all three memories related in some way to James. Carol, now fairly certain that it's all about James and that the memories were concealed from Harry specifically rather than from LV through Harry From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 29 02:04:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:04:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and redemption WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164247 > Alla: > > I am not necessarily buying it because IMO JKR is quite clear now > that Draco is headed for redemption ( oh boy, did I just say that?) > and that implies for me that the story of redemption, the central > one **may be** the story of someone from Harry's generation. Pippin: Trouble is, if Snape was never redeemed, or his redemption didn't stick, then there's no example of someone who was redeemed and went on to live a useful life within the time frame of the story. Draco might redeem himself, but if Snape's redemption failed, then it's going to look like Draco's is doubtful. Of course JKR could just tell us that Draco never did anything evil again, but that would be weak compared to Snape showing us and proving to Harry that he redeemed himself. If Snape has been living a useful if somewhat problematic life, then there's hope for Draco. Otherwise, not so much. The problem with Regulus is that he's dead. After raising the issue of how we can tell someone is genuinely remorseful, IMO it would be a cop out to have the only redemption scenario be a Vader or Boromir situation where the character died so promptly that no one had to worry about whether he might backslide. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 02:16:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:16:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and redemption WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164248 > > Alla: > > > > I am not necessarily buying it because IMO JKR is quite clear now > > that Draco is headed for redemption ( oh boy, did I just say that?) > > and that implies for me that the story of redemption, the central > > one **may be** the story of someone from Harry's generation. > > Pippin: > Trouble is, if Snape was never redeemed, or his redemption didn't > stick, then there's no example of someone who was redeemed and > went on to live a useful life within the time frame of the story. > Draco might redeem himself, but if Snape's redemption failed, > then it's going to look like Draco's is doubtful. Of course JKR > could just tell us that Draco never did anything evil again, but that > would be weak compared to Snape showing us and proving > to Harry that he redeemed himself. If Snape has been living > a useful if somewhat problematic life, then there's hope for > Draco. Otherwise, not so much. Alla: I am sorry, but I do not buy that success of Draco's redemption somehow depends on Snape's. I think that if we will be shown that Draco did something redemptive in book 7 and learn in the epilogue that he went on to live productive life, that could be written quite compellingly. Sure, there would be nobody alive from older generation to serve as example of redemption. Who says that it should be? Lives of older generation **are** tragedy for the most part. They are slashed in the middle by war, so I would not find it to be surprising if the only example of redemption within the older generation would be the person who is dead ( I am still hoping that Regulus is alive, but I realise that this is a very tiny possibility or none). Younger generation would do better and get redemption and live, why not? Pippin: > The problem with Regulus is that he's dead. After raising the issue > of how we can tell someone is genuinely remorseful, IMO it would be > a cop out to have the only redemption scenario be a Vader or Boromir > situation where the character died so promptly that no one had to > worry about whether he might backslide. Alla: See above, I disagree. Older generation takes a backstage to kids and it is likely IMO that their redemption is the story of dead peron. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 29 02:32:23 2007 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 02:32:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164249 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > In her chapter summary for "The Phoenix Lament," dungrollin asked: > > > 11. What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to > > piece together from the information he has? > > Carol responds: > Early on, he sees Draco threatening Borgin and learns that he has some > connection with Fenrir Greyback (whose identity and character Harry > later discovers), that he appears to have the Dark Mark (though > neither Harry nor the reader can be sure), that he wanted something > held for him and something repaired, and that the Dark Lord has given > him a "job." Quick_Silver: Excellent summary of what Harry does and doesn't know. Just a quick thought about something that you mention above...specifically whether or not Draco has the Dark Mark. In any of the other books I would have been...less then trusting...of Harry making a judgment like that. However because HBP is the 2nd last book and because JK has specifically said that HBP and DH are like two halves of one book I feel that I can't just dismiss it out of hand. And it's not just Harry's judgment on Draco having the Dark Mark but every one of his little assumptions in HBP...I tend to give them more thought that I would if they were in an earlier book. I kind of view it as Harry approaching the end of his hero's journey and I'd hope that as he nears the end he'll start to get at least a few things right. Does anyone else feel this way? > It seems to me that Harry is missing a few clues, notably Snape's > concern for Draco, whom he is clearly trying to protect both from > murder and the act of murder, and Draco's refusal to cooperate with > him by telling him exactly what he's up to. Quick_Silver: I can't remember for sure but I believe it was you that proposed that Snape was trying to contain the damage Draco was causing with his amateur methods during the Christmas party chat. I'd add that to the list of what Harry doesn't know was well (partly because I have this wild theory about how it reflects a difference in Snape's and Harry's approach to dealing with Draco/the Dark side in general). Quick_Silver (having enjoyed reading this excellent post) From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jan 29 02:48:43 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:48:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and redemption WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character References: Message-ID: <00ec01c7434f$fe4a5470$527e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164250 > Alla: > > I did rather big snipping and again it may have been rather > arbitrarily, although I tried to make it as relevant as possible. I > just wanted to leave another round of ** Snape and Snape again** > with understanding that we do understand each other POV. > > So, I **think** I get why Snape not changing would be too negative > for you. > > Basically because you think that Snape story is the central story of > redemption of the series, yes? > > Without Snape you think there would be no redemption story, yes? > > So, as I said I think I understand, you think that this is just too > good of example for redemption for JKR to pass up upon, yes? > > > If I got it, just tell me, okay? I am not necessarily buying it, but > at least I get where you are coming from. Magpie: Good snipping! And that pretty much says it. (And extra points for saying you think Draco's headed for redemption, just because I love to hear it:-) That is a good description of this element of why I lean towards DDM!Snape. (It also seems to fit with what I'm seeing of his character in terms of his remorse making him bitter.) But as with anything, I can't say that there's *one* way that it has to be. It's not like there's a rule she has to follow where the central redemption story so far--the one that Harry has refused to believe--must turn out to be a successful one. It's just another reason I lean towards thinking that's the way it's going to go. And also that's the way it seems to make the most obvious way for Harry to feel like he's learned something, rather than thinking Dumbledore made a mistake with Snape but Harry doesn't blame him for it because he was trying to be good. At this point Draco has at least more to redeem himself for than he did when hadn't, you know, tried to kill anybody.:-) But I do think that Dumbledore's "no real harm has been done" leans more towards the idea that Draco's still got a chance to make the right choice the first time rather than having to make up for the choice he made before. Either way Snape and Draco's story is different and they're dealing with different issues that draw them to the Dark Side so whatever their roles are, they're different. -m From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 29 03:05:10 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:05:10 -0000 Subject: Ginny/Regulus/Unnmarried/Portrait/"Left"/PrinceSpell/Metamorphmag/Potion/Brut Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164251 Michelle from Reno wrote in : << 1) Of all the girls at Hogwarts, why did JKR choose Ginny to have a relationship/love interest with Harry at this crucial point? I assume Ginny will be used by LV to hurt, distract, or summon Harry. The Weasley's, and now esp. Ginny, are Harry's beloved "family". I don't think this relationship is haphazard. >> Apparently Rowling "always" intended Ginny and Harry to be each other's true loves until death. Pippin occasionally posted that it is a rule of fiction writing that having Ginny be the first girl Harry noticed in the wizarding world (on Platform 9 3/4, with Mrs Weasley firmly holding her hand) must foreshadow their ship. I hate it when arguments based on the 'rules' of fiction writing turn out to be true -- I want to see arbitrary rules broken. Jeremiah wrote in : << I do love speculating on what Regulus' middle name would be. >> The wizarding folk seem to like giving their children middle names after relatives, such as Ron Weasley's middle name is Bilius and he had an Uncle Bilius who died after seeing a Grim. Sirius and Regulus had an Uncle Alphard, so I thought Regulus's middle name would be Alphard. JKR in World Book Day chat: << Middle names: Ginny is Molly, of course, Hermione 'Jane' and Ron, poor boy, is Bilius. >> va32h wrote in : << Could Regulus' story involve Snape? They simply had to have known each other. In the same house, a few years apart in age, both Death Eaters, Regulus the brother of one of Snape's biggest enemies...did Regulus' disappearance coincide with Snape's conversion to Dumbledore's side? I wanted to believe that Regulus, being RAB, was the one Dumbledore had once made appear dead, >> In : "* Cathedral: Will we be hearing anything from Sirius Black's brother, Regulus, in future books? JK Rowling replies -> Well, he's dead, so he's pretty quiet these days." I believe that's Rowling saying he's really dead. Raechel wrote in : << Dumbledore mentions that Sirius and Regulus were both unmarried and childless. It made me wonder why. Especially considering that Sirius' best friend, James, was married with a child. >> Well, I've always been a Sirius/Remus shipper, so Sirius and Remus would be people who married their high-school sweethearts merely disguised as single people. HBP cast some doubt on S/R because of Sirius's will leaving everything to Harry, leaving nothing to Remus, not even a request for Harry to look after him. All I can do is make up an explanation that Umbridge's enhancements to the anti-werewolf laws included making it illegal to bequeathe anything to werewolves. It's commonly reckoned that Sirius was 21 or 22 when he was put in Azkaban. If he hadn't found a life partner at Hogwarts, it's perfectly reasonable that he hadn't found one in his early 20s. It seems to me that Regulus was two years younger than Sirius and died before Sirius went to Azkaban. Thus, I'm inclined to think that Regulus was only 19, maybe only 18, years old when he died. Even if he was engaged to be married to his high-school sweetheart, they might have been waiting for her to finish her last year at Hogwarts. Or her parents insisted she spend a year after Hogwarts learning some kind of job skills before marriage. Or -- I don't suppose a Junior Death Eater would walk out with a Mudblood girl, but a witch who could list three or four but not nine generations of all wizarding ancestors would be acceptable to the Death Eater ideology without being acceptable to the Black parents. Some listies have suggested that Severus and Regulus were lovers, who joined the Death Eaters together, and Severus turned against LV when LV ordered that Regulus be executed -- it would have been in character for LV to order Severus to kill Regulus, even if there was nothing sexual in their friendship. How did he 'slither' out of that assignment? Carol wrote in : << wondering how the portrait could appear in McGonagall's office so quickly if DD hadn't planned for that to happen >> The portrait's so quick appearance in the Head's office suggests the possibility that the great institutions (and old family homes) of the wizarding world magically extrude, at the moment of death of wizards who were greatly associated with them, a magical portrait of those wizards. That would eliminate all our questions about how wizards learn to paint, how a memory is implanted into a portrait, and whether a person can converse with a portrait of him(her)self while still alive. All those miscellaneous portraits at Hogwarts, such as Sir Cadogan and the group of drunken monks, would have been portraits whose institutions didn't want them around. I can see how a monastery wouldn't want the drunken monks' permanent party, but could it be that they had all died at once? And then it would have to be a wizarding monastery... Sarah wrote in : << DD has not "left" Harry, not really >> "You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us?" [pause for artistic reasons] "You think that we don't recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble? Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular Patronus? Prongs rode again last night." Pippin wrote in : << If James was stealing spells from the Prince's book, how could Lupin know so little about it? >> What is the evidence that James was stealing spells from the Prince's book? I think we only know of one spell from the Prince that James used, Levicorpus, and I believe that could have spread mouth to ear if Severus told it to even one Slytherin or if even one Slytherin peeked in his book, so James may have had no idea who introduced that spell to Hogwarts. Remus may have been telling the truth about there having been quite a fad for that spell at Hogwarts that year, with zillions of students having learned it from their friends. A few months 'when you couldn't move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle fits my image of Hogwarts School. And Sirius was there -- wouldn't he have looked surprised if Remus told a big whopper about school days? Jenni wrote in : << Tonks is a Metamorphmagus. During the times that Lupin transforms into a werewolf, she could change into a dog or a wolf and remain safe with him. >> Carol replied in : << As I understand it, a Metamorphmagus can change her (or his) appearance, for example, her hair color or the shape of her nose, and she has twice transformed herself into an older woman, but there's no evidence that she can turn herself into an animal. (snip) So while the Marauders' ability to transform into animals protected them from werewolf!Remus, I don't think that Tonks's transformations would protect her at all. She'd still be human. >> I agree with Carol. When Tonks makes her face look like that of an old woman, that might have been just be aging her own face, not imitating someone else's: she might be able to change only part of her face at a time. I've seen no evidence that she can change enough to look like a human male, let along a dog, and looking like a dog wouldn't mean BEING a dog. Human internal organs, human brain, human DNA... I don't know whether it's human odor or human essence that drives werewolves mad, but I think she'd still have both. << Carol, thinking that Lupin's best hope, short of more reasonable werewolf legislation, is to forgive and befriend the man who brewed the wolfbane potion for him in PoA >> Or another superb potioneer. Hector Dagworth-Granger founded a whole society of them. And the actual inventor, Damocles Belby, is still alive and, having been Slughorn's student, relatively young. I wonder what JKR intended by naming him Damocles Belby -- 'sword of Damocles' seems an ill-omened recollection, and I don't know if 'Belby' is supposed to remind me of a bell beaker or bats in the belfry.... Pippin wrote in : << You want a brutal, sadistic hero who enjoys killing? Why go to all the trouble to turn Harry into something he isn't, when we already have such a character? Eggplant, meet DDM!Snape. >> *DOES* DDM!Snape enjoy killing? From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 03:26:19 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 03:26:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164252 dungrollin: > > 11. What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to > > piece together from the information he has? > Carol responds: > I notice that no one has responded to this part of the question, and I > promised to come back to it, so here I am. zgirnius: Actually, I did respond to this question, but since there seems to be some interest in discussing it, I will expand on my earlier answer. As far as what Harry can figure out about Snape and Draco in HBP, I think Harry has a coherent story in his head of what happened that fitd all of the facts he knows: Draco has become a Death Eater, and Voldemort has ordered him to kill Dumbledore. Snape has taken an interest in this matter. (Harry does not know why, but can suppose this is for Snape's own reasons, such as ambition, or on Voldemort's orders). As a result of this interest, Snape has taken an Unbreakable Vow of unknown, and immaterial, content with Narcissa Malfoy in furtherance of this interest. Draco and Snape work at cross-purposes, with Snape putting Draco's henchmen in detention, and Draco refusing to share his plans with Snape. The reasons for their failure to cooperate are made clear to Harry in the overheard conversation during Slughorn's party - they view themselves as in competition for the glory they can win by being the one who carries out the deed. In the end, Draco gets Death Eaters into the school and corners Dumbledore, but because of his unwillingness to murder, is in the end beaten out by Snape, who kills Dumbledore and assumes command of the Death Eaters at the school. They leave, to report their victory to Voldemort. Since I think Harry is wrong about what happened, obviously, he (and thus we) need to learn otherwise in Book 7. I don't think the events of HBP is where the story will fall apart, however. I think that what will force a reexamination of this story with be some combination of the past and the events of Book 7. The part of the story Harry has glaringly wrong at the moment is why Dumbledore trusted Snape. Harry seems to have forgotten Dumbledore's prior insistence that Snape 'returned' before the Potters were killed, and I think the reasons for Dumbledore's belief will come to light. And of course, Snape could take actions in Book 7 which are inconsistent with personally motivated evil/loyalty to Voldemort. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Jan 25 20:47:40 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:47:40 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164253 Dungrollin's Discussion questions: > 1. This chapter is a nice opportunity for JKR to show us a variety of characters' reactions to the same emotional upheaval - Dumbledore's death. Did any of their reactions particularly inspire sympathy in you? Which character reacted most similarly to you? Is that character one you normally sympathise or identify with? Ceridwen: Sympathy: Hagrid. Similar to my own reaction or what those would be in similar situations: McGonagall and Slughorn. > 2. (Take off your DDM!Snape hats for this one, please.) In this chapter, McGonagall and Tonks ask the same questions that fans have been asking for years, namely: what did Snape tell Dumbledore to make him trust him? Do you think, given Lupin, McGonagall and Tonks's astonishment at Harry's story, that *even if Snape really has* betrayed the Order and rejoined Voldemort, there still must have been more than a `tale of remorse' to how he hoodwinked Dumbledore? How do you think ESE!Snape (or similar variants) could have convinced him? What themes that the books have already visited would Snape's tale (and the fact that it was fake) resonate with, and how could his ability to fool Dumbledore reflect upon Harry's story? Ceridwen: I try not to wear hats on the board: people might think I'm in a gang. Yes, I do think there must have been more than a 'tale of remorse' to convince Dumbledore of Snape's switch. Dumbledore offers mercy, he offers second chances, but I believe he also watches quietly and makes his assessments from his observations. I think the only way Snape of other-than-DDM flavor would have convinced Dumbledore of his sincerity would be for him to behave as if he really was remorseful - not just in front o f DD, but at times when he thought DD wasn't watching. No sneaking around, watching over his shoulder to see if the Guy with the Beard was there. > 3. Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Since Ron, Neville and Ginny weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? Ceridwen: They weren't gullible. Snape was a teacher, and an Order member, and he told them that Flitwick needed help. Hermione and Luna are not as suspicious as Harry and wouldn't react in an automatically suspicious way. I think the DA did what it was intended to do: teach the practical defensive spells and strategies that weren't being taught in class. The ones who joined learned something, and worked together on their spells much like Snape had them working together on spells in sixth year DADA. Since a student was leading the club, that student wouldn't have been able to teach how to deal with Peruvian Darkness Powder, which was introduced to him and the readers a year later. Harry taught what he knew and what he had researched, but even an experienced teacher would not have been able to teach everything in one school year. > 4. What do you make of McGonagall saying (of Snape) "He must have known a spell we didn't [ ] After all, he was the Defence against the Dark Arts teacher?" We all know Snape had been teaching potions for fifteen years before that, so what do you make of this sudden respect for his knowledge of DADA? Do you think the teaching posts confer something special on their holders? Does this give us any clues as to why Voldemort particularly wanted to have the DADA job? Or do you think McGonagall could be alluding in some way to the curse? Ceridwen: I think she was speaking from hindsight. This wasn't spoken in the middle of battle. I don't think the post confers any special powers on its holder, or anyone could be roped in off the street to teach. I think she was merely saying that she would expect the DADA professor to know more about spells like that and how to get around them than the Transfiguration teacher would, perhaps because of special study in that field. Heh. Maybe she wondered why he hadn't been tapped for the post when they couldn't get anyone before. > 5. Molly doesn't give one single sign that she cares at all that Dumbledore's dead, she doesn't react when McGonagall assures Arthur that it's true, nor does she ask Harry or the others if they're all right; she only has eyes for Bill. Do you find that surprising? How do you interpret her different reactions to the dramas at the ends of CoS, GoF and HBP, and how do they reflect upon her assertion in OotP that Harry is as good as her son? Ceridwen: I would have found it more surprising if she had left Billy laying there to take part in the discussion. This is her son, her eldest, horribly mutilated and with his fate in question. It's possible that the discussion was only peripheral noise to her through much of the scene, like the chatter from a television when Real Life intrudes on the rest of us. > 6. In ch5 p92 (UK ed.) Molly says (of Bill and Fleur) "It was the same last time he was powerful, people eloping right left and centre ? " yet Lupin seems here to be an exception, holding out against this all-too-human reaction in times of war. Do you find this consistent with his character? Given the close friends he has lost, do you understand him wanting to keep Tonks at arm's length, or do you agree with Molly that he's being ridiculous? How does his behaviour regarding Tonks compare with Harry's later break-up with Ginny? Ceridwen: Lupin's reaction is understandable. He probably didn't have a close girlfriend the first time around for the same reasons that he is keeping Tonks at arms' length, so didn't marry. He may have resigned himself to a solitary life because of his affliction. He doesn't seem to put himself forward to people that much, which I read as due to his being a werewolf. He keeps a low profile. And after seeing Greyback, I can see why he might not want to even give the impression he's anything like him. But, Molly's right. Tonks is a big girl and is capable of assessing the risks and the benefits of a relationship with Lupin. His reaction is ridiculous. He needs to try it out, at least, to see if they both feel the same way weeks or months later. Sometimes, just trying it out would give them both an idea of what such a relationship might be like, and would give them both more of an idea of wheter or not it would work. Of course, he might think that would just be getting his hopes up to be dashed. I don't think the Remus/Tonks 'ship reflects the Harry/Ginny 'ship at all. Harry didn't try to keep her away, his only concern was what his best friend, Ron, might think. Harry broke up with Ginny because he wants to protect her (careful, Harry, she didn't like Dean helping her through the door), and because he will be on a secret assignment where he doesn't need the baggage of a relationship. > 7. Do you think that the fact that Dumbledore's portrait is sleeping peacefully and looking untroubled is significant? If so, what do you think it signifies, and if JKR had wanted to signify the opposite, how do you think she would have done it? Ceridwen: I think it is significant, or JKR wouldn't have mentioned it in as much detail as she did. I think she is trying to show that Dumbledore died at peace and that there were no loose ends. If it had been any other way, she might have mentioned a slightly disturbed expression, or a sad expression, if she bothered to mention anything more than the new addition to the portraits at all. > 8. What do you make of McGonagall's statement about closing the school: " I must say that Professor Dumbledore's murder is more disturbing to me than the idea of Slytherin's monster living undetected in the bowels of the castle " Do you find this statement surprising? Do you agree with it? Do you think it might reflect the fact that she was a student at Hogwarts the first time the Chamber opened? Do you think it reflects JKR's opinion? Ceridwen: I think she took Dumbledore's death more personally than she took the Basilisk, though the Basilisk did distress her. I'm not sure if McGonagall was around when the Chamber was opened. Wasn't she a "spry seventy" in 1991? That would have put her at 22 if the Chamber was opened in 1943. I think that maybe JKR is more disturbed by Dumbledore's death than by the Basilisk, since it was meant to be shocking. But I don't think McGonagall has moved into Dumbledore's place as JKR's mouthpiece. > 9. What do you make of Slughorn's reaction to Dumbledore's death, his shock at Snape's culpability, his ambivalence about the school reopening, and his seeming reluctance that the students should stay for the funeral? How does this compare with his manner with Dumbledore in chapter four? If the school reopens, do you think he will stay on as potions master and head of Slytherin, and do you think Dumbledore's death will affect his decision? Ceridwen: Slughorn's reaction was one of the two I think might mirror mine in a similar situation. I would be trying to wrap my head around the events, trying to understand (I thought I knew him!), and not wanting to commit myself to any new ventures until I could ascertain more calmly what should be done. I think he'll stay on. The school needs him. I think he'll be glad to be gone again, though, as soon as a replacement can be found. > 10. Do you think Harry was right not to tell McGonagall where he went with Dumbledore? Would you have had the courage (or stubbornness) to do the same at his age? Do you think that he did what Dumbledore would have wanted? McGonagall will almost certainly ask Dumbledore's portrait where he took Harry when it wakes up; what do you think it will tell her? Since all the portraits are sworn to help the current head, do you think they will tell her about the horcruxes? If they refused, do you think she has the potential to turn into an Umbridge, or worse? Ceridwen: First, I don't know if I would have had the courage to refuse McGonagall the way Harry did. I do think he did the right thing. Telling a secret like that just because a person is over-wrought isn't a good idea. Harry may think it over and change his mind, but it isn't a good idea to just start telling everything. You may find, on later reflection, that maybe it wasn't a good idea after all. The portraits may tell her something. But I don't think they'll tell her right off if they ever do. Harry's mission has nothing to do with running the school, it's Order business. I don't think McGonagall could ever be like Umbridge. > 11. Do you find it surprising that McGonagall didn't ask how Harry & co. knew that Malfoy was in the room of requirement? Harry didn't tell her what he knows about the Unbreakable Vow either (despite the fact that it didn't have anything to do with the Horcruxes). Do you think she will find out, and if she did how do you think she would react? What story about Malfoy and Snape should Harry be able to piece together from the information he has? Ceridwen: I think McGonagall may have known that Harry was following Malfoy around, so might have had some idea of where to expect him to be. It was a large part of the book, after all, and she was his Head of House. I think that she, and other Order members, will find out at some point about the Unbreakable Vow. I don't know what they'll think. I do think it will be part of the puzzle of Snape in DH. I don't think Harry will actively be trying to piece together anything about Malfoy and Snape. But I do think he'll start to see discrepancies. The more discrepancies he sees, the more he'll try to put things together. I can't imagine what he'll come up with based on what he has. He may fight against anything sympathetic toward Snape if his evidence starts to go in that direction, though. > 12. Hagrid is inconsolable; did you find his reaction to Dumbledore's death moving? We don't get to see what he thinks of Snape's apparent treachery, do you think this omission is conspicuous? Hagrid insists that he's staying whether the school opens or not, because Hogwarts is his home, even though his hut has just been burned down. Do you think he only wants to stay because of Grawp, or do you think he might have another reason that we don't know about? Ceridwen: I found Hagrid's reaction to be very moving. I usually get a little impatient with his grief over things like Norbert's leaving. But, he's a sensitive soul, and his grief was pure. I don't know if he knows something more about Snape than he's telling. He may only have room for grief so soon after the death. But, yes, the omission was conspicuous. Hogwarts is Hagrid's home, and has been since he was a young teen. I think, too, that he's staying close to Dumbledore, though Grawp might enter into it: responsibility at least since he was the one to bring his brother there. I think he also has a duty to Hogwarts that he takes seriously. His job as groundskeeper doesn't end just because the school might not reopen in the fall. > 13. McGonagall will refer the decision to close the school to the governors; do you think that we have any canon to go on in guessing whether Hogwarts will reopen or not? Do you think that JKR ought to tell us one way or another before book 7? Ceridwen: I can see the Governors perhaps wanting to hear evidence for and against reopening the school since the protections were gotten around. But earlier canon suggests to me that Hogwarts will reopen. It reopened after Myrtle died as far as we know, and it didn't close after the Chamber was opened again in Harry's second year. I do think they'll want to do something with that Vanishing cabinet - either get rid of the one on school grounds, or obtain the other one, so there will be no passage into the school that way. I don't think JKR should tell us whether the school opens or not until the book is released. > 14. Do you find any of the characters' reactions to Dumbledore's death suspicious? Do you think that we may find out something in book 7 which will make us view this hospital-wing scene in a different light (even if you can't imagine what it is yet)? Ceridwen: I take anything with a grain of salt where JKR's writing is concerned. Everyone seemed to be grieving in their own ways, but I think that sooner or later someone is going to start questioning and poking around if nothing else. I do think we'll have to revisit the hospital scene, though right now, I'm not sure why. Maybe there are clues we missed the first time. > 15. Did it surprise you that there was no mention of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' portraits' reactions to McGonagall asking where Harry went with Dumbledore? They've often been vocal in the past when Harry and Dumbledore were alone together; is their silence in this scene conspicuous? How do you think Phineas Nigellus, for example, reacted to news of Dumbledore's death, and when did he hear? Ceridwen: No, I didn't notice the lack of comment from the portraits. McGonagall hadn't asked for their advice. Maybe they don't know how far they can go with her. Dumbledore seemed easygoing with them. I would love to hear the portraits' reactions, though. Especially Phineas Nigellus's! I hope we get that scene. > 16. "And he knew, without knowing how he knew it, that the phoenix had gone, had left Hogwarts for good, just as Dumbledore had left the school, had left the world had left Harry." Did you find this ending to the chapter poignant? Does it wear off after the sixth re- read? If we see Fawkes again in book 7, do you think we will get to know him as a character in his own right, or will he always be associated with and symbolise Dumbledore? Ceridwen: I think the ending is in keeping with the events of that chapter. It doesn't have the same impact after the sixth re-read, but it still fits. Fawkes will always be associated with Dumbledore. Ceridwen, thanking Dungrollin for a good chapter discussion. From j_m_arff at yahoo.de Fri Jan 26 15:34:44 2007 From: j_m_arff at yahoo.de (j_m_arff) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:34:44 -0000 Subject: R.A.B. ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164254 "Sages Baby" wrote: > The note left inside the locket was addressed "To the Dark Lord". > Hasn't it been said in the books that only the Death Eaters refer to > Voldemort as "The Dark Lord" > Could Regulus have been R.A.B.? Has this discussion been brought up > already? If so I would love a link. Thanks. > Dear Sages, Yes, I have been thinking along these lines as well, because the initials as well as the constellation Sirius' brother was in with Voldemort seem to fit. One thing that doesn't seem to fit in though is, that there is no explanation for the "A" in his initials, because he is not introduced with a middle name. This is the reason why I personally am not quite sure. Since I am also new to this forum I don't know about earlier posts concerning this topic, but would be interested to find out. JMA From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 26 18:14:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:14:30 -0000 Subject: Aberforth In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701251002s4797ad4av409ee23c93d0159b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164255 finwitch wrote: > > Just a thought -- maybe Aberforth has a difficulty when it comes to reading? One that would, perhaps, also occur so that he couldn't learn any *standard* spells, but was all the more creative, doing things with his wand that none of the professors had seen before? and ONLY that. Jeremiah responded: > > I'm assuming everyone knows that Aberforth (DD's goat-loving brother...) is the bar-keep at the Hog's Head. > > You're right. I think that there is a lot to this character that has yet to be reveald. One could take the stance that Albus got the brains and all the junk went to Aberforth (and I agree that Aberforth is illiterate... JKR says so though DD). The other way to look at it is Albus was the go-getter and Aberforth had his own agenda whan it came to living his life. He's probably happy with his bar and goats, but I'm sure he has several tricks up his sleeve. What we don't know is is Aberforth went to Hogwarts just like his brother, or if he was in Gryffindor. Carol responds: I posted a response yesterday and it showed up on the list but has mysteriously disappeared, so I'll try again. Unfortunately, I can't recall everything I wrote, but if anyone who receives the list by e-mail has a copy of the post, I'd appreciate it if you'd send it to me. (If it mysteriously shows up again, I'll delete this one.) At any rate, I think Dumbledore was joking when he said that he wasn't sure that his brother could read. Certainly, it's not a definitive canonical assertion that Aberforth is illiterate. As for attending Hogwarts, acceptance into Hogwarts is based on magical ability, and if Aberforth can perform "inappropriate" charms on goats, he's no Squib. Also, if Crabbe and Goyle can be accepted into Hogwarts, surely Dumbledore's brother could be. (Draco's line, "I didn't know you could read," addressed to Goyle, appears only in the Cos film. I think that even Crabbe and Goyle must be able to read at some level, or they'd fail all their classes. And if they can read, so can Aberforth.) That aside, we know quite a bit about Aberforth (whose identity as the barkeeper has been all but confirmed by JKR), considering that Harry hasn't yet figured out that the person he saw in the photo of the old Order that Moody showed him is the same as the barkeeper in the Hog's Head, which smells of goats (surely intended as a clue by JKR). We know that he slightly resembles Dumbledore, being tall and thin with a long grey beard (which may indicate that he's younger than the white-bearded Albus) and that he's oddly unconcerned with hygeine, serving butterbeer in dusty bottles and wiping the same dirty mug over and over with a dirtier towel. We're told that he caught the eavesdropping Snape and (ostensibly) evicted him from the Hog's Head halfway through the Prophecy, yet he was standing there with young Snape when Trelawney came out of her trance. We know that the Hog's Head is a gathering place for all sorts of strange people, from hooded strangers to hags. We know that Mad-eye Moody has only met him once and regarded him as odd (no doubt the feeling was mutual), suggesting that not even Mad-eye knows what his role in the Order is. We see him having some sort of altercation with another Order member, Mundungus Fletcher, in HBP, and that Mundungus (who nevertheless shows up in the Hog's Head disguised as a veiled witch in OoP) was banned from the Hog's Head (surely by Aberforth himself) some twenty years before.. We know that Dumbledore had been told about Voldemort showing up in the Hog's Head with four(?) Death Eaters, whom DD names, the night before Voldemort's DADA interview. When LV asks the source of DD's information, he says that he's friendly with the local bartenders, which makes particular sense if Aberforth is his brother and a member of both the original and reinstated OoP. In fact, he seems to have been working with Albus before the Order existed. My feeling is that Aberforth, posing as an eccentric and rather stupid old man whose only business is to grudgingly serve drinks, make change, and wipe glasses with a dirty towel, is part of Dumbledore's extensive network of spies (referred to by Fudge in PoA). Where better to overhear useful conversations, under cover of doing his bartending job, than in a place with such a varied and unusual clientele? I'm betting that he told Dumbledore about the hooded stranger who sold Hagrid a dragon's egg and a lot of other information. Also, JKR has said in an interview that we ought to be asking questions about Dumbledore's family. Since Albus never married and it's unlikely that his parents are alive, I think the only family member who can answer our questions about him is Aberforth. I have a feeling he knows more than Harry does about Snape, too, and just possibly more about Mundungus as well. He's certainly our best source (and Harry's) for information on the eavesdropping incident. At any rate, unless the Order member whom we've met and will get to know better (per another JKR interview) is Dedalus Diggle, which I doubt, I have a feeling we'll be seeing quite a bit of the other Dumbledore in DH. Carol, wondering what happened to her original post and hoping that she recaptured the gist of it here (given the events of the past week, I may be suffering from a jinx!) From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Jan 26 21:59:27 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:59:27 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164256 > lealess >> What bothers me about this theory, however, is that it makes Snape's > return to Dumbledore less about remorse and more about opportunity, > and it makes Dumbledore more of a calculating manipulator of others. > Draco believed he could kill someone for his family, and acted on > that belief, until Dumbledore offered him another option. If Draco > had accepted the offer, he would have "owed" Dumbledore something. > It is probably in Dumbledore's nature to let people make choices... > on the other hand, the argument he had with Snape in the forest shows > he does not really let go once a promise has been made. And Snape, > for his part, may just be helping Dumbledore because it is > advantageous to his family, not because he really wants to make > amends for past actions or work for good. It's a kind of > blackmail/deal-making on both Dumbledore's and Snape's parts, and > less mercy-second chances-risks voluntarily taken on. Let's suppose for a moment that Irma=Eileen and that Dumbledore arranged this "wizarding protection program" for Snape's mother. That doesn't mean that the concern you outline above holds true. In comparing Draco's situation and Dumbledore's offer to him to Snape's situation, there are some *key* differences. 1. At least by later in HBP, Draco did not want to fulfill his mission any more (perhaps just out of frustration for the difficulty), but he felt *forced* to continue in order to protect his parent's lives. We have no indication in the series that Voldemort ever tried to hold the safety of Snape's mother or parents over his head as a threat. By OOTP and HBP, Voldemort seems to trust Snape without any need to threaten him, nor is there any reference to earlier times when Voldemort *didn't* trust Snape and had to force him to comply. 2. If Draco had quickly taken Dumbledore up on his offer (and assuming they could escape the Death Eaters), the offer was essentially to hide both Draco and his mother. There was no offer to "work for me and I'll protect your mother." So if one was drawing a direct parallel to Snape, there would be a similar offer for him -- no "I'll protect your mother if...." Besides, Dumbledore said that Snape's return to him was due in some way to his regret over Voldemort's targeting the Potters. This strongly implies that Snape was regreting something about the effects of his actions, not simply regreting a danger to dear old mom. My thought has been that if Dumbledore was hiding Eileen, it would have occurred something like this: Snape came back to Dumbledore and professed his regret over Voldemort targeting the Potters. Somehow, between them, Dumbledore and Snape decided that Snape would spy on Voldemort for the Order. *However* if Snape had ever been discovered as a spy, it could place any of his loved ones in supreme danger. That being a concern in Snape's spying for Dumbledore, the problem was solved by somehow faking Eileen's death (which meant, by the way, that she had to leave all her possessions including books at Spinners End), and giving her a new name, job, and life at Hogwarts as Irma Pince. This would be a partial reason for Dumbledore's trust in Snape -- that Snape trusted Dumbledore with his mother's safety. But it means that there's still a greater reason for Dumbledore's initial trust in Snape and his decision to use him as a spy in the first place. > Another theory is that Irma/Eileen went to Dumbledore to save her > son, much as Narcissa went to Snape to save her son -- a story of > mother love, without the sacrifice Lily made of her own life, and > without the potential sacrifice of another that Narcissa engineered. > Under this theory, Snape accepted the brokered deal, for whatever > reason he may have had. Can't see why Snape would do this. If he was loyal to Voldemort, his mother would be in little danger -- well, especially if Tobias were already out of the picture. Why would he need to protect her by switching sides? How would she be able to convince him to switch sides? > > None of this says that Snape didn't feel genuine remorse over his > actions as a Death Eater and the revelation and subsequent > interpretation of the Prophecy. But, while the Irma/Eileen theory > explains many things, and perceiving the motive to save a family > might be the only way Harry can ever forgive Snape, it still throws > Snape into a non-redeemable area for me. His actions, while they can > be perceived as self-sacrificing, can also be seen as selfish -- not > that saving your family is the worst motive in the world. First, I think we can be fairly certain that if Pince=Prince, Snape *is* on the right side -- not because of plot proofs, but just because there's practically no other reason for JKR to do that unless as supporting evidence for Snape. But I certainly don't agree that a revelation that she's his mother, and that Dumbledore has been protecting her, somehow means that Snape only went over to Dumbledore *in order* to protect her. Like I said, if Snape had been loyal to Voldemort, there's little reason for his mother to have been in danger from Voldemort. The more likely danger to her would be if Snape was *already* switching sides to Dumbledore and was concerned about her safety in the very real possibility that Voldemort discovered he was a spy. In that case, Snape turned away from Voldemort for other reasons -- regret over the Potters, or general regret over getting involved with LV in the first place -- and simply needed Dumbledore to hide his mother so that Snape would be free of worry for her as he spied on Voldemort. wynnleaf From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jan 29 11:00:04 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:00:04 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164257 Julie: Well, I'll have to leave the mechanics to JKR! And to everyone here to start punching holes in this theory. Take your aim... Ceridwen: Okay. As someone who has proposed both ESE!Weasleys and LV! Dumbledore, there's just one part that bothers me... Julie: *(snip)* > A McGonagall who has been "enchanted" by Tom Riddle, perhaps since their school days. *(snip)* > It also provides a perfect tie-in between Tom Riddle and McGonagall, something substantial related to their shared past for JKR to exploit while avoiding any supposed physical attraction between them during their school days--YUCK. Ceridwen: Aside from the fact that Tom Riddle was good-looking enough for Harry to notice when he met the sixteen year old memory of Tom (so, not YUCK, just creepy, and only then in hindsight), we don't have any canon that McGonagall was in school with Harry. In fact, if she was a "sprightly seventy" in the first book (heck, maybe I'm the one with memory difficulties, blame old age if I am), then she was born about 1921, and would have graduated Hogwarts in 1939. There may be one shared year with Tom Riddle, but for an eighteen year old to have a crush on an "ickle firstie" is even creepier than two same-age students having crushes on each other. I know Tom Riddle was precocious in his magic, and it's possible that he could do things in his first year that other students probably couldn't, but I get the impression from your post that McGonagall had some attraction to him while they were in school together that he capitalized on. Aside from there possibly being no shared school years together, then TR would have had to sense something about her that would have made Enchanting her something he might do, while keeping this enchantment a secret. I think he would have to have had an idea about the future - his own, of course, and McGonagall's as HoH and Deputy Headmistress to Dumbledore's Headmaster - that would make him want to do that. Ceridwen. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jan 29 11:16:45 2007 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:16:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164258 Dungrollin discussion question #3: Assuming Hermione's account of events in Snape's office is accurate, what do you make of her and Luna's gullibility? Are you annoyed that they didn't realise immediately that Snape had stupefied Flitwick and try to stop him? Since Ron, Neville and Ginny weren't much more use when confronted by the Peruvian Darkness Powder, and only made it through the fight because of the Felix Felicis, have your views on how useful the DA really was changed? Ceridwen: They weren't gullible. Snape was a teacher, and an Order member, and he told them that Flitwick needed help. Hermione and Luna are not as suspicious as Harry and wouldn't react in an automatically suspicious way. Dungrollin: I'm replying to Ceridwen, though most people seem to have answered this question similarly, so I'm not picking on her... In response to all this insistence that Hermione and Luna were not gullible, perhaps we could agree that they were at the very least a little slow? Here's a quote from Chapter 25, The Seer Overheard (UK p515); Quickly he told them where he was going, and why. He did not pause either for Hermione's gasps of horror or for Ron's hasty questions; they could work out the finer details for themselves later. `...So you see what this means?' Harry finished at a gallop. `Dumbledore won't be here tonight, so Malfoy's going to have another clear shot at whatever he's up to. *No, listen to me!*' he hissed angrily, as both Ron and Hermione showed every sign of interrupting. `I know it was Malfoy celebrating in the Room of Requirement. Here ?` He shoved the Marauder's Map into Hermione's hand. `You've got to watch him and you've got to watch Snape, too. Use anyone else who you can rustle up from the DA. Hermione, those contact galleons will still work, right? Dumbledore says he's put extra protection in the school, but if Snape's involved, he'll know what Dumbledore's protection is, and how to avoid it ? but he won't be expecting you lot to be on the watch, will he?' Later, on page 577 (again, UK ed) we get this: `So if Ron was watching the Room of Requirement with Neville,' said Harry, turning to Hermione, `were you -?' `Outside Snape's office, yes,' whispered Hermione, her eyes sparkling with tears, `with Luna. We hung around for ages outside it and nothing happened ... we didn't know what was going on upstairs, Ron had taken the Marauder's Map ... it was nearly midnight when Professor Flitwick came sprinting down into the dungeons. He was shouting about Death Eaters in the castle, I don't think he really registered that Luna and I were there at all, he just burst his way into Snape's office and we heard him saying that Snape had to go back with him and help and then we heard a loud thump and Snape came hurtling out of his room and he saw us and ? and ?` So the *entire* reason Hermione and Luna were waiting around for hours and hours while nothing happened was to keep an eye on Snape. Finally, at the moment they learn that Harry was right, that there really is something big going, that there are in fact *Death Eaters* in the castle - they stop keeping an eye on Snape at precisely the moment it would have been most useful, and docilely follow his instructions. So here's a follow-up question or two: Do you think that if JKR had put Ron on guard duty outside Snape's office that *he* would have dumbly gone inside to help Flitwick? Similarly, do you think that if Hermione and Luna had been outside the Room of Requirement, they might have come up with a nifty trick to use against the Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder? Is it Harry's fault for letting them `work out the finer details for themselves later'? Do you think that what I am seeing as gullibility is simply there for plot reasons, to make Snape's entrance on the tower work retrospectively with everyone else's positions? Dungrollin, thanking everyone for the thoughtful answers to her questions. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 11:20:08 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:20:08 -0000 Subject: Snape, redemption & Regulus WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164259 > > va32h wondered: > > Could Regulus' story involve Snape? They simply had to have known > each other. In the same house, a few years apart in age, both Death > Eaters, Regulus the brother of one of Snape's biggest enemies...did > Regulus' disappearance coincide with Snape's conversion to > Dumbledore's side? Finwitch: Well, for some reason I believe that - Snape being on the same year as Sirius, therefore older than Regulus - somehow became Regulus' guide among the school... AND possibly Snape was the one who introduced Regulus to the DE-party. At the very least, Sirius blamed Snape for it. What else could have caused him to say: 'he deserved it' - about the old werewolf-business? I mean, there must have been some *Reason* for Sirius Black to hate Snape so much. It goes beyond school-boy rivalry -- this is personal. Regulus, maybe. I certainly hope the 7th book will shed some light into this. Finwitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Jan 29 11:40:41 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:40:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164260 Ceridwen: > > They weren't gullible. Snape was a teacher, and an Order member, and he told them that Flitwick needed help. Hermione and Luna are not as suspicious as Harry and wouldn't react in an automatically suspicious way. Dungrollin: > I'm replying to Ceridwen, though most people seem to have answered this question similarly, so I'm not picking on her... In response to all this insistence that Hermione and Luna were not gullible, perhaps we could agree that they were at the very least a little slow? Ceridwen: You know, I tried to post that two days ago. It's only now showing up. *gah!* I think you're not taking into account that Hermione and Luna are under duress. Sure, they waited hours outside of Snape's office. Yes, they gave the map to Ron, who would probably have more need of it given where he was stationed. But after waiting several hours, things happened quickly when they did happen. Flitwick came hurtling down the stairs, spoke to Snape, collapsed or was hexed, Snape comes out and orders the girls to take care of Flitwick... They reacted automatically. I've read speculation before that Hermione's very good at book learning but not at thinking on her feet. If so, her brain just shut down and she followed directions. She's always been the one to defend Snape to Harry, and there is indication that she wanted to say something when Harry talked to them in the portion I snipped, but Harry cut her off. She may have wanted to mention that Dumbledore trusts Snape, or something similar. I think JKR writes things like this realistically. It's a temptation to make Our Heroes think things through in the blink of an eye, but it's not that way in Real Life. I think they were not gullible, only doing what they could at the time with the information they did have. Flitwick did need help as it turned out, for whatever reason. And since there was only one death - a Death Eater's - and Bill was the only Order member who was injured badly, their presence would not have made a difference, in my opinion. Still, it's something to think about. We might see something to make us reassess this in DH. Ceridwen. From muellem at bc.edu Mon Jan 29 12:37:01 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:37:01 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > Besides, Dumbledore said that Snape's return to him was due in some > way to his regret over Voldemort's targeting the Potters. This > strongly implies that Snape was regreting something about the > effects of his actions, not simply regreting a danger to dear old > mom. > colebiancardi: Not that I believe that Pince is Snape's mother or anything, but where does Dumbledore state that Snape's return was due in some way to his regret over Voldemort's targeting of the Potters? I have found that DD stated Snape felt remorse over how Voldemort interpreted the prophency and that DD believes it to be the greatest regret of his life (The Seer Overheard, HBP) and then we get the reason that he returned --- bit was cut off by Harry. I agree that he regrets his actions, but I am not convinced that Snape's return was solely due to that, because in GoF, DD tells Harry that the reason for his trust of Snape is between him and Snape--i.e. none of Harry's business. If it was over the betrayal of Harry's parents, it would be Harry's business, so there has to be something more that isn't any of Harry's business to know about. colebiancardi From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Fri Jan 26 14:16:56 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:16:56 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and the goats(was re: Aberforth) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164263 > Jeremiah writes: > "Hmmm.. one thing that stands out about Aberforth, and maybe it's > because I'm an adult, is JKR hints by telling us he inappropriately > > uses goats..." > va32h answers: > > That little bit has always struck me as JKR's Monty Python-esque > humor coming out. I can just see John Cleese behind his newsreader's > desk, saying "....where a local barman was acquitted of using > inappropriate charms on a goat. And now for something completely > different..." Lilygale here: When I first read this bit, I also thought the "inappropriate charms on a goat" reference was just humerous characterization for background color. But it has been pointed out by others more alert than I (and I cannot remember where I read this) that bezoars come from goat's stomachs. Perhaps Aberforth is a bezoar "farmer" and will play a role in DH relating to bezoars. Not sure what that role could be, though. Seems like bezoars have played themselves out between book 1 intro and book 6 pay-off (with a tip of the hat to Janet Batchler at "Quoth the Maven" and HogPro for the pay-offs essays). Lilygale From ida3 at planet.nl Mon Jan 29 09:57:48 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:57:48 -0000 Subject: Question from a newbie: Taking memories out of your head? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164264 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol wrote: >I think most of us on this list are familiar with the way a Pensieve >works (it enables a person to observe a memory, or a collection of >memories, more clearly than if the memory were in a person's head, and >it provides an objective record of what happened, including things >that the person himself was not aware of at the time). Pensieves are >apparently not used for long-term storage; such memories are placed in >vials for later use. (I wonder if they can be retrieved and placed >back in the bottle? we don't see what happens to, say, Bob Ogden's >memory or Hokey's after Harry and DD explore it.) Dana now: It was not my intention to imply that most of you did not know what a pensieve is, but that it seems like Snape's knowledge of a pensieve seems to be underestimated. Carol wrote: He isn'tshowing them to Harry and he isn't studying them. He >carefully puts >them back in at the end of each Occlumency lesson. Dana now: Well this is to some level precisely my point. Why is he using a pensieve? He has no intention to study the memories themselves. Also I think there are a lot more than 3 memories in Snape's head that remind him of James. They hated each other from the moment they laid eyes on each other. Snape's memory indicates they crossed paths before and it is no secret to Harry so even if Harry saw James flashing by when accidentally breaking into Snape's head than it would not have surprised him. Maybe made him curious but that's it. Also there would still have been a lot of memories of James to run into even with these 3 removed. >Carol Wrote: it seems to me quite logical that he would want to conceal >them, or >any part of them, from Harry, who is certainly not a Legilimens but >could accidentally reveal part of one of these memories with a >Protego. If Harry saw it, it's possible that Voldemort would see it >because of the mind link between Harry and Voldemort. So Snape is >taking no chances, protecting a few particular memories that he >ordinarily shields from LV using Occlumency, or perhaps has no need to >shield if Legilimency reveals the thoughts at the forefront of a >person's mind, such as Harry's Potions book. As you say, Snape has >informed us that the mind is not a book that the Legilimens can >explore at will. So Snape's use of a Pensieve to temporarily store >(not "sieve" and study) these memories appears to be highly unusual. > Dana now: To me it doesn't seem quite logical because when Snape was in LV's camp these memories where already there and before the prophesy, there was no reason for Snape to conceal them at all. Only after the Potters became LV focus point might these memories have any interest due to the life dept to James but Harry already knows this and Snape also already knows Harry knows because he knows Harry has been told about the prank and that James pulled Snape out of it, even if he does not know Dumbledore already told Harry about the Life Dept issue of the story. LV already knows Snape changed sides maybe even on his own command so no big secret there and Harry knows Snape has been a DE. The Protego charm gives Harry precisely 3 flashes of Snape's memory and than Snape breaks it of. He is not even concerned with what Harry saw but he directly shifts his attention to the pensieve why? Harry surely can't access them from where he is standing? I snipped the rest of your post but do think you raised some interesting points but personally I am starting to wonder if the pensieve is Snape's back up plan more than a way to store these particular memories. Not from a ESE!Snape point of view and not from I want to hide these memories from sight point of view because they still are safer in his head but more a back up plan to stop the lessons when LV decides it is time to take over the scene. LV is planning the set-up of bringing Harry to the DoM for months and I do not think he would have stayed in the background and let Snape ruin his plan by teaching Harry occlumency. Of course I am speculating but Snape's surprise about the shield charm (does anyone know if Harry even knows this shield charm before this time?) and Harry's ability to look into Snape's head might have triggered Snape to think it might not have been Harry who broke in but LV. It is also interesting to see that after this event Harry is at the DoM again instead of in his own memory. This was no memory of his own because before this time Harry could not get in but suddenly he finds himself beyond the first door. Snape is even anger with this than with Harry seeing a few flashes of his memories. I think Snape knows LV is there planting new images into his head and to me it seems that LV lets Snape witness this on purpose. I think by this time it is in Snape best interest to stop the lessons and not interfere with LV's plan. He certainly will not win any favors by teaching Harry to block him out. Another thing of interest is that it is said Montage used apparition to free himself and this while you can not apparate anywhere in or near Hogwarts but than finds himself stuck into a toilet. Although I can only imagine how funny it must have been to right the scene for JKR it contradicts what has been told to us over and over again that it is not possible to do this. It is also on the next lesson after the break in and the planting of new images, there haven't been any in between. Sure this memory might really have been Snape's worst memory but no other memory would have specifically granted Snape an excuse to quit the lessons. It is in essence a small sacrifice of dignity vs getting an angry LV on your back or even blowing your cover for it. And as we know Dumbledore buys the cover story that the strong resentment towards James was too great for Snape to overcome. So LV is happy, Dumbledore accepts the excuse and Snape is of the hook and after having witnessed Harry being tortured by the Dursley's it must be so gratifying to Snape to give this nice impression of James and Sirius the bullies of poor little Snivellus. It might even have been Sirius who triggered the idea to use this memory as decoy. You can not make me believe that a calculated man like Snape who is able to wiggle his ways between LV and Dumbledore and always comes out unharmed is suddenly so incompetent to forget to throw Harry out of his class room in case of an emergency? I also still do not buy that there would have been any reason to show Harry he is hiding something from him if he really wanted to hide it and the same goes for LV because if LV can see through Harry's eyes than Snape has some explaining to do why he is hiding something from LV. If Snape is such a bright and cleaver man than he surely knows better even if he thinks nothing much of Harry. He knows Harry is the most nosy person alive (well besides himself that is ;o). Personally I do think Snape wanted to have Harry learn occlumency and I do not believe he was trying to open Harry's mind but I do think Snape was calculated enough to leave a backdoor open incase LV decided to take matters into his own hands. For that matter I do think (and like) Neri's LID!Snape thesis a very plausible one if Snape could prevent LV from causing any danger to Harry, he honestly tries to help but he is not prepared to let this ordeal put him in a position without having a choice and endangering himself. It is even interesting to see that after the worst memory incident Snape is even more able to control himself towards Harry and just ignores him, this while the resentment should have been at its uttermost high. JMHO Dana From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 29 13:32:46 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:32:46 -0000 Subject: Ginny/Regulus/Unnmarried/Portrait/"Left"/PrinceSpell/Metamorphmag/Potion/Brut In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164265 > Pippin wrote in > : > > << If James was stealing spells from the Prince's book, how could > Lupin know so little about it? >> Catlady: > What is the evidence that James was stealing spells from the Prince's > book? Pippin: "It was I who invented them--I, the Half-blood Prince! And you'd turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, would you?" -HBP ch28. I can believe that the levicorpus spell spread like a fad, but James strikes me as an early adopter. And Snape uses the plural. Catlady: A few months 'when you couldn't move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle fits my image of Hogwarts School. And Sirius was there -- wouldn't he have looked surprised if Remus told a big whopper about school days? Pippin: Huh? I think you are mixing up two conversations. Lupin discusses the Prince's book with Harry in HBP, well after Sirius's demise. Nothing is said in OOP about hoisting students into the air being a common practice, or about what spells were being used. > Pippin wrote in > : > > << You want a brutal, sadistic hero who enjoys killing? Why go to all > the trouble to turn Harry into something he isn't, when we already > have such a character? Eggplant, meet DDM!Snape. >> Catlady: > *DOES* DDM!Snape enjoy killing? > Pippin: We saw that memory of zapping flies, and there's all those jars full of slimy things. I like the idea that DDM!Snape's opposition to killing people is purely moral, as opposed to a visceral or animal aversion such as Draco evinces. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 29 13:45:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:45:29 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164266 Julie: > > 2. Why isn't *she* Dumbledore's confidante? > > 3. Why does Dumbledore never share any sensitive information with McGonagall? Pippin: Dumbledore knew there was a spy close to him. It appears that at the time of Godric's Hollow, McGonagall was not yet a registered Animagus (otherwise she would expect Dumbledore to be familiar with her markings.) Clearly she is capable of keeping things from him. So despite her apparent devotion to Dumbledore and all things Gryffindor, there was an outside chance that she was the spy, or an accomplice of the spy, especially given that she was probably a schoolmate of Riddle's. Pippin From rkelley at blazingisp.net Mon Jan 29 13:56:33 2007 From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:56:33 -0600 Subject: R.A.B. ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164267 In OOTP when Harry and Sirius are looking at the Black family tapestry, Sirius mentions that he had an Uncle Alphard who left Sirius a bit of gold and was removed from the tapestry. I've wondered if Regulus' middle name was Alphard. Anders [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 29 14:09:58 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:09:58 -0000 Subject: Snape and redemption WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164268 > Alla: > > I am sorry, but I do not buy that success of Draco's redemption > somehow depends on Snape's. I think that if we will be shown that > Draco did something redemptive in book 7 and learn in the epilogue > that he went on to live productive life, that could be written quite > compellingly. Pippin: Draco is a relatively minor character -- his sins against Harry are minor ones (even letting the DE's in, because Snape was already in the castle) and frankly how many readers care whether he gets redeemed or not? Consider the number of posts discussing Snape as opposed to the number discussing Draco. Whether Snape's redemption succeeds or fails, his will still be the central redemption story simply because he's a more central character than Draco. Even in HBP, where Draco seemingly had the bigger part, it turned out that Snape was front and center all along. The book isn't named after Malfoy. Also, I don't like the idea that the entire older generation is so damaged that the chance of redemption is wasted on them. That would say that you can predict who is redeemable based on how damaged they are, and I think the whole point is that you can't predict and the only way to find out whether someone is worthy of a second chance is to give them one. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 15:27:38 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:27:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164269 > dungro9llin: > So the *entire* reason Hermione and Luna were waiting around for > hours and hours while nothing happened was to keep an eye on Snape. > Finally, at the moment they learn that Harry was right, that there > really is something big going, that there are in fact *Death Eaters* > in the castle - they stop keeping an eye on Snape at precisely the > moment it would have been most useful, and docilely follow his > instructions. zgirnius: This is, of course, after receiving confirmation that Snape, apparently, has absolutely no idea the Death Eaters are there (he just sits in his office, seemingly engaged in some mundane activity like sleeping, preparing lessons, or grading papers, until Flitwick comes running). And after hearing Snape's help is needed by McGonagall. It is true that Harry asks them to watch Snape, but he does not do a very good job of explaining why this is necessary. (He makes a far better case for watching Draco, he tacks on Snape as an afterthought, as the quite I snipped shows). Nor does Snape behave in a manner that would cause an unsuspicious Hermione (or Luna) to suddenly think, 'Aha! Harry was right after all!'. dungrollin: > Do you think that if JKR had put Ron on guard duty outside Snape's > office that *he* would have dumbly gone inside to help Flitwick? zgirnius: No, but that is because Ron and Hermione have opposite opinions of Snape, not because Hermione is 'dumb'. Presumably Felix would have arranged for Snape to take Ron out in a fairly benign manner as well. dungrollin: > Similarly, do you think that if Hermione and Luna had been outside > the Room of Requirement, they might have come up with a nifty trick > to use against the Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder? Is it Harry's > fault for letting them `work out the finer details for themselves > later'? Do you think that what I am seeing as gullibility is simply > there for plot reasons, to make Snape's entrance on the tower work > retrospectively with everyone else's positions? zgirnius: While I had never considered the matter before, yes, for plot reasons it was simplest for the Snape watchers to agree to take care of Flitwick. But this is why Rowling had the kids arrange to put Hermione in charge of guarding Snape - I find it completely in character, and not at all gullible of her, to have acted as she did. If Rowling had made Ron guard Snape, and had made Ron believe him, now *that* would be strange. Adn yes, perhaps we might expect Hermione to come up with some clever way to counteract the Darkness Powder (though perhaps not, it is not as though she has time to think about it or research it). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 15:50:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:50:00 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164270 Julie proposed: > *(snip)* > > A McGonagall who has been "enchanted" by Tom Riddle, perhaps since their school days. > *(snip)* > > It also provides a perfect tie-in between Tom Riddle and > McGonagall, something substantial related to their shared past for > JKR to exploit while avoiding any supposed physical attraction > between them during their school days--YUCK. > > Ceridwen: > Aside from the fact that Tom Riddle was good-looking enough for Harry to notice when he met the sixteen year old memory of Tom (so, not YUCK, just creepy, and only then in hindsight), we don't have any > canon that McGonagall was in school with Harry. > > In fact, if she was a "sprightly seventy" in the first book (heck, > maybe I'm the one with memory difficulties, blame old age if I am), > then she was born about 1921, and would have graduated Hogwarts in > 1939. There may be one shared year with Tom Riddle, but for an > eighteen year old to have a crush on an "ickle firstie" is even > creepier than two same-age students having crushes on each other. Carol responds: I agree with Ceridwen that Enchanted!McGonagall is unlikely, but we still have the problem that Julie pointed out: Dumbledore doesn't confide in McGonagall, his deputy headmistress (though I'm not sure whether she held that job when Harry was placed at the Dursleys as a toddler) and the Head of Gryffindor House. I realize that JKR says in an interview that Dumbledore has no confidante, no equal, but McGonagall is one of his most senior teachers (possibly the oldest on the staff, setting aside Ghost!Binns), holds his own former position as Transfiguration teacher (and I'm guessing that he was also Head of Gryffindor House and deputy headmaster in his time). By the time Harry starts school, she's second in command, and is usually at his side (along with the much younger Severus Snape) in times of crisis. Given her age and experience, she's as close to an equal as anyone at Hogwarts. Why, then doesn't he confide in her? Is it merely his own tendency to secretiveness, telling half-truths out of habit because he doesn't trust anyone else with that dangerous but beautiful thing, truth? Of course, he doesn't yet know the full truth himself, but why not tell her as much as he knows, or at least give her the real or primary reason for leaving Harry with Lily's relatives? (Yes, of course, JKR doesn't want the reader to know, but I mean in terms of character, not plot.) If McGonagall isn't enchanted or under a long-term Imperius (and I do think we can safely rule out that possibility), what is about her that Dumbledore doesn't trust? I don't think it's her intelligence. She seems to be quite bright with regard to teaching and knowledge of her subject. Nor do I think it's her loyalty since she defies Fudge to stand up for Dumbledore in OoP and she's a member of the Order, at least the second time around. Possibly he's protective of her because of her age (those four Stunners in the chest didn't do her any good), but he's almost twice as old, so I don't think that's it. Nor does he have any reason to doubt her courage (she defies Umbridge as well as Fudge, confronting all those Aurors for Hagrid's sake). I think the answer is McGonagall's emotions. Though she's usually straight-laced and stern, she was very fond of James and Lily, and she develops an equal fondness for Harry, revealed by her buying him an expensive racing broom and allowing him on the Quidditch team in his first year when other first-years aren't even allowed their own broom and later by her softness in allowing Harry and Ron to visit Hermione in the hospital wing without an escort despite the danger of the monster from the CoS attacking them. (I don't think she thought about their blood status possibly protecting them, only their friendship with Hermione.) He doesn't want to tell McGonagall about the Horcruxes or the full contents of the Prophecy or anything else because she'd be too protective of Harry. (And of course he wouldn't tell her or antyone else about Snape's being the eavesdropper because he's protecting Snape's privacy.) As for McGonagall's role in the Order, she's not in the photograph that Moody shows Harry, so this appears to be her first time around. Dumbledore seems to be recruiting those close to him or loyal to him to supplement the few surviving members of the old Order. Apparently he recruits her (without actually mentioning the Order) right before he sends Sirius Black to alert the "old crowd" and Snape to rejoin Voldemort. (Interestingly, he sends her to Hagrid *before* he sends the others, so she's absent for Black's transformation and the grudging handshake, IIRC.) Most of the new Order members (aside from Molly and Sirius Black) appear to be spies or liaisons of some sort--Tonks, Shacklebolt, and Arthur Weasley for the Ministry; Snape for the Death Eaters; Bill Weasley for the Gringotts goblins; Lupin for the werewolves; Mundungus for the Knockturn Alley crowd; Aberforth (IMO) for the Hog's Head clientele. The one time we see McGonagall at 12 GP, IIRC, she's looking very odd in Muggle clothes. Maybe McGonagall is a Half-blood who, despite her apparent prejudice against those who aren't "our kind" (not unique to her--the whole WW appears to share her view) knows enough about Muggles to pass as one and help DD learn what's going on in the Muggle world, say in her native Scotland rather than England, where he has Figgy, among others, to keep an eye on things? And, of course, she would report to Dumbledore via Patronus just as Snape seems to do when DD is not at Hogwarts. (He would know about Umbridge's attempt to thwart Harry's ambition to be an Auror through her, for example.) And if she did go to school with Tom Riddle, even for a year or two, he'd have asked her for her recollections of him. (He probably asked her contemporary and fellow Gryffindor, Augusta Longbottom, as well.) Maybe he's using the old girl as best he can, capitalizing on her loyalty without letting her get emotionally involved (his own love for Harry has nearly interfered with his plans to defeat Voldemort, after all, but her primary role seems to be at Hogwarts as teacher, HoH for Gryffindor, and assistant headmistress rather than as Order member outside the school. That's quite enough to be getting on with for a witch in her seventies, after all. Carol, just tossing out ideas here and committed to any McGonagall theories From percafluvia at gmx.net Mon Jan 29 14:10:36 2007 From: percafluvia at gmx.net (laperchette) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:10:36 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164271 juli17 at ... wrote: ESE!McGonagall? I think your theory is brilliant! I really love it. I always thought that there has to be a traitor and another spy in Hogwarts. I wondered who could be it, but couldn't make your step. When we don't think from a psychological point of view, but from a writer's, it has to be someone important. It wouldn't be fun to hear Vector or Sinistra (or another minor character) is a traitor, that wouldn't be interesting, it has to be someone we feel attached to. It cannot be a kid, because it has to go back to Godric Hollow-times. Some of the characters with flaws and problems in the ww fell out too, it cannot be Lupin or Hagrid (the message: don't trust halfgiants and werewolfs (eg people with problems) would be a bit awkward and not typical for Rowling). So there are only McGonagall, Flitwitch and Sprout left. The shock of ESE!McGonagall would be the biggest. Are there McGonagalls on the Black-family-tree? But perhapse we have to reread (once again!) the books to look for hints, than Rowling would have planned this surprise since the beginning. laperchette thinking about Harry's shock, when Juli's theory would be right... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 16:24:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:24:11 -0000 Subject: Snape, redemption & Regulus WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164272 Finwitch wrote: > > Well, for some reason I believe that - Snape being on the same year as Sirius, therefore older than Regulus - somehow became Regulus' guide among the school... AND possibly Snape was the one who introduced Regulus to the DE-party. At the very least, Sirius blamed Snape for it. What else could have caused him to say: 'he deserved it' - about the old werewolf-business? I mean, there must have been some *Reason* for Sirius Black to hate Snape so much. It goes beyond school-boy rivalry -- this is personal. Regulus, maybe. I certainly hope the 7th book will shed some light into this. Carol responds: I agree that Severus and Regulus were probably friends (Regulus didn't witness the Pensieve incident because he wasn't one of the group of students who had just taken the DADA OWL). And I do think that Sirius blamed him, fifteen years after Regulus's death and not necessarily correctly, for Regulus's decision to join the Death Eaters. But that can't be the reason that Sirius lured Severus into the Shrieking Shack in the first place or that he believed that snape "deserved it" in PoA. Sirius and the Marauders were only sixteen at the time of the so-called Prank, and Reggie would only have been about fourteen--surely, too young to be a Death Eater even by Voldemort's standards. More important, as late as GoF, Sirius Black doesn't know that Snape had been a Death Eater. (He doesn't know that the DEs have Dark Marks on their left arms, either.) So in the Shrieking Shack scene, which occurs the previous year, he can't be placing the blame for Regulus joining the DEs on Snape. He says himself in OoP that his parents must have considered Regulus (whom he calls an "idiot") "a right little hero" at first for joining the DEs. It was in keeping with the pureblood ideology that Regulus had been raised with, and hardly a surprise given his Dark wizard heritage and the Slytherin symbols all over the Black house. In fact, the only surprise is that Sirius Black was able to reject that heritage (perhaps because he was sorted into Gryffindor, where it would not be nurtured as it would in Slytherin). At any rate, maybe by the time we get to OoP and Sirius knows (because Snape has revealed his Dark Mark to Fudge) that Snape was once a DE, he's subconsciously blaming him for recruiting Regulus, and he may blame his friendship with Regulus and his (ostensible) interest in Dark magic for corrupting Regulus before that (even as early as the Pensieve incident), but that's speculation. I see no canon evidence. Therir sniping seems to be a continuation of their earlier feud, snape sneering at Black as a coward and Black calling Snape "Snivellus" and no doubt considering his newly revealed DE background as an additional reason not to trust him. Neither trusts the other, apparently, despite Dumbledore's faith in both. But as long as we're speculating, *if* Severus and Regulus were friends despite being about two years apart (and I agree that it was likely), witnessing Regulus's murder could have been one of the things that caused young Snape to defect to Dumbledore's side and risk his life by spying on Voldemort. I keep thinking back to JKR's response to the question of whether Snape can see Thestrals: "As a Death Eater, he will have *seen*--" suspiciously broken off. Obviously, he saw at least one person killed by the Death Eaters ("seen" is important, IMO, in indicating that he didn't kill anyone himself), but it makes sense for that one person to be another young Death Eater whose name we know, his acquaintance and perhaps his friend, Regulus Black. Carol, definitely expecting a connection of some sort between Severus and Regulus in DH From rkelley at blazingisp.net Mon Jan 29 15:06:10 2007 From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:06:10 -0600 Subject: The invisibility cloak, RAB and Petunia Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164273 I've been thinking about the invisibility cloak again. It seems there are only two things which could make it so important: either there's something special about the cloak itself - perhaps Lily charmed it somehow - or else it was used by someone else. Since DD didn't need it for invisibility, then the question in that case would become who needed it, and why? I've been thinking about JKR's reply when asked about Regulus Black. It's true that she replied, "He's dead, so he's been pretty quiet these days," but if memory serves correctly, didn't she hesitate a bit before answering? If she planned a big plot twist around Regulus being alive, how else would she answer that question? Do we really think she would say, "Oh, yeah, you guessed it. Regulus really isn't dead. He's been in hiding all these years, only presumed dead, and he'll show up again in the final book"? I can't believe she would give away something that big. She could justify her answer later by saying he'd been "dead" with a draught of living death potion, or something of that nature. It didn't seem to me that her answer about Regulus being dead was as definite as when she told us that Dumbledore is really dead. I'd like to hear her say unequivocally that Regulus is dead and will stay dead before I will be totally certain. If it is possible that Regulus is still alive, then that would have been a possible use of James' invisibility cloak - whisking Regulus away into hiding. If he is the infamous RAB, then he would likely have taken the locket around the same time. The question remains, who was with him? One person couldn't have taken the locket from the cave alone. Is the locket the one in the cabinet at #12 Grimmauld Place, or did the companion take it for safe-keeping? I had one other wild thought. JKR told us there's more to Petunia than meets the eye - is it possible that Petunia also loved someone from the wizarding world? It may be true that she is truly disgusted by anything to do with the wizarding world, but if she was a woman scorned or one who loved and lost, that might have precipitated her disgust. On an even wilder thought - could Petunia have been in love with Regulus? It would be logical for Petunia to be visiting Lily when Sirius and his brother dropped by or a visit. If Petunia and Regulus developed a relationship it might have been the thing that changed Regulus' mind about purebloods. Dumbledore seemed to know Petunia very well, or at least had conversations with her of which Vernon was unaware. Perhaps DD threatened to tell Vernon about her prior relationship unless she took Harry into her home. Petunia must have at least known who Sirius Black was since he had such a close relationship with James and Lily, yet Petunia was totally mum about him when he appeared on the Muggle news. She seems to have either blocked all memories of Lily's wizard friends or else is careful to make no mention of them. Perhaps she believes Regulus was killed, and was traumatized by the experience. (Is she keeping a small memento of him hidden away somewhere - something such as a locket perhaps???) Regardless, it has been apparent from the first that Petunia knows more about Lily's world than she let Vernon and Harry know. I realize these are just wild theories, but does anyone see any thread of possibility here? Anders From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 16:51:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:51:33 -0000 Subject: Was Hermione gullible? (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164274 Dungrollin: > > I'm replying to Ceridwen, though most people seem to have answered > this question similarly, so I'm not picking on her... > > In response to all this insistence that Hermione and Luna were not > gullible, perhaps we could agree that they were at the very least a > little slow? Carol responds: I don't think so. they had no reason (except Harry's unconfirmed suspicions of Snape) to doubt Snape's loyalty, and it made perfect sense to do what he said. Flitwick *did* need help, and taking him to the hospital wing kept both him and them out of the battle. And, as I said before, Flitwick has a bruise on his forehead, and most people who are Stunned appear to fall on their back, much like victims of Avada Kedavra. Maybe he *did* faint. He's an excitable little fellow, after all. (Now if they'd heard Snape shout "Stupefy!" it would be another matter, but either he used a nonverbal spell or Flitwick really did faint.) No. I don't think they were slow. I think they were sensible--and right to believe that Snape was on their side (even if he did, quite understandably, want Flitwick out of his way). The Felix didn't save them; they were (IMO) in no danger in the first place *unless* they'd followed Snape toward the battle, leaving poor Flitwick to wake up on his own and wonder what had happened. Hermione is only "gullible" if Harry is right and Snape is a murdering traitor. But even if Snape is ESE! and she and Luna were in danger of being killed, which I don't believe for a moment, they still did the humane and sensible thing by obeing him and taking care of Flitwick. It would have been stupid beyond belief to challenge Snape and accuse him of Stupefying Flitwick, even if it had occurred to them to do so, much less to fire a spell at him assuming that he was involved in Draco's plan, whether he was ESE! or DDM! The mere fact that he wasn't out there fighting with the DEs against the Order members showed that he wasn't part of Draco's plan to get the DEs into the castle. Clearly, he was surprised that they were there and in a hurry to do something about it. And that he didn't threaten them or shout at them but instead made a perfectly reasonable request would have added to their impression that he was doing what he said he was doing, going to join the fight against the DEs. (He could hardly tell them about the UV.) I predict that "Oh, Harry, I was so stupid!" will be seen in retrospect to be as wrong as Hermione's earlier belief that Lupin was helping Sirius Black into the castle so that Black could murder Harry.) Carol, who on another note has decided not to delete her second Aberforth post (in a different thread) because no one replied to the first one From va32h at comcast.net Fri Jan 26 23:36:03 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:36:03 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164275 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lealess" wrote: To recap the evidence as it is now being discussed: > 1) The anagram, "I'm A Prince - Irma Pince" -- similar to "I Am Lord Voldemort," although JKR had to stretch for the latter one. va32h here: Is the anagram trick something JKR would want to repeat? She *does* repeat plot twists, elements, themes, etc. Enough time has passed since the post-CoS anagram frenzy that it would seem almost fresh again. lealess: > 2) The physical similarity, made more pronounced in HPB (hooked >nose, parchment-like skin). va32h here: From Snape's memories, as seen by Harry, it appears that Snape resembles his father, in terms of the hooked nose, at least. The mother in that memory is not described as having a hooked nose. I don't think her nose is described at all, actually. But it's the mention of the man's hooked nose that is supposed to be our clue that Snape is recalling his parents, isn't it? lealess: 3) The fact that a chapter featuring Pince often follows a > significant chapter for Snape, e.g., per PAM2002, ch. 11-12 of SS, > ch. 9-10 of COS, ch. 25-26 of GOF, ch. 28-29 of OOTP. In all of > these chapters, Pince mirrors Snape's behavior. The exception is >HBP. va32h here: I don't know what to make of that...I have read the thread on Leaky, and some of the quotes they use in that argument aren't entirely convincing to me. That Snape and Pince both said "Get out" or something similar -- that's a common enough phrase that it doesn't strike me as a purposeful link. lealess: > 4) Pince's extra-effective (darkish?) library science skills. "Madam > Pince has been known to add some unusual hexes and jinxes at times, > besides the usual collection of library book spells." Quidditch > Through the Ages, as quoted by Sylvanawood. > > 5) Pince's remaining at Hogwarts over the summer (Sylvanawood: "If > you look at that funny little check-out page of Quidditch Through the Ages, you see that people borrow it from the library all through the year"). In fact, Pince never seems to leave the library, except for the funeral at the end of HBP -- and some speculate that may have > been Snape in disguise, not Pince, who may be unable to leave the > library. va32h here: I have trouble with both these arguments. Dumbledore's foreword in QTTA seemed to me to be entirely intended as humorous exaggeration. Both JKR and Dumbledore intended it to be humorous, if you know what I mean. Even if it were not, that two characters are similarly gifted in magic doesn't necessarily make them related. I also think it's something of a leap to say that because Pince is not seen to leave the library, it means that she cannot leave the library, and certainly a leap to say that her not leaving the library has anything to do with whose mother she is or isn't. It just seems backward reasoning. That Pince is not seen outside the library, in itself, means nothing other than JKR has not needed her outside the library for any plot purposes. If one already assumes that she is both Snape's mother *and* bound to the library via some magical pact with Dumbledore, then it does have meaning. But it's not proof, unless you already believe the theory. And not just the theory that she is Snape's mother, but also that Dumbledore is hiding her in the library. Why couldn't she be Snape's mother, and go home to Spinner's End each summer? I have never even considered the idea that Pince was Snape in disguise before, so I will have to think about that for some time before addressing it! lealess: > 6) Random things: similar irritable behavior, a "pincers-spider" > correlation, books everywhere at Spinner's End. va32h: I definitely see the little similarities there...love of books, irritable temper, etc. I am not sure that is enough to trump some of my doubts though - if Irma is Eileen, why do all the Hogwart's teachers go along with this fiction? They would have known Eileen as a student. Well, of course, Dumbledore could have made them promise their silence or altered her appearance...but as soon as we are getting into supposition based on supposition, and that's where I start to waver. lealess: > So, one theory is that, when Voldemort threatened Snape's family or > when Snape was backed into a corner, maybe when he was caught > listening to the Prophecy, Dumbledore offered to protect Snape's > mother at Hogwarts and Snape became a spy. What is gained from this theory is that it parallels the offer made to Draco on the Tower >(at least in the United States), and perhaps explains part of the >reason Dumbledore trusts Snape and yet keeps the reason a secret. >The secret is one of tremendous magnitude, the revelation of which >could be seen as a betrayal, especially if revealed to someone with >a wholly transparent mind like Harry Potter. The theory also >humanizes Snape, showing that love of a kind can be a motivating >factor for him. va32h here: So Snape is doing all this for his mother, not for Lily? On the one hand, I prefer that interpretation, as I think mother-love is more prominent a theme in the books than romantic-love. And I definitely see parallels between Draco and Snape, in the sense that I think Snape once found himself in Draco's position. That is, thinking he loathed someone enough to kill them (or at least want them dead) but when faced with the prospect of doing (or seeing) it, suddenly found it not at all as satisfying as they had imagined, and in fact being scared to death. What really bothers me about this theory though, is that it makes Deathly Hallows just a bit too much All About Snape. Harry has horcruxes to find and destroy, an evil lord to thwart, much to uncover about his parents, resolution with the Dursleys, and a wedding to attend. Does Snape have a huge part to play in much of this? Absolutely. But if Snape has his own huge, heretofore completely unknown secret that must be revealed and resolved, and if it's to be dealt with in any more than a perfunctory manner, then either the book is going to be 1000 pages long, or some part of Harry's story is going to be cut, and I can't see that happening. Well, I don't want to either, so there's my bias. Since there is already an existing motivation (which requires further explanation, but at least the basis is there) for Snape to go through this remorse/redemption process, why should JKR drop that, and introduce an entirely new motivation that will have to be explained from scratch? I'm asking rhetorically, not trying to be confrontational. va32h, hoping DH is more about Harry, less about Snape From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Jan 29 17:01:22 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:01:22 -0000 Subject: Snape, redemption & Regulus WAS: Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164276 > > va32h wondered: > > > > Could Regulus' story involve Snape? They simply had to have known > > each other. In the same house, a few years apart in age, both Death > > Eaters, Regulus the brother of one of Snape's biggest enemies...did > > Regulus' disappearance coincide with Snape's conversion to > > Dumbledore's side? > > Finwitch: > > Well, for some reason I believe that - Snape being on the same year as > Sirius, therefore older than Regulus - somehow became Regulus' guide > among the school... AND possibly Snape was the one who introduced > Regulus to the DE-party. At the very least, Sirius blamed Snape for > it. What else could have caused him to say: 'he deserved it' - about > the old werewolf-business? I mean, there must have been some *Reason* > for Sirius Black to hate Snape so much. It goes beyond school-boy > rivalry -- this is personal. Regulus, maybe. I certainly hope the 7th > book will shed some light into this. Magpie: I don't know whether Snape would have had to have been the one to introduce Regulus into the DEs to get Sirius to still think he deserved the werewolf Prank. He had his family influencing him as well. Sirius says they thought he was a right little hero for joining up. As the Half-Blood Snape would more likely be the one introduced to the DEs by someone else. That's not to say that Sirius couldn't hate Snape for his association with Regulus' end--I do think Sirius repressed his better feelings for his brother under a lot of anger at others (and Regulus too). It's just hard to think of Snape being responsible for Regulus being a DE when Regulus comes from the background he does and Snape is shown at 15 to be rather singularly uncharismatic. Not that I mean he didn't have a lot to offer and that he couldn't have impressed Regulus with a lot of the things he could do. It's just when I imagine Sirius being angered by Regulus and Snape's relationship, whatever it was, I can't imagine him thinking of Snape as leading Regulus to the DEs. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 29 17:50:53 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:50:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's Vision and Snape (Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character...) In-Reply-To: <01d601c7429d$b3c32d80$a198400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164277 Carol: > So, whether the word I'm looking for is "appearances" > or "preconceptions" or something else, Harry prejudges Snape as evil > in SS/PS and that assumption is reinforced throughout the books by > his increasing anger at and eventual hatred of Snape... > An understanding of DDM!Snape's motivations, however, both his > genuine remorse and his loyalty to Dumbledore, would be a step > toward developing the compassion that Harry needs if he's going to > be willingto sacrifice himself for the WW (which includes Snape as > well as Neville). Magpie: > I think the "more" doesn't have to be some other thing besides > remorse (like a UV or whatever). It's explaining how Snape could > actually feel this remorse. > It's totally understandable why in HBP Harry didn't find the remorse > story convincing. The trouble is we've not yet really gotten a > reason to understand why Dumbledore thought it was convincing. Jen: Like Alla, I'm hoping for some clarification on one last point in the latest Snape discussion, a piece of the puzzle that keeps eluding me (and I can't seem to walk by an unfinished puzzle without shuffling through the pieces again). I'm throwing out the hypothetical of ESE!Snape because I do believe Snape has been loyal all along. To simplify, Harry was able to recognize that Quirrell was the bad guy in Book 1 rather than Snape, at least to the point where he could end the year with this notion: '...Harry knew at once that Snape's feelings toward him hadn't changed one jot. This didn't worry Harry.' (SS, chap. 17) Then in OOTP he identified with Snape when he saw Snape's memories and looked into the Pensieve. Taking these two events together, I see the raw material for a scenario where Harry might identify with Snape and realize he is not evil but has been loyal all along. What we've never seen is Harry sustaining such a realization because something always occurs at a pivotal moment and he slips back into anger/resentment (or the feelings intensify). The biggest unknown in the equation to me is whether JKR is placing the burden for the cycle on Harry, on Snape, or on both of them. Answering 'who's to blame' isn't crucial for my question, but it might help to know my interpretation is that JKR is taking a middle-of-the-road approach, saying both have contributed to the ongoing problems in different ways. Okay, that's the set-up and now on to my dilemma. > Magpie: > But if he and Snape both loved Dumbledore and are both broken up > over his death, and have even had similar experiences with > Dumbledore getting them to do something like feed him poison or > kill him, that's a big thing they can connect over. Jen: Some of us readers believe Harry and Snape have the cave and tower in common, but the two of them can't connect with each other long enough or deeply enough to see that (if indeed JKR sees the cave and the tower as analagous situations). My impression is people who identify more with Snape and believe the blame is Harry's also tend to believe Harry needs to realize he's misjudged Snape's loyalty--his deeds and intentions--change his view and by doing so, find forgiveness in his heart. And Harry must do this on his own because Snape is static and can't offer Harry any incentive for dropping his myopic view in the present-day. That means Snape's backstory and the person Harry identified with as the HBP will be the reason for Harry's more compassionate view and forgiveness. Yet this same Harry who is responsible for the problem and the solution has been deemed incapable of seeing current Snape for who he is because hatred and resentment skew his vision. That's the flaw I've been reading about Harry in this thread, that he allows feelings to interfere with 'seeing' Snape. This is the point where the argument gets circular for me: How can do what's he's proven he can't do? If he can't make this change himself, doesn't he need help to get there? And if Snape can't help him, then....? If the backstory alone will cause the transformation, how will Harry sustain his belief of the truth about Snape in the face of a scornful and derisive present-day Snape who doesn't appear to feel remorse or pain and can't show it in a way that Harry finds believable? I understand that some of us readers saw Snape's pain during the run across the grounds but Harry did not, and he's the one who has to believe it in order for there to be a change of heart. Even if he can see pain & remorse in young Snape, how does he transfer that to the current Snape? JKR did not have Dumbledore deal with the animosity between these two and she made this plausible for me by showing Dumbledore's detachment up until OOTP, at which point he outright confessed to making a mistake. In HBP he had bigger issues to deal with re: Harry and when confronted by Harry, there was a sense his hands were tied because of confidentiality or another reason. I believe JKR set it up this way because she is saving her big story, Lily, for the end. But how do others solve this dilemma, or if you don't see a problem, at what point in my analysis is *my* vision skewed? Jen From misslita77 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 16:50:33 2007 From: misslita77 at yahoo.com (CLAUDIA) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:50:33 -0000 Subject: Another McGonagall theory (was Re: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164278 > laperchette: > > ... it has to be someone important. It wouldn't be fun to > hear Vector or Sinistra (or another minor character) is a > traitor, that wouldn't be interesting, it has to be someone > we feel attached to. It cannot be a kid, because it has to > go back to Godric Hollow-times. it cannot be Lupin > or Hagrid (the message: don't trust halfgiants and werewolfs > (eg people with problems) would be a bit awkward and not > typical for Rowling). So there are only McGonagall, Flitwitch > and Sprout left. The shock of ESE!McGonagall would be the > biggest. Well, here is my own little theory about McGonagall. Is it possible that it's more simpler than everyone is thinking? Maybe DD never confided in McGonagall because of the same reasons why Lupin doesn't want to be with Tonks and Harry broke up with Ginny. Is it possible that DD was in love with McGonagall? The more she knew, the more danger she was in. I know that this theory is way out there, but still possible. Why were DD, McGonagall, and LV still single after all these yrs? Well LV was obvious, how can someone so evil ever know love. But for DD and McGonagall, maybe there was a spark there that no one ever noticed. Is it possible? Claudia From misslita77 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 17:33:48 2007 From: misslita77 at yahoo.com (CLAUDIA) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:33:48 -0000 Subject: The invisibility cloak, RAB and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164279 Anders wrote: > On an even wilder thought - could Petunia have been > in love with Regulus? It would be logical for Petunia to be > visiting Lily when Sirius and his brother dropped by or a > visit. If Petunia and Regulus developed a relationship it > might have been the thing that changed Regulus' mind about > purebloods. Dumbledore seemed to know Petunia very well, or > at least had conversations with her of which Vernon was > unaware. Perhaps DD threatened to tell Vernon about her prior > relationship unless she took Harry into her home. Claudia: You know, I think that you have a major point there. How can someone who claims to have hated her sister more than anything just take in her son in just like that (snap!)? I think that she didn't hate Lily because she was a witch, but because she wasn't blessed with the same gifts. I think that she lived vicariously through Lily and hung around her like a younger sibling would. During which time, she met the Black Brothers and fell head over heels in love with Regulus. But whether he returned the love or she thought he died, something made her turn her back to the wizarding world. I don't think that he would have given her the locket, if LV knew she had it, he would kill her. I don't think he would have done anything to hurt her. If there is something to this theory, I hope that JKR clears it up in book 7. Claudia From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 18:43:43 2007 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:43:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, The Phoenix Lament In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164281 > > dungrollin: > > So the *entire* reason Hermione and Luna were waiting around for > > hours and hours while nothing happened was to keep an eye on Snape. > > Do you think that if JKR had put Ron on guard duty outside Snape's > > office that *he* would have dumbly gone inside to help Flitwick? > > zgirnius: > No, but that is because Ron and Hermione have opposite opinions of > Snape, not because Hermione is 'dumb'. Presumably Felix would have > arranged for Snape to take Ron out in a fairly benign manner as well. > You know, I think you've hit on the heart of the matter. Forget whether Hermione's gullible or can think under pressure or is a DDM! Snaper herself. You are right. They'd all taken a swig of Felix Felices. We can take it to the bank that it is *fortunate* that Hermione and Luna stayed with Flitwick, and that Ron got lost in the Peruvian Darkness Powder. Not only in the sense that events worked out as they were meant to, but that they had all followed inner promptings as to what to do. Annemehr, sure, in any case, that the night unfolded as per DD's Plan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 19:01:56 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:01:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's Vision and Snape (Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164282 > Jen: Like Alla, I'm hoping for some clarification on one last point > in the latest Snape discussion, a piece of the puzzle that keeps > eluding me (and I can't seem to walk by an unfinished puzzle without > shuffling through the pieces again). I'm throwing out the > hypothetical of ESE!Snape because I do believe Snape has been loyal > all along. > > What we've never seen is Harry sustaining such a realization because something always occurs at a pivotal moment and he slips back into anger/resentment (or the feelings intensify). The biggest unknown in the equation to me is whether JKR is placing the burden for the cycle on Harry, on Snape, or on both of them. Answering 'who's to blame' isn't crucial for my question, but it might help to know my interpretation is that JKR is taking a middle-of-the-road approach, saying both have contributed to the ongoing problems in different ways. > > Okay, that's the set-up and now on to my dilemma. > Some of us readers believe Harry and Snape have the cave and > tower in common, but the two of them can't connect with each other > long enough or deeply enough to see that (if indeed JKR sees the cave and the tower as analagous situations). > > My impression is people who identify more with Snape and believe the > blame is Harry's also tend to believe Harry needs to realize he's > misjudged Snape's loyalty--his deeds and intentions--change his view > and by doing so, find forgiveness in his heart. And Harry must do > this on his own because Snape is static and can't offer Harry any > incentive for dropping his myopic view in the present-day. That > means Snape's backstory and the person Harry identified with as the > HBP will be the reason for Harry's more compassionate view and > forgiveness. > > Yet this same Harry who is responsible for the problem and the > solution has been deemed incapable of seeing current Snape for who he is because hatred and resentment skew his vision. That's the flaw I've been reading about Harry in this thread, that he allows feelings to interfere with 'seeing' Snape. This is the point where the argument gets circular for me: How can do what's he's proven he can't do? If he can't make this change himself, doesn't he need help to get there? And if Snape can't help him, then....? > > If the backstory alone will cause the transformation, how will Harry > sustain his belief of the truth about Snape in the face of a scornful and derisive present-day Snape who doesn't appear to feel remorse or pain and can't show it in a way that Harry finds believable? I understand that some of us readers saw Snape's pain during the run across the grounds but Harry did not, and he's the one who has to believe it in order for there to be a change of heart. Even if he can see pain & remorse in young Snape, how does he transfer that to the current Snape? I believe JKR set it up this way > because she is saving her big story, Lily, for the end. But how do > others solve this dilemma, or if you don't see a problem, at what > point in my analysis is *my* vision skewed? Carol responds: Great post, Jen. I had trouble deciding what to snip. Let me first clear up what I think is a misconception of my views or intentions. I confess to being Snapecentric, and to pointing out that Harry's glasses may symbolize a figurative as well as literal myopia, but I'm not *blaming* him for seeing Snape as he does. As I pointed out in another post, Snape's treatment of him fits his preconceptions. It doesn't help at all that his godfather, Sirius Black, didn't trust Snape, either, and gave him that mirror to use in case Snape gave Harry a bad time. Just as Harry thought, before he even knew Snape, that Snape was causing the pain in his scar, he thinks that Snape is deliberately causing him to open his mind to Voldemort. When he overhears Snape talking to Draco in Death Eater mode, naturally he shares Draco's view that Snape is a loyal Death Eater. Appearance, coincidence, and Snape's very real animosity reinforce Harry's preconceptions. Harry has never been a very good judge of character, but he's learning not to judge based on appearances. It's just a whole lot harder with Snape than it is with other characters because he knows that Snape not only hates him but hated his "filthy father." So it really does seem to Harry, based on incomplete and (IMO) misinterpreted information (see my post 164244) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164244 that Snape is evil, especially after the Avada Kedavra on the tower seems to confirm that view. It isn't Harry's *fault* that he can't see DDM!Snape clearly, or at all, but it's essential, IMO, for Harry to realize that his vision has been distorted and to forgive Snape, not for Snape's sake, but for Harry's. Harry has to keep learning and growing and progressing toward maturity, and above all, he has to learn a lesson Snape himself has never learned, to let go of old resentments, to let old wounds heal, to forgive. As you point out, every time Harry and Snape come a step closer to understanding one another (for example, when Snape learns that it wasn't Harry and his friends who broke into his office to steal potion ingredients) something happens to undermine that new, tentative trust or confidence in the other person. Harry's glimpse of Teen!Severus in the Pensieve causes him to see the basis of Snape's claim that James Potter was arrogant and to feel compassion for him for the first time, but that feeling weakened, not so much by Snape's fury as by Lupin's and Black's rationalization of James's (and Sirius's) behavior. Worse, Snape himself fails to see that Harry feels compassion for him (or maybe the last thing he wants is Harry's compassion, which he would see as pity for his "weakness"). Instead of contributing to mutual understanding, the incident makes matters worse. Snape sees his old belief that Harry is an untrustworthy rule-breaker reinforced, and Harry goes comfortably back to hating Snape and seeing the worst in him. And even when he trusts Snape enough to try to tell him via Legilimency that Sirius is being held captive by Voldemort, and Snape (after realizing that Harry and Hermione weren't coming back from the forest and must have somehow gone to the MoM) sends the Order after them, something again happens to undermine Harry's trust in Snape--sirius Black is murdered, and Harry, for complicated psychological reasons, chooses to blame Snape. Matters only get worse in HBP; there's the whole Draco plot, in which Snape seems to Harry to be implicated ("helping" DE!Draco in a sense other than protecting him from committing murder or being murdered himself). How, *how* can their preconceptions and misreadings of each other, particularly Harry's view of Snape as an evil, murderous traitor, be corrected? I can think of a few ways, among them Snape saving Harry's life or that of one of Harry's friends through those intriguing healing powers he demonstrated in HBP. Another possibility is memories of conversations between Snape and Dumbledore viewed in a Pensieve (maybe DD has bottled a few and willed them to Harry just in case). Maybe someone more logical than Harry (Hermione or Lupin) will begin to see that the pieces of Harry's story don't quite fit together, and Harry is either missing something or trying to create the wrong picture from them. I don't think the missing link will be Lily (though I do think that Snape regretted her death and tried to prevent it just because she and Harry were innocent. I think he tried to prevent James's because he didn't want James to die with the life debt unpaid and resents him to this day for arrogantly refusing to listen to Dumbledore's warning). I think it's more likely to be Regulus. (Or rather, that's my hope. I certainly don't think that Snape made any Wormtongue-style bargain with Voldemort/Saruman regarding Lily/Eowyn. Ugh.) And certainly, Harry has to learn about the UV somehow, which can only come from Snape himself telling his story as Lupin and Black tell theirs in PoA. But something unexpected will happen, and new pieces of evidence will show up. They have to because JKR has been preparing Snape's role in Harry's story since Book 1 and has said in an interview somewhere that he has a crucial role to play in Book 7. Carol, not blaming a teenage boy for reacting to what he sees as the plain truth but hoping that he'll develop the maturity and vision to recognize Dumbledore's wisdom and Snape's loyalty and courage in DH From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 29 19:08:16 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:08:16 -0500 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: <1170087309.1553.81259.m20@yahoogroups.com> References: <1170087309.1553.81259.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C911EFF7188E3C-CF4-1990@mblk-r12.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164283 Julie proposed: > *(snip)* > > A McGonagall who has been "enchanted" by Tom Riddle, perhaps since their school days. > *(snip)* > > It also provides a perfect tie-in between Tom Riddle and > McGonagall, something substantial related to their shared past for > JKR to exploit while avoiding any supposed physical attraction > between them during their school days--YUCK. > > Ceridwen: > Aside from the fact that Tom Riddle was good-looking enough for Harry to notice when he met the sixteen year old memory of Tom (so, not YUCK, just creepy, and only then in hindsight), we don't have any > canon that McGonagall was in school with Harry. > > In fact, if she was a "sprightly seventy" in the first book (heck, > maybe I'm the one with memory difficulties, blame old age if I am), > then she was born about 1921, and would have graduated Hogwarts in > 1939. There may be one shared year with Tom Riddle, but for an > eighteen year old to have a crush on an "ickle firstie" is even > creepier than two same-age students having crushes on each other. Julie now: I just want to point out that my version of Enchanted!McGonagall involves NO physical or sexual attraction between Tom and Minerva. That was the point of "avoiding any supposed physical attraction", which I should have mentioned is something that springs from fanfic not from canon. As I also said, I suspected Minerva might be one who would be the LEAST likely to be charmed by Tom's personality, which would make it ironic if she was MAGICALLY enchanted (or Imperioed) to spy for him against her knowledge or will. (And this "enchantment" could have happened after Minerva was out of school, and Tom too for that matter.) What I like best about this theory is that it doesn't make McGonagall ESE, or anyone else (and it's really hard to come up with true motivations for another turncoat character in the Order, or why JKR would want to turn any of the main characters that way). Instead we have a character who IS giving Voldemort information, but against her knowledge or free will, which is more interesting to me than just another wuss turncoat like Peter or secretly evil turncoat like Fake!Moody. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 19:36:41 2007 From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:36:41 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory & Snape's Return/Teaching timeline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164284 Jen wrote: > 1) JKR conceived a storyline for Eileen which placed her in Slytherin > house at the time of Riddle and could foreshadow a role for her > beyond being the reason Snape was in Slytherin and why he called > himself the HBP. > Lyra Does JKR officially place Eileen in Slytherin? (For the life of me, I can't find where the newspaper article about the Gobstone Queen is in HBP.) Based on the date in the book, I agree we can sorta (keeping "maths" in mind) conjecture Eileen may have been at Hogwarts around the same time as Tom Riddle, but I don't recall anything tying her to Slytherin aside from the fact she's a pureblood, (which, in and of itself, is no guarantee of being in Slytherin). From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 19:52:56 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:52:56 -0000 Subject: The Irma/Eileen Theory & Snape's Return/Teaching timeline In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164285 > > Lyra I agree we can sorta > (keeping "maths" in mind) conjecture Eileen may have been at Hogwarts > around the same time as Tom Riddle, but I don't recall anything tying > her to Slytherin aside from the fact she's a pureblood, (which, in and > of itself, is no guarantee of being in Slytherin). zgirnius: Nothing places her in Slytherin, other than the fact that her son is in Slytherin (and these things tend to run in families, we are told. Snape's father's line were never at Hogwarts). We also do not know for a fact that she *was* a pureblood. Hermione initially suggests Eileen was the Half-Blood Prince, and never mentions finding proof of Eileen's pureblood status. I tend to think she was because *the* Half-Blood Prince sounds like an exclusive designation, which would make sense if Snape's wizard relatives were pureblood, but it doesn't have to be. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 20:34:42 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:34:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Questions about Apparition (Was: Why Sirius did not apparate into GH?) In-Reply-To: References: <45BB50EF.000001.00460@D33LDD51> Message-ID: <948bbb470701291234v62faa073ufdcf6daffb2e5ce0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164286 Carol: So, do plot needs override consistency and logic not only for young Sirius Black and his flying motorcycle but for Apparition in general, or am I the only one who's confused? =============================== Jeremiah: I think this is an excellent question and, indeed can be confusing, but I have thought about it in this way: DD says to Harry, when Harry asks about other students from Wizarding households (can't remember the pages but I remember it being in HBP... DD mentions that the MoM cannot decipher magic performed by adults and children so they trust the parents to monitor their children's magical activities. Now, this is in reference to the "Under-Age" decree. This leads me to assume that the MoM is not totally capable of knowing everything at anytime. As far as apiration is concerned, I don't think that there are a lot of Wizards/Witches that can decipher magic that has been performed in the maner that DD did then he went Horcrux Hunting with Harry in the cave. So, keeping that in mind, I have always assumed that when magic is performed (in this case, Aparation) the MoM might know that magic has happened but they wouldn't know who did it. So, tracking every single movement and monitoring every occurance ot magic becomes tedious and a waste of time. Since Snape lived in the area where Narcissa and Bellatrix apparated it would only seem logical, IMO, that the MoM would have said, "Oh, look. there's been some Apiration over in Spinner's End. Check the books and see who lives there... Hmm... Snape. Probably having a few of his creepy friends over for that aweful wine he serves. Or maybe that was Dumbledore and McGonagall paying a visit." That's how I've understood things... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 20:50:56 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:50:56 -0000 Subject: Reggie: The invisibility cloak, RAB and Petunia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164287 --- "Rick & LeAnn Kelley" wrote: > Anders: > > ... Since DD didn't need it for invisibility, then the > question in that case would become who needed it, and > why? I've been thinking about JKR's reply when asked > about Regulus Black. It's true that she replied, > "He's dead, so he's been pretty quiet these days," but > if memory serves correctly, didn't she hesitate a bit > before answering? > If she planned a big plot twist around Regulus being > alive, how else would she answer that question? Do > we really think she would say, "Oh, yeah, you guessed > it. Regulus really isn't dead. He's been in hiding > all these years, only presumed dead, and he'll show > up again in the final book"? > > ...edited... bboyminn: Strictly addressing the issue of my boy Reggie (Regulus), I don't think JKR would flat out lie to us in any matter. Note when asked about R.A.B. being Regulus, she as good as admitted it; though just for our entertainment, she did leave some element of uncertainty, that is she implied it, but didn't confirm it. So, I think whether Regulus is R.A.B or not, there will certainly be something /about/ him in the final book, but I doubt that he will make a personal appearance in the present moment in time. We could see him alive in some penseive memory or something similar, but not in the current moment. Because, JKR implied that Regulus was the mysterious R.A.B. I think, in making the statement you quoted above, she was shooting down fan speculation that Regulus was still alive. If she wanted to evade the issue of him being alive, she could have simply said what I said, 'Yes, we will learn more /about/ Regulus in the next book'. That doesn't say or imply that he alive or not, and is certainly the truth, but she went out of her way to flat out say 'He's dead...'. She has also said flat out that Dumbledore is dead. But while she has implied that Sirius is gone, even that he may be technically dead, I don't feel she has confirmed it with the same enthusiasm as she has the death of other characters. Of course, I need Sirius to be only technically dead so Harry and Voldemort can go behind the Veil and Harry and Sirius can return, so I might be biased in this matter. So, on this matter, I can't agree, though I will admit that your speculation on all three issues was imaginitive and interesting. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From va32h at comcast.net Mon Jan 29 20:51:24 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:51:24 -0000 Subject: Questions about Apparition (Was: Why Sirius did not apparate into GH?) In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701291234v62faa073ufdcf6daffb2e5ce0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164288 Carol asks: So, do plot needs override consistency and logic not only for young Sirius Black and his flying motorcycle but for Apparition in general, or am I the only one who's confused? va32h suggests: Isn't this explained though, in Goblet of Fire, when Harry asks why the need for Portkeys, etc. Arthur tells him that Apparition doesn't always work across long distances, and some wizards simply don't like it. So regardless of whether Apparition is detectable or not, Sirius may have his flying motorbike for the same reason there are brooms and flying carpets and flying cars, and the Knight Bus, and portkeys. He simply prefers not to apparate. Plus a flying motorbike is cool. ;) va32h/Barbara From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 29 21:07:18 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:07:18 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164289 "pippin_999" wrote: >You want a brutal, sadistic hero who enjoys killing? Yes, but let me explain. In real life I would prefer a flawless hero, but in literature I just want an interesting hero. Everybody has a dark side, but we haven't seen Harry's yet; and no, getting a little grumpy at your friends a few times doesn't count. Even Attalla The Hun was once a very nice cute little boy, but things change, and I find that interesting. I like to think of myself as a good person but if I had gone through half of what Harry had my brain would be fried and I could give Hannibal Lecter a run for his money in pure viciousness. I'm not proud of that but it's a fact. And I find that interesting too. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 21:10:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:10:58 -0000 Subject: Slughorn's Reaction (re: Chapt 29 ...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164290 The Chapter 29 - Phoenix Lament discussion has gotten very long and has splinted into several sub-threads, so I thought I would start new with one small aspect that was address in the chapter discussion thread. The original summary was followed by a question about the reactions of various characters to the events of the night. Slughorn was specifically mentioned as his reactions seemed oddest of all. The response to this specific aspect was light, so I thought I would tackle it. Slughorn doesn't seem too concerned about Dumbledore's death, the school closing, or anything else, though he does seem very distracted and lost in his internal thoughts. Now, this could mean that he is Ever So Evil, and could care less about the surrounding events. He is only concerned about making his escape before his hypothetical role in the night is discovered. However, I don't think our dear Mr. Slughorn is so much Ever So Evil as he is merely Ever So Self-Centered and Self-Involved. When he is distracted I think he is lost in thoughts of how the nights tragedies affect him. He came to Hogwarts under the implication of the protection of the Castle and Dumbledore. Now the castle has been breached and Dumbledore is dead. Instead of thinking 'poor Dumbledore', 'poor students', he is thinking 'poor little me, whatever will I do now'. It seems clear that in the beginning he is making a real effort to avoid Voldemort, any Death Eaters, and therefore any chance that they might attempt to recruit him. But now what? In that moment of grief and doubt, I imagine he doesn't see any place as safe, and he is primarily concerned about how that affects him. Where will he go, what will he do? Should he continue to teach? Is the school really safe now? Should he go back into hiding, moving every few weeks to avoid any contact with anyone - good or bad? Of course, this attitude doesn't make him evil. I think what you see is what you get with regard to Slughorn. Yes, he craves power by association. Yes, he is self- centered and self-indulgent. Yes, he has a great capacity to avoid any and all issues that come his way. But that merely makes him socially obnoxious and annoying, not Ever So Evil. I think this apparent 'distraction' after the events is typical Slughorn in every way. Of course, that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 29 21:15:32 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:15:32 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164291 I believe the title of this thread is exactly backward, the real question is: Would Snape forgiving Harry (for the sin of existing) be character growth for him? Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 21:26:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:26:08 -0000 Subject: Was Eileen a Slytherin? (Was: The Irma/Eileen Theory & Snape's Return) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164292 Lyra wrote: > I agree we can sorta (keeping "maths" in mind) conjecture Eileen may have been at Hogwarts around the same time as Tom Riddle, but I don't recall anything tying her to Slytherin aside from the fact she's a pureblood, (which, in and of itself, is no guarantee of being in Slytherin). > > zgirnius: > Nothing places her in Slytherin, other than the fact that her son is in Slytherin (and these things tend to run in families, we are told. Snape's father's line were never at Hogwarts). > > We also do not know for a fact that she *was* a pureblood. Hermione initially suggests Eileen was the Half-Blood Prince, and never mentions finding proof of Eileen's pureblood status. I tend to think she was because *the* Half-Blood Prince sounds like an exclusive designation, which would make sense if Snape's wizard relatives were pureblood, but it doesn't have to be. > Carol responds: First, the wedding announcement that Hermione finds in an old Daily Prophet is mentioned (but not quoted) in the last chapter of HBP, "The White Tomb," on page 637 of the American edition. (It strikes me as odd that the announcement would identify Tobias as a Muggle, but, oh, well.) I agree with zgirnius that *the* Half-Blood Prince strongly suggests (but doesn't prove) that Severus was the one and only *Half-Blood* Prince, the others being the Pure-Blood Princes. Nevertheless, Hermione's guess that one of the Prince's parents was a pureblood and the other a Muggle makes sense to me, even though she had the wrong person in mind (Eileen instead of Severus). Since no alternative explanation is offered in canon, I think we can tentatively accept hers as accurate. As for Eileen's being in Slytherin, we're on somewhat shakier ground, but, again, I agree with zgirnius. In addition to the Houses tending to run in families, we have the (admittedly not definitive) evidence of Eileen's general unattractiveness. With the exception of the Blacks and possibly the Malfoys, the Slytherins tend to be relatively unattractive, ranging from the (merely) fat Slughorn to the apelike Crabbe and Goyle, the pug-faced Pansy Parkinson, and the large, square-jawed Millicent Bulstrode. (IIRC, Marcus Flint, who may be related to the Bulstrodes based on the Black family tree, is described as looking like he has Troll blood--not likely to be true, but hardly indicative of good looks.) Eileen's description, "a skinny girl of around fifteen . . . simultaneously cross and sullen, with heavy brows and a long, pallid face" (HBP 537) fits right in with the generally unattractive typical Slytherin--and sounds rather similar to her (Slytherin) son, who was also skinny and pallid as a teenager. (Nothing about a hooked nose, though.) Another point in favor of the Princes *possibly* having a Slytherin family tradition is the fact that Severus came to school knowing more hexes than half the seventh years. Since kids don't normally have their own wands until they're eleven and someone must have taught him most of those hexes (he can't have invented all of them at that age, surely?) I think we're seeing a parent or grandparent (not Muggle!Tobias, who must be out of the picture) ignoring the restriction on underage sorcery, which sounds like part of a Dark wizard/Slytherin tradition to me. Draco, for example, knows Serpensortia (and a number of other hexes) as a second-year though I suppose he could have learned them at school from the older Slytherins rather than from DE!Daddy at home. At any rate, I don't see how young Severus could have learned all those hexes in a home with an abusive Muggle father and a submissive witch wife, which is why I keep thinking that the hook-nosed man in Snape's memory must be Grandpa Prince rather than Tobias. I can't see Eileen being cowed by a Muggle, no matter how mean and angry he was, or being afraid to hex him, and I can't see Harry overlooking Muggle clothes even in a fleeting flash of a memory, which after all is inside his own head though it isn't his. And yet young Severus seems neglected and defensive about his Half-Blood status, so maybe the Pure-Blood Prince(s) treated him rather poorly despite (apparently) letting him practice learn and a variety of hexes at an early age, which means that he either had his own wand early or borrowed one or learned a whole lot in the short time between being accepted to Hogwarts (when his mother or grandparents would presumably buy him a wand) and actually attending it, all of which suggests a rather loose attitude toward underage magic (possibly including potions experiments a bit later on) on the part of his mother or grandparents, which again, to me, suggests a Slytherin background. (Anyone think that Mrs. Black kept her sons from using a wand until they were eleven or enforced the statute against underage magic at home? I don't.) Carol, noting that the more information JKR provides, the more questions she raises From mopardanno at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 21:30:20 2007 From: mopardanno at yahoo.com (mopardanno) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:30:20 -0000 Subject: Harrys' ancestry. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164293 Hello everyone, I dont post here much, but this is something that just occured to me this morning, and the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. So I am hoping that those of you who are more versed in Cannon than I, can either help prove or disprove my theory. And I also dont know if this has been discussed before, if it has my apologies for rehashing what has already been hashed thouroughly ;) So here it is. We know all about everyones ancestry in the Potterverse. We even see how the pureblood lines are so intermingled ( Via the Black family tree in OotP ), we know that Petunia is Lily's only surviving family member. But what about James? We know nothing at all about his family. And wasnt he supposed to be a pureblood? ( I dont remember if this was discussed in Cannon or not.. ) or is that just an assumption because Harry is called a mixed blood? We know that Lily was muggleborn, but was James pureblood? We even know about Voldemort's parentage. But we dont have any clue as to James background/parentage that I can recall. JKR has constantly hit us over the head with how important family is, and how Lily's love saved Harry by putting the charm on him when she was killed to protect him. Dumbledore, who knows more about everyone that we have been let on, insists that love is what will help Harry win against Voldemort. But how? How will Love kill Voldemort? ( maybe kill is the wrong word. Defeat... ) Everyone also speculates, based on Cannon, about the power that Harry seems to have. Alot of references to how they were gotten from LV etc. What if they werent transfered via the AK curse?..... What if... Voldemort turns out to be a relative of Harrys? Not the "Luke I am your father" type of thing, but what about Grandfather? IMO that would explain a bunch of different things that are happening and need to happen for this to play out in a "nice" manner ( take nice to mean whatever you want... hahah ) I just find it so hard to believe that we know so much about the WW in general, and the families involved, and down to the history of many of the families ( Black, Riddle, Malfoy, Weasley, Crouch etc etc... ) why dont we know more about Harry? Heck, we see more generations of Nevilles family in Cannon than we do Harry's. And more specifically James'. So, thats it. I had it more clearly thought out earlier, with more instances for support, but work has driven some of them from my mind :( My apologies. I would love to hear from everyone on this one. Danno From va32h at comcast.net Mon Jan 29 21:41:25 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:41:25 -0000 Subject: Slughorn's Reaction (re: Chapt 29 ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: >> However, I don't think our dear Mr. Slughorn is so much > Ever So Evil as he is merely Ever So Self-Centered and > Self-Involved. When he is distracted I think he is lost > in thoughts of how the nights tragedies affect him. va32h here: Yes, that's exactly what he is. It's textbook Slytherin behavior isn't it? Isn't that what Phineas Nigellus tells Harry? Slytherins are brave enough, if it's their own necks they are saving. I think, actually, Slughorn is meant to be our example of a "good" Slytherin.(good being comparative, of course) He is basically a good guy, amiable enough, and even when he is acting mainly in his own self-interest (helping to bury Aragog to get the valuable venom) he manages do it with some pretty convincing feigned sincerity. Hagrid certainly appreciated Slughorn's presence, even if he did not understand its real meaning. And of course when real evil came to call, in the form of Tom Riddle and the question of horcruxes, Slughorn was properly and sincerely repulsed by it. va32h, whose post count is maxed out now, due to a post that was lost for two days in Yahoomort, only to appear today, when it is completely irrelevant! From j_m_arff at yahoo.de Fri Jan 26 12:09:02 2007 From: j_m_arff at yahoo.de (j_m_arff) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:09:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164295 Hello, I'm rather new to this site and am really relieved to find that so many other adults enjoy the books as much as I do and ponder them... however, there is a question I've so far unsatisfactorily been discussing within my circle of friends, and we haven't come to any conclusion so far. The question is: Is Dumbledore (sorry I'm afraid I'll have to learn those abbreviations) truly dead? There are a few points, that make his death suspicious, as for instance the fact, that he has been killed by Snape with the "Avada Kedavra", but rather than sinking to the floor, as other victims of the curse have been reported dying, Dumbledore is "Blasted into the air" and then falls over the railing to the ground. Another point is, that after the burial ceremony Dumbledore's resting place errupts into white flames, and then is concealed by smoke, in which Harry seems to detect Fawks flying away "joyfully". Bearing in mind, that the phoenix has healing powers and the ability to carry heavy burdens, he could have well taken Dumbledore with him. I'm not fully convinced, as I believe, that JKR so far has let the people in the books who have died rest in peace, and no one has returned from the dead (well, Voldemort sort of, I suppose) and I can see, where it is important for Harry's developement to stand on his own two feet. However this idea has left the trace of a doubt within me, and I also think, that Dumbledore could be of great help to Harry, if he was operating under the public belief of his death. Nevertheless I would like to hear, what you think of this, and if you can contribute to draw a clearer picture. thank you! J. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 25 23:14:15 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:14:15 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164296 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > It's Harry who has something to forgive Snape for, whether he killed > Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders or not. Not only has Snape > objectively treated him badly, it was his intentional bad act that > put Harry in the position he's in now and killed his parents. This > is what Dumbledore claims Snape has remorse over. > Okay. So (and I'm not arguing, I just want to get it straight) Harry is the one who must forgive Snape. Dumbledore, you say, has not forgiven Snape but given him the chance to make "amends." So, do you see DD as wanting to create an opening of forgiveness for Snape? In other words, is part of his amends supposed to be earning Harry's forgiveness (or at least recieving it, because earning and forgiveness are tricky concepts particularly in the context of Christian theology)? If that is the case, then our dear Bumblebee has been even more inept than he seems. Lupinlore, who doubts that JKR thinks this deeply about the situation, in any case From mymusical_girls at yahoo.com Mon Jan 29 21:48:19 2007 From: mymusical_girls at yahoo.com (Raechel) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:48:19 -0000 Subject: Questions about Apparition (Was: Why Sirius did not apparate into GH?) In-Reply-To: <948bbb470701291234v62faa073ufdcf6daffb2e5ce0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164297 Carol: So, do plot needs override consistency and logic not only for young Sirius Black and his flying motorcycle but for Apparition in general, or am I the only one who's confused? =============================== Jeremiah: Now, this is in reference to the "Under-Age" decree. This leads me to assume that the MoM is not totally capable of knowing everything at anytime. As far as apiration is concerned, I don't think that there are a lot of Wizards/Witches that can decipher magic that has been performed in the manner that DD did then he went Horcrux Hunting with Harry in the cave. So, keeping that in mind, I have always assumed that when magic is performed (in this case, Aparation) the MoM might know that magic has happened but they wouldn't know who did it. So, tracking every single movement and monitoring every occurance ot magic becomes tedious and a waste of time. Raechel responds: However, there is one thing that I find most interesting about Apparition and the ability to track it. In HBP chapter entitled "An Excess of Phlemgm" Mrs. Weasley's famed clock is able to tell her when any of her family members are travelling. She looks at the clock and tells Harry that Mr. Weasley is on his way home because his "hand" on the clock has moved from "Mortal Peril" to "Travelling". Which means that Mrs. Weasley or anyone else with such an amazing device would be able to tell who was apparating and when. Now, obviously, we don't know of anyone else who has this sort of clock, but it lets us know that it is possible to tell when a specific person is apparating. Just my two cents, Raechel (who is currently reading three of the books at the same time and is admittedly confusing herself with too much information!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 29 22:37:20 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:37:20 -0000 Subject: Questions about Apparition (Was: Why Sirius did not apparate into GH?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164298 Carol: > So, do plot needs override consistency and logic not only for young > Sirius Black and his flying motorcycle but for Apparition in general, > or am I the only one who's confused? Pippin: I'd guess that the Ministry's oversight is intended to catch 'joyriders' like the splinched folks that Arthur rescued in GoF, and isn't worth much against pros, much like the average lockset would discourage a casual intruder but wouldn't stop a professional criminal or those who hunt them Pippin From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Jan 29 22:37:10 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:37:10 -0000 Subject: Was Eileen a Slytherin? (Was: The Irma/Eileen Theory & Snape's Return) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164299 > > > justcarol167: > > Another point in favor of the Princes *possibly* having a Slytherin > family tradition is the fact that Severus came to school knowing more > hexes than half the seventh years. Since kids don't normally have > their own wands until they're eleven and someone must have taught him > most of those hexes (he can't have invented all of them at that age, > surely?) I think we're seeing a parent or grandparent (not > Muggle!Tobias, who must be out of the picture) ignoring the > restriction on underage sorcery, which sounds like part of a Dark > wizard/Slytherin tradition to me. Draco, for example, knows > Serpensortia (and a number of other hexes) as a second-year though I > suppose he could have learned them at school from the older Slytherins > rather than from DE!Daddy at home. >snip< I don't think, given Snape's apparent youthful precocious achievement, there's any necessity to explain that through the teaching of someone at home. Highly advanced children *often* learn a great deal on their own and arrive at school with skills already well beyond their years. Teachers often assume they were "taught" at home, but in fact, many times they learned on their own. All it would take is having the books on magic around, and young Severus having been allowed access to them (perhaps only "allowed" by the inattention of the adults). And you're right, he'd probably have to have been allowed a wand as well -- although even the Weasleys seem to have allowed that. ... all of which suggests a rather loose > attitude toward underage magic (possibly including potions experiments > a bit later on) on the part of his mother or grandparents, which > again, to me, suggests a Slytherin background. I don't know that it necessarily suggests a Slytherin background. I think the Weasleys had a somewhat loose attitude as well -- look at all that Fred and George managed to do before Hogwarts! They would need to have had access to a wand at early ages, as well. wynnleaf From kaleeyj at gmail.com Mon Jan 29 22:42:49 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:42:49 -0000 Subject: Questions about Apparition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164300 > Carol: > So, do plot needs override consistency and logic not only for young > Sirius Black and his flying motorcycle but for Apparition in general, > or am I the only one who's confused? > =============================== > Jeremiah: > Now, this is in reference to the "Under-Age" decree. This leads me to > assume that the MoM is not totally capable of knowing everything at > anytime. > > > Raechel responds: > > However, there is one thing that I find most interesting about > Apparition and the ability to track it. In HBP chapter > entitled "An Excess of Phlemgm" Mrs. Weasley's famed clock is able > to tell her when any of her family members are travelling. blitz now: Yes, but I would assume that the clock is very custom made (as it has enough hands for each family member.) I would imagine that the clock has something of each family member inside it, or some such, that connects it to the person it is "monitoring". While that magic exists, we don't know where the clock came from, what it took to make it, or how long. Perhaps the "link" between the family member and the hand on the clock is a physical piece of them (blood is the first thing that comes to mind, though the hands being fashioned with a lockk of hair enclosed (like a wand) couold work as well.) In which case tracking fugitives by means of a Weasley clock would be very difficult - Law Enforcement would have to get the "linking" item, get the clock built - and still wouldn't be able to tell exactly where the person is. (Arthur is "travellihng", but there's no way to tell where to.) I look at this like a physics theory. The theory is: We can know how fast an electron is moving, or its position, at any given time, but never both. So, perhaps we have the same problem with Wizards? We can know when they are moving, or what means, but it may be impossible to know all the details at one time. I was more intrigued by Carol's section in her post about the destination being a person - it never occured to me that if Bella can do that with Cissy, or if the DEs can do it with LV, then Aurors could surely do it with an escaped convict? There would be trouble regarding the possibility of the convict being in the Caribbean (nice place to be - it's 20 degrees out right now in S. Indiana) - Apparition is unreliable over long distances. We could assume that Cissy screamed "I'M GOING TO SEE SEVERUS AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME!" right before she apparated to Spinner's End, which would write off Bellatrix apparating to Narcissa. And DD apparated to the cave, but he'd done his research - he knew *where* the cave was. Perhaps he had even gotten some information regarding where Sluggy was staying that week (but Sluggy moved around a lot - that was some fresh information DD had). But I can't logically explain the DEs knowing to apparate to a graveyard outside Little Hangleton just because "the Dark Lord likes it there". Either the graveyard was a very common meeting place (I doubt - what a *great* clubhouse ), or the Dark Mark call gives a location with the burning, searing pain (how, though?. The only way we can explain this one is that they all apparated to LV as a destination. And then we have the escaped convicts problem again. I wonder: did McGonagall know where #4 Privet Drive was hen we presumably apparated their early thatdull, gray Tuesdfay morning? Or did she apparate to "Lily's sister?" Can you do that, apparating to someone you don't know? Perhaps having a close bond to that person (or even a magical one - the DEs do; couold the Black sisters?) makes a difference? Maybe that's the secret - you can apparate to someone you have a certain type of bond with - forged (DE style), blood (Trixie and Cissy style), or something else (Sluggy and DD style, perhaps?). Maybe. I'd lke to speculate on this more. I'll do some research on people Apparating to people. This is a fubn can of worms! Thanks Carol! ~blitz (typing on her shiny new Macbook, which cost her more than she will ever admit, even under torture) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 26 15:30:40 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:30:40 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164301 > Alla: > > Well, yes, Harry being right about Snape may have nothing to do with > power of love theme or it may have, I am just not sure why it cannot > be the theme on its own. I totally think that power of love, > forgiveness would turn out to be one of the main themes in the book, > but who says it would be the only one? > Pippin: IIRC, it was Aristotle. Seriously, a theme is supposed to be the unifying idea of the work, so if you have unrelated ideas then it's pointless to talk about themes at all. If Harry grew wiser than his mentor through love, I could see that being related, but I don't see how being wiser than his mentor because he has always been angered by Snape is related to either growth or love. As you say, it would be just something that happened, unrelated to anything else. That would make it unthematic. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jan 30 01:59:52 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:59:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) References: Message-ID: <002a01c74412$557c2d50$fa6c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164302 Magpie: >> It's Harry who has something to forgive Snape for, whether he > killed >> Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders or not. Not only has Snape >> objectively treated him badly, it was his intentional bad act that >> put Harry in the position he's in now and killed his parents. This >> is what Dumbledore claims Snape has remorse over. Lupinlore: > Okay. So (and I'm not arguing, I just want to get it straight) Harry > is the one who must forgive Snape. Dumbledore, you say, has not > forgiven Snape but given him the chance to make "amends." > > So, do you see DD as wanting to create an opening of forgiveness for > Snape? In other words, is part of his amends supposed to be earning > Harry's forgiveness (or at least recieving it, because earning and > forgiveness are tricky concepts particularly in the context of > Christian theology)? If that is the case, then our dear Bumblebee > has been even more inept than he seems. Magpie: I don't feel very confident ever knowing what's in Dumbledore's mind...but hmmm...I guess that yes, Dumbledore probably does feel like he's giving Snape an opening for redemption here. But he probably sees that as all that Snape is trying to do to protect Harry. Like, as I imagine it from Dumbledore's pov (which could be totally wrong, obviously, since I'm not JKR), he sees Snape full of remorse over the death of Harry's parents and his bitterness at Harry himself comes out of that. So he sees Snape trying to make amends for it. But as to whether Harry would forgive him, Dumbledore himself never told Harry that Snape was the eavesdropper. Would he ever have told him? I wonder.... He may have thought he could just get away with Harry never knowing that Snape was the eavesdropper, or vaguely thought Harry could be told after Snape had come through and he could show Harry all at once that see, Snape did make a mistake back then but now you can see that he made it better. (Perhaps he thought he might do this after Snape was even dead so there's no more potential conflict between them--"Snape really did die heroically, Harry. Btw, did I ever mention he was the eavesdropper? No? Well, doesn't matter now. He's dead, innit?) In thinking about the scene in canon, iirc Harry comes in furious at Dumbledore but quickly winds up thinking that he's got to control his anger or else Dumbledore won't let him go on the Horcrux Hunt. I don't have the book in front of me, but it seems like Dumbledore managed to work is so that when Harry confronted him with this rather large betrayal on his part, he was able to put a lid on it very quickly, making it more about Harry. There was a quick, "Oh, you don't understand..." but I think they moved on quickly because he was offering something Harry wanted, the Horcrux Hunt. He was both unlucky that it happened when he wanted to deal with something else and lucky that it happened when he had something to trump it for Harry. I think Dumbledore manipulates Harry really well, I should admit, and this is one of those places. He seems to often *seem* like he really cares about him personally, and claims that he does, but when I really look at what he's doing...I'm not seeing that. (Sort of like how in OotP I see him saying how he's going to explain all his mistakes and then going on to explain everyone else's mistakes--making his mistake not expecting so many mistakes by others.) To me he always seems to want to forgive himself for all his mistakes, so we get lines like his one about the Dursleys where he describes Harry as a little less well-fed than he would have liked or whatever. -m From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Tue Jan 30 02:25:58 2007 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:25:58 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164303 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: Julie wrote > First, some questions to ponder about McGonagall: > > > > 1. Why do we know less about McGonagall's past than we do about any other > major adult characters (heck, than some of the minor adult characters)? SNIP Is > this > lack of notice just because McGonagall is essentially a one-note and rather > boring character? Or is there some reason JKR as revealed so little about > McGonagall? Lilygale: I've had a half-baked idea for a while that, when JKR mentioned in an interview years ago that Hogwarts teachers' families might play a role, that McGonagall might be important. Given that my speculation is based only on your point about knowing next to nothing about Minerva, and the non-canon appearance of an unknown McGonagall on a trophy in the first movie, perhaps "nearly raw" is closer to the mark. > 2. Why isn't *she* Dumbledore's confidante? > > 3. Why does Dumbledore never share any sensitive information with McGonagall? >SNIPPAGE But is McGonagall the only one who > seems to know *nothing*? > 4. Is McGonagall capable of being evil? SNIP Or maybe he > has > reason to believe anything McGonagall learns will go straight to Voldemort's > ears. > > It's that last one that intrigues me. What if it's true? What if all these > years > Dumbledore has known that any information he gives McGonagall will > ultimately find its way to Voldemort? I agree with you that it is strange that McGonagall seems to be so uninformed about Dumbledore's thoughts and plans. It certainly would be in character for him to keep things on a need to know basis. But McGonagall is intelligent and clear thinking, a combination of traits that seem relatively unusual in the wizarding world. Dumbledore seems to value her talent sufficiently to make her his assistant headmistress. So why not confide more in her? At this point I depart from Julie's hypothesis and offer a weak one of my own. What if McGonagall is married - to someone that Dumbledore suspects of passing information to LV. Or perhaps the relationship is not that of husband and wife, but of siblings, or parent/child. In any case, it would be a close enough relationship that Dumbledore feels that he cannot confront McGonagall and retain her trust/friendship/service. One main weakness in my scenario is that JKR has promised that we have already met all of the main characters, and we have met only one McGonagall. So we have to consider that the traitor, if there is one, is somebody we already know but don't know that much about. There are actually a number of "older" men about whose marital status we know nothing. Fortescue and Minerva? Lilygale, whose mind may be out of control after seeing certain promotional pictures of a certain young actor today. From valcalkin at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 02:01:37 2007 From: valcalkin at yahoo.com (Valerie Calkin) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 02:01:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "j_m_arff" wrote: > > Hello, I'm rather new to this site and am really relieved to find that > so many other adults enjoy the books as much as I do and ponder them... > however, there is a question I've so far unsatisfactorily been > discussing within my circle of friends, and we haven't come to any > conclusion so far. > The question is: Is Dumbledore (sorry I'm afraid I'll have to learn > those abbreviations) truly dead? I am a first time poster myself and I have often wondered about your question. It is also worthwhile to mention that since Dumbledore's patronus is a phoenix-hmmmmm. It is interesting that other characters have shared certain abilities or aspects of their personalities with the image that is their patronus. At the very least, the patronus has a special meaning to it's owner. Although it may be wishful thinking, I believe your argument plausible. valcalkin From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 06:04:16 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:04:16 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164305 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > > Aside from the fact that Tom Riddle was good-looking enough for Harry > to notice when he met the sixteen year old memory of Tom (so, not > YUCK, just creepy, and only then in hindsight), we don't have any > canon that McGonagall was in school with Harry [sic]. > > In fact, if she was a "sprightly seventy" in the first book (heck, > maybe I'm the one with memory difficulties, blame old age if I am), > then she was born about 1921, and would have graduated Hogwarts in > 1939. There may be one shared year with Tom Riddle, but for an > eighteen year old to have a crush on an "ickle firstie" is even > creepier than two same-age students having crushes on each other. > > Ceridwen. > Something didn't ring quite true with me about Minerva being 70 at the time of the first book so I couldn't help going into Hermione mode just a bit and did some research at Accio Quote. The 'spritely 70' remark was made during an October 2000 interview after GoF was published. In 2001 she says Snape was 35 or 36 during GoF so I'm assuming that when she answered the question about McGonagall she was also thinking of GoF. Anyway her answers are usually relevant to the latest book published. We're such an active group of writers that sometimes we forget earlier posts but I think someone else has already mentioned that Minerva was born in 1924 making her two years older than Voldie. So they probably were at school together but contact would be doubtful since they weren't in the same house. Snape's Witch From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 06:23:39 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 06:23:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164306 valcalkin: > I am a first time poster myself and I have often wondered about your > question. It is also worthwhile to mention that since Dumbledore's > patronus is a phoenix-hmmmmm. It is interesting that other > characters have shared certain abilities or aspects of their > personalities with the image that is their patronus. At the very > least, the patronus has a special meaning to it's owner. Although > it may be wishful thinking, I believe your argument plausible. zgirnius: I, too, thought some such theory was plausible (though unlikely). However, at her appearence in New York City in August, Rowling has stated that he really, truly is dead, and not coming back. You can read a transcript here: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html The most relevant quote, taken from there: > J. K. Rowling: > But I see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore is definitely ... dead (crowd gasps). And I do know - I do know that there is an entire website out there that says - that's name is DumbledoreIsNotDead.com so umm, I'd imagine they're not pretty happy right now (crowd laughs). But I think I need - you need - all of you need to move through the five stages of grief (crowd laughs), and I'm just helping you get past denial. So, I can't remember what's next. It may be anger so I think we should stop it here. Thank you (crowd applauds). zgirnius: Sorry... Hope you have fun here, though! From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Jan 30 12:26:33 2007 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:26:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's Vision and Snape (Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164307 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > How, *how* can their preconceptions and misreadings of each other, > particularly Harry's view of Snape as an evil, murderous traitor, be > corrected? I can think of a few ways, among them Snape saving Harry's > life or that of one of Harry's friends through those intriguing > healing powers he demonstrated in HBP. Another possibility is memories > of conversations between Snape and Dumbledore viewed in a Pensieve > (maybe DD has bottled a few and willed them to Harry just in case). > Maybe someone more logical than Harry (Hermione or Lupin) will begin > to see that the pieces of Harry's story don't quite fit together, and > Harry is either missing something or trying to create the wrong > picture from them. > > I don't think the missing link will be Lily (though I do think that > Snape regretted her death and tried to prevent it just because she and > Harry were innocent. I think he tried to prevent James's because he > didn't want James to die with the life debt unpaid and resents him to > this day for arrogantly refusing to listen to Dumbledore's warning). I > think it's more likely to be Regulus. (Or rather, that's my hope. I > certainly don't think that Snape made any Wormtongue-style bargain > with Voldemort/Saruman regarding Lily/Eowyn. Ugh.) And certainly, > Harry has to learn about the UV somehow, which can only come from > Snape himself telling his story as Lupin and Black tell theirs in PoA. > But something unexpected will happen, and new pieces of evidence will > show up. They have to because JKR has been preparing Snape's role in > Harry's story since Book 1 and has said in an interview somewhere that > he has a crucial role to play in Book 7. > > Carol, not blaming a teenage boy for reacting to what he sees as the > plain truth but hoping that he'll develop the maturity and vision to > recognize Dumbledore's wisdom and Snape's loyalty and courage in DH Brothergib replies: I really don't understand why Harry has to learn about Snape's allegiance in the next book. In fact, surely it is incredibly dangerous for him to do so. If Snape is on the side of good, he really needs to continue to fool LV. Snape is clearly a good enough legilimens/occlumens to fool LV. However, if Harry is aware of Snape's duplicity, then LV has a real chance of discovering this. I continue to believe that Snape's role has been to assist DD with the removal of the Horcruxes. Initially, it is a passive role e.g. to help DD after the ring curse. However, when DD was killed (yes, admittedly by Snape), he did not know what or where all the remaining Horcruxes were. The only person who can possibly discover the identity of the remaining Horcruxes is (at least in LV's eyes) heroic Snape, returning after the murder of DD. With the exception of the locket (and possibly Nagini), Snape will locate and destroy the remaining Horcruxes. It is not important that Harry knows about this. In fact, I'm sure he will be oblivious until the final confrontation with LV. Imagine how smug LV would be facing Harry 'thinking' his Horcruxes are intact. And finally, there will be no reconciliation. If Snape dies, Harry will finally realise that he was working on the side of good. If Snape lives, his resentment for James & Harry will remain. IMO, Snape is not against LV because of Harry, it is for his own selfish reasons (and I agree they probably have something to do with Lily). Brothergib From eadplantlady at sympatico.ca Tue Jan 30 13:07:45 2007 From: eadplantlady at sympatico.ca (Angie) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:07:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164308 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "j_m_arff" wrote: > The question is: Is Dumbledore (sorry I'm afraid I'll have to learn > those abbreviations) truly dead? > There are a few points, that make his death suspicious, as for > instance the fact, that he has been killed by Snape with the "Avada > Kedavra", but rather than sinking to the floor, as other victims of > the curse have been reported dying, Dumbledore is "Blasted into the > air" and then falls over the railing to the ground. Angie's Answer: Hi, in regards to the AK curse if you recall from the Goblet of Fire (at least in my version) Cedric gets "thrown back" by the AV curse. I think it has to do with where you are standing when hit with it. As far as Dumbledore being actually dead JKR herself in an interview said he was "definitely dead" and Harry confirmed this when the body imobilisation curse was lifted from him up on the tower. It could only have been lifted if someone had released it or if dumbledore himself realeased it or died. Yes, I think he is dead but maybe we will see some sort of help from him in the form of a Ghostly apparition in the last book. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 14:00:30 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:00:30 -0000 Subject: Snapey-poo, Sticky-goo, and Mary-sue (was Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164309 Carol: > > Killing him [Snape] would be both unoriginal and unimaginative. > Eggplant: > So not killing him [Snape] would be original and imaginative? Now Lupinlore: Well, I guess all approaches to this are completely subjective, as that is really the only way, at base, to approach an imaginary world. We aren't dealing with celestial mechanics here. The orbit of Mars can be measured objectively. The trajectory of an imaginary character cannot. Having said that, I think any expectations based on JKR being "original" in her basic plot structure are dangerous. To borrow language from Nora, I'll see your "unoriginal and unimaginative" death of Snape and raise you about a million horrified Harry/Hermione shippers who swore that JKR would NEVER do something so "predictable" and "boring" as pairing Harry up with Ron's little sister. Then I'll double with a few million enraged Dumbledore fans who declared that killing off Harry's mentor would be "ordinary" and "expected" and, yes, "unimaginative." JKR is deeply enthralled to ordinary literary patterns -- indeed slavishly so when it comes to basic narrative. As she herself said, for instance, DD had to die because "the old wizard with the beard always dies in this kind of story." On the subject of Harry and his involvement in the death of Snapey- poo, that I don't expect. It would be a break with narrative tradition that would be uncharacteristic of JKR. Instead, I think Voldy is the most likely candidate for Snapey-poo-exterminator. Whatever alphabetical flavor of Snapey-poo comes out in DH, at some point Voldy, bless his little paranoid heart, will probably decide, rightly or wrongly, that the potions master has betrayed him. At that point, Snapey-poo's vaunted knowledge of the Dark Arts and dueling skills will be badly overmatched and, lacking Harry's special powers, Snapey-poo will be reduced to Sticky-goo. About the only way a character such as Snapey-poo could escape Gooification would be if he was in some way deeply iconic for the author -- a kind of Mary Sue (or, I suppose, Gary Stu in this case). But JKR already has her Mary Sue in Hermione, who thus escapes backlash from her actions, and her Gary Stu in Harry, who will emerge triumphant in the end. Snapey-poo, like DD, is only a supporting character, as much plot-device as anything else. And like DD, he will probably be discarded once his purpose has been served. And that is just as well for JKR, since anyone who would use Snapey-poo as an iconic character would be in an ... unenviable ... state of existance. Lupinlore, who wishes the woman would just hurry up and get the dratted thing out, since the longer she delays the more shades of the "three year summer," and thus the catastrophe of OOTP, get aroused From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 14:41:20 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:41:20 -0000 Subject: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 29, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164310 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > > Well, yes, Harry being right about Snape may have nothing to do with > > power of love theme or it may have, I am just not sure why it cannot > > be the theme on its own. I totally think that power of love, > > forgiveness would turn out to be one of the main themes in the book, > > but who says it would be the only one? > > > Pippin: > IIRC, it was Aristotle. Seriously, a theme is supposed to be the > unifying idea of the work, so if you have unrelated ideas then it's > pointless to talk about themes at all. > Well, I guess that would apply if we were sure JKR is an Aristotelian in her approach to her writing. Aristotle's model is only one scheme for literature or drama, even in the context of the ancient Greek world, much less Latin literature, just as the ideas of Sophocles are only one model for ancient tragedy. Being a classics major, JKR could as easily be basing herself on Vergil or Homer (or Aristophanes or Seneca or Menander or Ovid or Juvenal) as Aristotle, and in fact is more likely to be doing so, as they were practicing artists rather than philosophers putting forth theoretical explanations of art. In Homer, for instance, one can discern multiple themes that constantly weave in and out of one another and the narrative (the capriciousness of the gods, the binding power of fate, the importance of personal nobility, the destructiveness of selfish arrogance, the blinding power of rage and lust, the transcendance of loyalty in friendship and in love, the power of human decision even in the face of gods and fate). Homer stubbornly resists all attempts to find a "binding theme" and instead, like many passages from Judeo-Christian literature (which are assuredly much more relevant for JKR than any classical reference), points in many different directions within the same narrative. In fact, I doubt JKR is doing any such conscious "basing" at all - at least not on classical works like Aristotle. Like Alla, I doubt she has a single "theme" but rather has multiple messages she is sending, some deliberately and some not, some more important that others. In that she does have more important messages, she has said already that her particular religious beliefs give them away, which is why she doesn't want to talk religion until the books are complete. Lupinlore, who thinks that in most aspects of the narrative JKR is, perhaps unfortunately, not thinking all that deeply anyway From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 14:55:31 2007 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:55:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's Vision and Snape (Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > > And finally, there will be no reconciliation. If Snape dies, Harry > will finally realise that he was working on the side of good. If > Snape lives, his resentment for James & Harry will remain. IMO, Snape > is not against LV because of Harry, it is for his own selfish reasons > (and I agree they probably have something to do with Lily). > That would certainly fit, I suppose. Let us grant that Snape was in love with Lily. It would then make sense that he was present at Godric's Hollow. That would tie in several threads. Snape would hate Voldy for killing the woman he loved. He would also hate James for being the husband of the woman he loved. And he would hate Harry, both for being a constant reminder of James and being the reason that Lily chose to sacrifice herself. In other words, Snape hates Harry because Lily chose to die for Harry rather than live for Snapey-poo. Thus we have the monumental failure of DD's understanding. He thought Snapey-poo could get over his feelings about James and finally put away the issues with Harry. But the problem is that Snape's hatred of Harry isn't just reflected hatred of James. It is also hatred of Harry HIMSELF, hatred that springs from the fact that Lily loved Harry enough to die for him rather than to accept life (presumably with Snapey- poo). DD in OOTP at last realized the true depth and source of Snape's hatred. Any hope that he might have had that Snape would finally get over his hatred of James and come to some reasonable and livable accomodation with Harry was shattered by the fact that it isn't just James that Snapey-poo hated, it was Harry, including, yes, baby Harry, that Snapey-poo loathed. And herein is one of DD's emotional mistakes - - i.e., he couldn't understand that Snape could hate a baby, and subsequently a boy and young man, for the existance of the baby/boy/young-man HIMSELF, rather than as a "holding-vessel" for his hatred of the baby's/boy's/young-man's father. And, indeed, I'm not at all sure that DD had fully admitted as much to himself even in HBP. Lupinlore From eadplantlady at sympatico.ca Tue Jan 30 13:21:13 2007 From: eadplantlady at sympatico.ca (Angie) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:21:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164312 valcalkin: > I am a first time poster myself and I have often wondered about your > question. It is also worthwhile to mention that since Dumbledore's > patronus is a phoenix-hmmmmm. It is interesting that other > characters have shared certain abilities or aspects of their > personalities with the image that is their patronus. At the very > least, the patronus has a special meaning to it's owner. Although > it may be wishful thinking, I believe your argument plausible. > > Angie's response: The only problem with the Phoenix theory for Dumbledore not being dead is that the Phoenix has to burst into flames at the exact time of death the be reborn. Dumbledore did not burst into flames at his exact time of death but at his internment. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 15:21:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:21:09 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164313 Snape's Witch wrote: > > Something didn't ring quite true with me about Minerva being 70 at the time of the first book so I couldn't help going into Hermione mode just a bit and did some research at Accio Quote. The 'spritely 70' remark was made during an October 2000 interview after GoF was published. In 2001 she says Snape was 35 or 36 during GoF so I'm assuming that when she answered the question about McGonagall she was also thinking of GoF. Anyway her answers are usually relevant to the latest book published. > I think someone else has already mentioned that Minerva was born in 1924 making her two years older than Voldie. So they probably were at school together but contact would be doubtful since they weren't in the same house. Carol adds: Good point. I'll add a bit of speculation here: Given McGonagall's personality and intelligence, I wouldn't be surprised if McGonagall was a Prefect and even Head Girl in her time. If either were the case, she'd probably have been at least superficially acquainted with the fifth-year Prefects, including Tom, in her seventh year. Also, if she *is* two years older than Tom, the chamber of Secrets would have been opened in her seventh year. Now, what do we *know* about her? She was a Gryffindor and is HoH of Gryffindor at least from Harry's first year through his sixth. She teaches Transfiguration and is a registered (cat) Animagus (BTW, I'm sure that DD is familiar with her markings and she only asked "How did you know it was me?" because it was dark outside and DD wouldn't have expected her to be on Privet Drive); she's assistant headmistress until the end of HBP and is usually on hand (along with Snape) when anything unusual is going on in the castle; she's an avid Quidditch fan who supervises the announcing of the matches and chooses the commentator, has a running rivalry with Snape, and bent or broke the rules by buying Harry a broom and making him Seeker in his first year (undermining Madam Hooch, who said she would see that anyone who rode their brooms while she was taking Neville to the hospital wing would be expelled--interestingly, Draco isn't expelled, either); is a member of the second Order of the Phoenix (we see her at 12 GP only once that I recall, oddly dressed in Muggle clothes); is Scottish, with a fondness for tartan (shared, apparently, by Filch and Figgy) and the Scottish national flower, the thistle; she has rather marked opinions regarding the incompetence of certain colleagues (Lockhart, Trelawney) and the uselessness of Divination (one of several ways in which she resembles Hermione) and a very civil relationship with Snape even after she finds out that he's an ex-DE near the end of GoF); she claims to have trusted him only at DD's insistence based on his background (presumably from that point onward); she's stern and straight-laced and Harry believes that she doesn't favor her own students, but his Transfiguration class contains only Gryffindors, so it's hard to say; she disapproves of Fake!Moody's use of Transfiguration as a punishment, but her own detentions (sending first-years into the Forbidden Forest with Hagrid) are not exactly mild and safe and her punishment of Neville for losing the passwords seems excessive; she evidently plays chess (like Ron) based on her obstacle in the third-floor corridor in SS/Ps; she disapproves of Umbridge and thwarts her in various ways but advises Harry to keep his temper and not talk back to Umbridge. She also disapproves of Dedalus Diggle, whom she evidently regards as silly or foolish. She knew Augusta Longbottom (maiden name unknown) at school and knew that she failed her charms OWL, which suggests that they were in the same House in the same year. And, oh, yes, she's "a sprightly seventy" as of GoF and seems to have recovered from those four Stunners to the chest at the end of OoP; we don't see her with a walking stick in HBP. And she seems devoted to Dumbledore, standing up for him against Umbridge and Fudge, and opposed to Voldemort (but still reluctant to say his name, IIRC) throughout the books. She shows some concern and compassion for Harry on occasion and bends the rules for him at least twice (but does refuse to sign his Hogsmeade form). She attempts to be fair, helping out Trelawney after she's sacked while being (probably) secretly glad that Trelawney is no longer teaching, but doesn't always succeed. She loses control exactly once that I can recall, when the Dementor sucks Barty Jr.'s soul. Not a lot to go on despite the length of the list. I think MGonagall is what she seems: stern demeanor covering a soft heart and a preference for her own house, not necessarily the best judge of character based on her reaction to "poor little Peter Pettigrew" and her apparent blindness to the bullying tactics of James and Sirius, highly skilled in her subject, firm in her teaching methods and her prejudices (against Divination, for example). I don't think she's married or has any other secrets. The school appears to be her home (though perhaps, like Snape, she goes somewhere else over the summer). So why doesn't dumbledore confide in her more fully? Why doesn't he regard her as his equal? Probably because she's highly competent at what she does, but he can't trust anyone with more than they need to know. The most loyal follower can be tortured for information, and McGonagall is, after all, about seventy years old, nor does she seem to be a Legilimens/Occlumens like Snape. And, given her soft spot for Harry, it's probably best in Dumbledore's view that she doesn't know what he's going to be facing. She'll be more efficient as a teacher, HoH, and school administrator (as well as doing whatever she does for the Order) if she's not too heavily burdened with extraneous information regarding events that must occur whether she wants them to or not (which, BTW, may be one reason why DD would tell Snape, who already knows part of the Prophecy, more than he tells McGonagall about his plans for Harry--DDM!Snape concerned with Harry's safety as the Prophecy Boy, the instrument of Voldemort's destruction, whereas McGonagall cares about Harry as a person--and would not understand the need to subject him to Occlumency lessons or take him on a Horcrux hunt). Carol, still just exploring ideas but not seeing any evidence for Enchanted!McGonagall, much less McG as traitor in the standard sense of ESE! From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 30 15:22:28 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:22:28 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: <002a01c74412$557c2d50$fa6c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164314 Magpie: > > In thinking about the scene in canon, iirc Harry comes in furious at > Dumbledore but quickly winds up thinking that he's got to control his anger > or else Dumbledore won't let him go on the Horcrux Hunt. I don't have the > book in front of me, but it seems like Dumbledore managed to work is so that > when Harry confronted him with this rather large betrayal on his part, > Pippin: Betrayal? Harry didn't give two knuts about who the eavesdropper was or what happened to him until he found out it was Snape. He didn't think it was his business before, so was it really? As far as Dumbledore is concerned, I think not. Dumbledore's biggest problem is that he doesn't know he's in a book. He doesn't know it's inevitable that Snape and Harry will be thrown together for occlumency lessons or that Rowling means to ratchet up the tension between Harry and Snape for dramatic effect and will make sure every revelation about Snape makes him seem worse in Harry's eyes than before. I don't think it's the forgiveness itself that would be Dumbledore's aim. Harry has never had a problem granting forgiveness. The big step for Harry would be understanding the need to do it. For Harry to do that, he will need to see how his prejudice against Snape has distorted his judgement, (if it has) and that this is doing harm to the things that Harry loves. I think Harry is going to discover in some way that Snape is innocent of killing Dumbledore, and then he will see how ruinous his prejudice has been. He will come understand that it's impossible to keep personal feelings out of one's judgements in the Potterverse. He can only choose whether to be blinded by love or by hate. I think Harry will decide that it's better to be blinded by love and risk overlooking the bad in people than to be blinded by hate and overlook the good. That, I think, is where Dumbledore wanted Harry to end up, but he also knew that the relatively powerless may need hatred to survive. The drubbing Harry received from Snape at the end of HBP conceals a seismic shift in the balance of power. No longer are they student and teacher, child and adult. Snape is now a friendless outlaw and Harry is the Chosen One. The Minister of Magic and the Headmisstress of Hogwarts, the two most influential people in his world, are begging Harry Potter for advice and favors. Harry has not yet recognized this, so his challenge will also be to realize that he is now the one with the power in the relationship and he no longer needs his hate. That was the step that Snape never managed to take with regard to Harry. A teacher who feels that he constantly needs to assert his superiority over a student is not feeling superior inside, far from it. Magpie: (Sort of like how in OotP I see him saying how > he's going to explain all his mistakes and then going on to explain everyone > else's mistakes--making his mistake not expecting so many mistakes by > others.) To me he always seems to want to forgive himself for all his > mistakes, so we get lines like his one about the Dursleys where he describes > Harry as a little less well-fed than he would have liked or whatever. Pippin: It's the leader's job to analyze everyone's mistakes, not just his own. I didn't hear Dumbledore excusing himself, except for loving Harry so much that he put Harry's present happiness above his future. He was mostly trying to get Harry not to put all the blame on himself. If that meant shifting some of the responsibility to Sirius, so be it. As painful as that was for Harry, IMO Sirius himself would rather have Harry learn from his mistakes than repeat them through ignorance. Harry needs to understand that old hatreds can turn even a kindly heart toward cruelty and injustice. Harry doesn't get that yet, so he doesn't understand what Dumbledore was saying about Sirius, but when the time comes, he will. Harry knows perfectly well how much he suffered at the Dursleys. He does not need to hear Dumbledore feeling sorry for him -- he hates it when people do that. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 15:41:35 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:41:35 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164315 > Magpie: > > > > In thinking about the scene in canon, iirc Harry comes in furious at > > Dumbledore but quickly winds up thinking that he's got to control his anger > > or else Dumbledore won't let him go on the Horcrux Hunt. I don't have the > > book in front of me, but it seems like Dumbledore managed to work is so that > > when Harry confronted him with this rather large betrayal on his part, > > > Pippin: > Betrayal? > Harry didn't give two knuts about who the eavesdropper was or what > happened to him until he found out it was Snape. He didn't think it was > his business before, so was it really? As far as Dumbledore is > concerned, I think not. > Alla: Was it his business to know who sold the prophecy to Voldemort, which prompted Voldemort to kill his parents? I think so. And I disagree that Harry did not give two knuts about who eavesdropper was before he learned about the identity. I found it very telling how very much in passing Dumbledore mentioned it, not stressing it so to speak, how much eavesdropper was at fault, etc. I think Harry was just too upset about prophecy to think about eavesdropper at first. I think he would have been just as furious no matter who eavesdropper was. So, to answer the question, yes, it is betrayal by Dumbledore IMO. Betrayal out probably of best intentions, wishing to protect all involved parties but betrayal nevertheless. >> Pippin: > It's the leader's job to analyze everyone's mistakes, not just his own. > I didn't hear Dumbledore excusing himself, except for loving Harry so > much that he put Harry's present happiness above his future. Alla: Not as well fed as I would liked, but not a pampered prince ( paraphrase). I hear DD excusing himself loud and clear. Thank goodness he admitted some of his mistakes, but IMO far from all of them. Pippin: > Harry knows perfectly well how much he suffered at the Dursleys. > He does not need to hear Dumbledore feeling sorry for him -- he > hates it when people do that. Alla: Oh, I don't know. If someone put me in the situation where I suffered in the first place, I would **never** be tired to hear apologies from that person, best intentions or not. That is unless I myself choose to say enough. And yes, I am not Harry, but it seems to be to be rather often reaction to wish to hear the remorse from the first party. IMO of course. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 16:00:46 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:00:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's Vision and Snape (Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164316 Lupinlore: > That would certainly fit, I suppose. Let us grant that Snape was in > love with Lily. It would then make sense that he was present at > Godric's Hollow. That would tie in several threads. Snape would hate > Voldy for killing the woman he loved. He would also hate James for > being the husband of the woman he loved. And he would hate Harry, both > for being a constant reminder of James and being the reason that Lily > chose to sacrifice herself. And herein is one of DD's emotional mistakes - > - i.e., he couldn't understand that Snape could hate a baby, and > subsequently a boy and young man, for the existance of the > baby/boy/young-man HIMSELF, rather than as a "holding-vessel" for his > hatred of the baby's/boy's/young-man's father. And, indeed, I'm not at > all sure that DD had fully admitted as much to himself even in HBP. Alla: I wrote in the past that I am pretty much sold on Snape and Lily connection, dislike that as I am ( still keeping my fingers crossed that it was either friendship or one sided crush, but definitely am sold on the connection) But I never thought I would say that, but I have to say I hope not to the argument that Snape hated Harry for Harry and not because Harry is a living remainder of James. I can barely swallow that Snape hates an innocent kid because he looks like his father, reminds him of his father, etc, I can barely swallow it in a sense that this bastard would be forgiven regardless, but if he hated Harry just for the fact that he was born. Oh boy, it should not be possible, but my hatred of such "human being" who would hate a baby, whose mother died partially because of him, would go much higher and definitely to me, death would be too good for such character. Having said all that, I certainly do find it possible. JMO, Alla. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jan 30 16:25:32 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:25:32 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164317 > Pippin: > Betrayal? > Harry didn't give two knuts about who the eavesdropper was or what > happened to him until he found out it was Snape. He didn't think it was > his business before, so was it really? As far as Dumbledore is > concerned, I think not. Magpie: But I think Harry has perfectly good reason to view it as a betrayal and as his business. It might not have been something Harry focused on in principle, but there's a difference between not knowing the name of someone who committed a crime related to you and not being told that an important person in your life is connected to you in this important way. It's his life, so it is his business. Whether or not Dumbledore thought it was Harry's business it's not surprising Harry wouldn't see it that way once he found out. If I made the same decision as Dumbledore (in my case not because I didn't think it was Harry's business but because it was more practical for my own plans) and then the person found out and said that I should have shared this information with him, I think I'd respect his pov there in thinking he has a right to know what this person did to him. Especially since so much of Harry and Snape's relationship turns on Snape having so much more information than Harry does. That's one of the most compelling things in the series is the way JKR uses childhood as a mystery. As a kid Harry is walking into the story in the middle and constantly finding out that the adults around him are concealing knowledge from him--knowledge that concerns him when he learns about it. Whether it's his right to know this or not, other people are privvy to information that he isn't based on the arbitrary year he was born. Often adults conceal information for their own benefit. Pippin: > Dumbledore's biggest problem is that he doesn't know he's in a book. > He doesn't know it's inevitable that Snape and Harry will be thrown > together for occlumency lessons or that Rowling means to ratchet > up the tension between Harry and Snape for dramatic effect and > will make sure every revelation about Snape makes him seem worse > in Harry's eyes than before. Magpie: Hmm...that seems to be talking about something else than I was talking about to Lupinlore. He asked if I thought Dumbledore was making an opening for Harry to forgive Snape and I just said what I thought Dumbledore was thinking about Harry and Snape. I'm basically agreeing with you, saying that Dumbledore didn't really see Harry's forgiving Snape being an issue--but I was using "forgiving Snape" to not refer specifically to Snape's being the eavesdropper but for being a thorn in Harry's side. Dumbledore might not have known they'd be thrown together for Occlumency but he sees as much as anyone else that Snape from the very first day starts up the feud again by taking out his anger at James on Harry. Once that happened Snape's role as the eavesdropper becomes an even more delicate issue. Harry would have, imo, felt just as upset if it had been Lupin, someone he likes, who was the eavesdropper, but Snape's even worse given what he knows about him. So I can't help but imagine the identify of the eavesdropper went a bit beyond, "It's none of his business so he doesn't need to know" to "I hope he doesn't find out because he'll flip." Pippin: > > I don't think it's the forgiveness itself that would be Dumbledore's > aim. Harry has never had a problem granting forgiveness. The > big step for Harry would be understanding the need to do it. For > Harry to do that, he will need to see how his prejudice > against Snape has distorted his judgement, (if it has) and that > this is doing harm to the things that Harry loves. Magpie: I admit I don't see Harry as all that forgiving. He usually forgives when the other person gives in or recants (it's often rather one- sided). If they don't they're dead to him or can stay punished forever. In Snape's case Harry's judgement is somewhat distorted, imo, but there's still genuine stuff to forgive him for. Harry's hatred of Snape is well-earned. Actually, this is one of the things that's so hilarious about Snape. He's the one who starts attacking Harry from the first day, as if Harry's already guilty, when Snape had a big hand in getting his parents killed. Pippin: > I think Harry is going to discover in some way that Snape > is innocent of killing Dumbledore, and then he will see how > ruinous his prejudice has been. > > He will come understand that it's impossible to keep personal > feelings out of one's judgements in the Potterverse. He can > only choose whether to be blinded by love or by hate. I think > Harry will decide that it's better to be blinded by love and risk > overlooking the bad in people than to be blinded by hate and > overlook the good. That, I think, is where Dumbledore wanted > Harry to end up, but he also knew that the relatively > powerless may need hatred to survive. Magpie: There I agree. And I think when Harry sees Snape clearly he'll see him driven by remorse for what he did in the past as well, because it seems like that's really how it's set up. So it's even just that Snape has changed sides, but that he really was sorry about what he did to the Potters--even if his way of showing it isn't pleasant. > Magpie: > (Sort of like how in OotP I see him saying how > > he's going to explain all his mistakes and then going on to explain everyone > > else's mistakes--making his mistake not expecting so many mistakes by > > others.) To me he always seems to want to forgive himself for all his > > mistakes, so we get lines like his one about the Dursleys where he describes > > Harry as a little less well-fed than he would have liked or whatever. > > Pippin: > It's the leader's job to analyze everyone's mistakes, not just his own. > I didn't hear Dumbledore excusing himself, except for loving Harry so > much that he put Harry's present happiness above his future. He was > mostly trying to get Harry not to put all the blame on himself. If > that meant shifting some of the responsibility to Sirius, so be it. As > painful as that was for Harry, IMO Sirius himself would rather > have Harry learn from his mistakes than repeat them through > ignorance. Harry needs to understand that old hatreds can turn > even a kindly heart toward cruelty and injustice. Harry doesn't > get that yet, so he doesn't understand what Dumbledore was saying > about Sirius, but when the time comes, he will. > > Harry knows perfectly well how much he suffered at the Dursleys. > He does not need to hear Dumbledore feeling sorry for him -- he > hates it when people do that. Magpie: That's not the way the scene read to me. It may be Dumbledore's job as leader to analyze things, but Harry hadn't called him in for an analysis meeting, Dumbledore's explaining himself because he wants to change the way Harry feels at that moment. Regardless of what Harry needed to hear or understand, Dumbledore stresses that his own fault was loving Harry too much while everyone else's faults are a bit less about caring for Harry. I have no problem with his analysis of either Sirius or Snape, but I'm analyzing Dumbledore too and what he's saying about himself. Harry's not needing to hear that he suffered at the Dursleys or not wanting people to feel sorry for him is besides the point. I don't think it's a coincidence that Dumbledore comes across as highly sympathetic in his own story. Alla: I wrote in the past that I am pretty much sold on Snape and Lily connection, dislike that as I am ( still keeping my fingers crossed that it was either friendship or one sided crush, but definitely am sold on the connection) But I never thought I would say that, but I have to say I hope not to the argument that Snape hated Harry for Harry and not because Harry is a living remainder of James. Magpie: I think Snape hates Harry because he's also a living reminder of his own mistake. Alla: Not as well fed as I would liked, but not a pampered prince ( paraphrase). I hear DD excusing himself loud and clear. Thank goodness he admitted some of his mistakes, but IMO far from all of them. Magpie: Excusing himself and including an odd comment out of nowhere. Harry the pampered prince seems thrown in for contrast. Harry may indeed not want to be felt sorry for, but he's never seemed to particularly want to hear his life with the Dursleys judged by anyone, has he? Except to hear, "Those Muggles suck." Dumbledore's giving this view with relation to his own behavior and describing how much he liked Harry. It's not really about Harry. Dumbledore's explaining his own behavior, not examining Harry's life with him. Harry himself might have wanted the person who gave the Prophecy to Voldemort put in Azkaban. Ironically it was Dumbledore's testimony that seemed to get him out--for good practical reasons, imo, but he's still possibly the reason this particular DE didn't go to jail. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 16:37:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:37:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164318 "j_m_arff" wrote: > > The question is: Is Dumbledore (sorry I'm afraid I'll have to learn > those abbreviations) truly dead? > There are a few points, that make his death suspicious, as for > instance the fact, that he has been killed by Snape with the "Avada > Kedavra", but rather than sinking to the floor, as other victims of > the curse have been reported dying, Dumbledore is "Blasted into the > air" and then falls over the railing to the ground. > I'm not fully convinced, as I believe, that JKR so far has let the people in the books who have died rest in peace, and no one has returned from the dead (well, Voldemort sort of, I suppose) and I can see, where it is important for Harry's developement to stand on his own two feet. However this idea has left the trace of a doubt within me, and I also think, that Dumbledore could be of great help to Harry, if he was operating under the public belief of his death. Nevertheless I would like to hear, what you think of this, and if you can contribute to draw a clearer picture. thank you! Carol responds: Other posters have already linked you to JKR's response to Salman rushdie's question about Snape and Dumbledore faking DD's death. we know for sure that, Phoenix or no Phoenix, he's dead and Harry is (more or less) on his own. Of course, he still has Hermione and Ron, and he can consult the Order for help about some things, and we're all anticipating Pensieve visits and conversations with Portrait!Dumbledore, but that's different from having Dumbledore himself to guide and teach him. (DD's death, of course, also provides a reason for Harry not to attend Hogwarts for his seventh year, though if they survive, I rather expect HRH to return a year late to finish their education). one thing I'm certain of: DD won't return as a ghost. He's made it clear that he views death as "the next great adventure" and, as NHN (Nearly Headless Nick) says of Sirius Black, "he will have gone on." However, you're quite right that the Avada Kedavra seems abnormal, different from the ones that killed Cedric and Frank Bryce and even the spider in GoF. Usually there's a blinding flash. sometimes there's a rushing noise. The other victims, including the Riddles, died with their eyes open. Dumbledore's are closed; he looks like he's asleep. (the resemblance to the sleeping portrait is intentional, I think. Dumbledore died peacefully, without fear or anger or resentment, suggesting that Snape did *not* betray him and that "Severus, please" did not mean what Harry thinks it means. I don't think anyone on this list, even the anti-Snape, anti-Dumbledore faction, thinks that DD would plead to be spared. Those few who think that DD pleaded with Snape not to kill him seem to think that he was afraid for Snape's soul, or that somehow Snape could have saved Dumbledore and that Harry and Draco could have gotten safely off the tower without Snape's killing Dumbledore.) At any rate, as you say, most AKs don't blast the victim into the air. The victim simply sees a blinding flash and keels over backwards, dead before he hits the ground. Pippin, who believes that it wasn't the AK that killed Dumbledore, points out that dead bodies don't bleed. (Clue or Flint? Maybe JKR doesn't know that.) If Pippin si right, Dumbledore was alive when he went over the battlements. I've pointed out numerous times that sending Dumbledore over the battlements prevented Fenrir Greyback from having him for "afters" and enabled Snape to get the DEs off the tower before Harry (whom he surely knew was there in his Invisibility Cloak because of the second broom) rushed off to fight them. Also, DD seems to float for a moment "like a ragdoll," suggesting that Snape used some sort of Hover Charm or some other nonverbal charm to slow his fall. (We know that Snape is gifted at nonverbal spells, so he could certainly have used something in addition to the AK before he lowered his wand.) It's also possible that the AK was fake, covered by some other spell that shoots out a "jet" of green light (an Impedimenta?) and sent Dumbledore over the wall, allowing Dumbledore to die naturally from the poison, perhaps some time after he hit the ground. (We don't know what color an Impedimenta is; Tonks in OoP was hit by a jet of green light that didn't kill her; you have to *mean* the Unforgiveable Curses, according to Bellatrix, so it would be theoretically possible to cast a fake AK, especially if you're as clever and skilled as Snape.) There's also the theory that the AK, instead of killing Snape, "unstoppered" DD's death, which Snape had "stoppered" when he saved Dumbledore from the ring Horcrux. I may be overlooking some theories (polyjuiced Dumbledore and the Draught of Living Death and a few others), but my point is simply that I don't think JKR somehow forgot about the AK that killed Cedric and carelessly made this one noticeably different. I think that the differences (like Snape's behavior toward Harry in the following chapter, the sleeping portrait, the unfinished "Severus, please--," and Snape's expression of hatred and revulsion, so similar to Harry's feeling of self-hatred and repulsion in the cave) are clues, meant to be noticed and puzzled over. We are meant to question the seemingly straightforward reading (actually colored throughout by Harry's reactions and interpretations) and wonder what was going on between Dumbledore and Snape, whether Snape is really a cold-blooded murderer and traitor who saved his own skin at the expense of his soul or whether something else, invisible to Harry, is going on. We know that the "something else" is not that Dumbledore is really alive, but it could be that Snape, in killing Dumbledore, chose to do what was right rather than what was easy (choosing to follow DD's wishes rather than his own), or it could be that something other than the AK (which may have been fake or unmeant) killed Dumbledore. As for the abbreviations, here's a starter list: AK = Avada Kedavra, DD = Dumbledore, LV = Lord Voldemort, DDM! (usually applied to Snape) means "Dumbledore's Man, OFH! = "out for himself," ESE! = Ever So Evil (secretly loyal to Voldemort). The book titles are also abbreviated, usually SS/PS (covering the American and British titles of the first book--I suppose it ought to be PS/SS--CoS, PoA, GoF, OoP, HBP, and DH). Somewhere on this site, either in the Files or the Database or possibly on the homepage, is a list of abbreviations commonly used in this group. I strongly recommend exploring the whole site at your leisure and certainly using the (improved!) search engine to find posts on topics that you're interested in to get some idea about what has already been said. Carol, recommending a site search using "Dumbledore," "Snape," "dead," "tower," "AK," and similar search terms (the more, the better; no quotes or commas) From lealess at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 17:25:04 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:25:04 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164319 Speaking of Christianity, Christ on the cross said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." He was speaking of those who had abused him and were killing him, as well as those who had turned away from him. He was asking for mercy. He was showing compassion and love for others, people who did not ask for forgiveness or even recognize that they needed it. Dumbledore was close to this kind of love, most certainly on the Tower. My guess is that Lily was closer to this kind of love. I don't see this selfless love in Harry, however, especially while he holds to resentment over past harms done him and to hatred of Snape. As long as he clings to this anger and, moreover, lets it control his actions, he will remain as emotionally stunted as Snape has been, letting the past distort his judgment. I don't see letting go of hatred as Christianity, either; it is more a tenant of basic human growth. As long as we cling to hatred of others, we harm ourselves. Sorry I don't have much time to expand on this, or respond to other posts, much as I'd like to. This lack of time is why I basically dropped out of HPFGU a while back, and am probably going to do so again. lealess From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 17:37:39 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:37:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701300937s2b95cdb5ve3ec4db4f3b9f07d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164320 valcalkin: > I am a first time poster myself and I have often wondered about your > question. It is also worthwhile to mention that since Dumbledore's > patronus is a phoenix-hmmmmm. It is interesting that other > characters have shared certain abilities or aspects of their > personalities with the image that is their patronus. At the very > least, the patronus has a special meaning to it's owner. Although > it may be wishful thinking, I believe your argument plausible. > > Angie's response: The only problem with the Phoenix theory for Dumbledore not being dead is that the Phoenix has to burst into flames at the exact time of death the be reborn. Dumbledore did not burst into flames at his exact time of death but at his internment. Carol responds: Other posters have already linked you to JKR's response to Salmon Rushdie's question about Snape and Dumbledore faking DD's death. we know for sure that, Phoenix or no Phoenix, he's dead and Harry is (more or less) on his own. Of course, he still has Hermione and Ron, and he can consult the Order for help about some things, and we're all anticipating Pensieve visits and conversations with Portrait!Dumbledore, but that's different from having Dumbledore himself to guide and teach him. (DD's death, of course, also provides a reason for Harry not to attend Hogwarts for his seventh year, though if they survive, I rather expect HRH to return a year late to finish their education). one thing I'm certain of: DD won't return as a ghost. He's made it clear that he views death as "the next great adventure" and, as NHN (Nearly Headless Nick) says of Sirius Black, "he will have gone on." ============================== Jeremiah: Hi all... Um, I think that Dumbledore, through careful reading of the text, is a human being and not a Phoenix. In this (exasperatingly sarcastic way, and will my total apology for being in a cranky mood) we can totally assume that he will not come back as a person. (Or a phoenix, or anything that is flesh and bones? or as a ghost, IMO 'cause he seems ready to move on and not pull a Nearly headless Nick). I think the analogy we have going on with the Phoenix is, truly, death and rebirth but I would have to say that if we apply this to the stories which contain human beings we will see that it is not a literal death and rebirth but a metaphorical one. It has been said that DD needed to dies so Harry can move on to his next step and that is: taking his destiny into his own hands without anyone "protecting" him. Dumbledore dies and Harry's inner power will "rise from the ashes." That's the Phoenix metaphor I see happening here. Also, seeing as how most of us are sure that Harry will defeat Voldemort, Dumbledore is passing on his knowledge to Harry on how Dark Wizards operate. Dumbledore's knowledge will be "re-born" in Harry? I'm sure there are more analogies that the Phoenix ca apply to but I think that the Dumbledore/Harry analogy will be the most prominent? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Jan 30 17:40:54 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:40:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's death Message-ID: <8819818.1170178855173.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 164321 From: zgirnius >I, too, thought some such theory was plausible (though unlikely). >However, at her appearence in New York City in August, Rowling has >stated that he really, truly is dead, and not coming back. You can >read a transcript here: Bart: And, as JKR has at least implied that the philosophy of the books is Christian, it also kind of puts the kibosh on reincarnation. What the hell IS in those portraits, anyway? Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 18:17:30 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:17:30 -0000 Subject: JKR's writing style (was:Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164323 > >>Pippin: > > > > Seriously, a theme is supposed to be the unifying idea of the > > work, so if you have unrelated ideas then it's pointless to talk > > about themes at all. > >>Lupinlore: > Well, I guess that would apply if we were sure JKR is an > Aristotelian in her approach to her writing. > > Being a classics major, JKR could as easily be basing herself on > Vergil or Homer (or Aristophanes or Seneca or Menander or Ovid or > Juvenal) as Aristotle, and in fact is more likely to be doing so, > as they were practicing artists rather than philosophers putting > forth theoretical explanations of art. > > Homer stubbornly resists all attempts to find a "binding theme" and > instead, like many passages from Judeo-Christian literature (which > are assuredly much more relevant for JKR than any classical > reference), points in many different directions within the same > narrative. > Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think the answer is in your post here, Lupinlore: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164309 > > JKR is deeply enthralled to ordinary literary patterns -- indeed > slavishly so when it comes to basic narrative. > Betsy Hp: IOWs, JKR ain't Homer. And the story of Harry Potter is not really a complex one. I think its simplicity can be its strength, but when we try to ram a whole bunch of contradictory and unrelated themes into the narrative it falls apart. Because the foundation isn't there. It's not that I think JKR sat down and said, "I shall write a story based on Aristotle's theories of story-telling." But I do think that she's writing a fairly straight forward narrative. And so I think any claims made as to theme need to be verified by text. Of course, JKR could choose to swerve to a completely different theme (or two) in DH. But, IMO, that would be bad writing, not Homer- esque. For that matter though, I'd bet that Homer's various themes were supported by his text. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 18:18:45 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:18:45 -0000 Subject: James and Harry and DD WAS: Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164324 > Carol responds: < BIG SNIP> > He also shares genes with James, who (according to > JKR's interviews) was the indulged only son of older parents who may > or may not have been proud of their pureblood heritage but certainly > allowed James the unusual privilege of using an Invisibility Cloak at > Hogwarts. James, also gifted at Quidditch and Transfiguration, seems > to have had a very high opinion of himself and was prone to bullying > behavior, including hexing people in the hallways for annoying him, > according to Lily. Even Sirius Black calls him an "arrogant little > berk." (I'm not saying, BTW, that James is as bad as Dudley, who seems > to have almost no redeeming qualities. I'm pointing out that Harry, > fortunately, is not a second James, despite Snape's opinion to the > contrary.) Alla: Who says that Harry would have inherited James' worst features? For all I know and what I see he seems to inherited his best features (he really has some of those as well) He is also a Lily's son and for all I know and for all Dumbledore could have known Lily's personality would have prevailed in Harry completely. >> Carol, doubting that any other character, whether McGonagall or Sirius > Black or the Weasleys, could have succeeded as well as DD in keeping > Harry safe and fostering his development into the selfless and > courageous person he will have to be to save the WW > Alla: Oh, the people who love Harry would not have succeeded? Okay. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 18:19:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:19:47 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164325 Alla wrote: > > Was it his business to know who sold the prophecy to Voldemort, which prompted Voldemort to kill his parents? I think so. > > And I disagree that Harry did not give two knuts about who > eavesdropper was before he learned about the identity. I found it > very telling how very much in passing Dumbledore mentioned it, not > stressing it so to speak, how much eavesdropper was at fault, etc. > > I think Harry was just too upset about prophecy to think about > eavesdropper at first. I think he would have been just as furious no > matter who eavesdropper was. > > So, to answer the question, yes, it is betrayal by Dumbledore IMO. > Betrayal out probably of best intentions, wishing to protect all > involved parties but betrayal nevertheless. Carol responds: I think that Dumbledore has to balance Snape's right to privacy against Harry's right to know. He's also considering Harry's state of mind and level of maturity. I think it *would* have been a mistake to tell him who the eavesdropper was at the same time he told him about the Prophecy. And it would be difficult if not impossible to have Snape teach Harry Occlumency if Harry knew who the eavesdropper was (which may be why Dumbledore lent Snape his Pensieve--he may well have thought that it was wise to protect certain memories, or agreed with Snape that it was wise to protect them). Granted, Dumbledore should probably have told Harry about the Prophecy sooner, but if he told Harry about the eavesdropper's identity at the same time, the trust that he was trying to build between Snape and Harry would be undermined and the animosity would reach such proportions that Harry could learn nothing from him, including Potions in his OWL year. And if Harry spread the word to Ron and Hermione that Snape was the eavesdropper, Snape's role as spy or double agent could be compromised, not to mention that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore could be severely undermined if Dumbledore violated Snape's trust by revealing Snape's secret. Would Harry have believed the tale of Snape's remorse if it had been told to him earlier? I think not. S Dumbledore has to balance Harry's right to know with his need to know and consider the consequences of waiting and withholding vs. the consequences of revealing the information too soon. Whether he waited too long or not, the timing and manner of the revelation were extremely unfortunate for everyone involved, making it impossible for Harry to view Dumbledore's death as anything other than an act of betrayal by a loyal Voldemort supporter. Alla wrote: > > Not as well fed as I would liked, but not a pampered prince ( > paraphrase). I hear DD excusing himself loud and clear. Thank > goodness he admitted some of his mistakes, but IMO far from all of > them. Carol responds; Possibly Dumbledore *was* making excuses, but just as he told McGonnagall in SS/PS, it would not have been good for Harry (even if his safety could have been guaranteed in some other way) to grow up as in a world where every child knows his name, famous before he can walk and talk for something he won't even remember. As DD also says, it would be enough to turn any boy's head (SS/PS chapter 1.). Dumbledore's intentions and rationalizations aside, think of the consequences if the Dursleys had for some reason chosen to pamper Harry as they pamper Dudley. Their idea of "love" is worse than their neglect and (mostly but not entirely psychological) abuse of Harry. Draco, also pampered, at least by his mother (who sends him sweets like a second Petunia), is a swaggering bully, a product (like Bellatrix and Narcissa) of the belief that they're members of "nature's nobility" by virtue of being purebloods. Of course, Harry is unrelated to Draco, but he does share quite a few genes with Dudley, and those genes didn't prevent Dudley from being a hopelessly spoiled, bullying brat. He also shares genes with James, who (according to JKR's interviews) was the indulged only son of older parents who may or may not have been proud of their pureblood heritage but certainly allowed James the unusual privilege of using an Invisibility Cloak at Hogwarts. James, also gifted at Quidditch and Transfiguration, seems to have had a very high opinion of himself and was prone to bullying behavior, including hexing people in the hallways for annoying him, according to Lily. Even Sirius Black calls him an "arrogant little berk." (I'm not saying, BTW, that James is as bad as Dudley, who seems to have almost no redeeming qualities. I'm pointing out that Harry, fortunately, is not a second James, despite Snape's opinion to the contrary.) If James has what Lily calls a "fat head," thinking he can get away with obnoxious behavior based on his popularity as a Quidditch player, his talents, and his parents' indulgence, what could happen to Harry if he were brought up in the WW as a "pampered little prince," "famous before he could walk and talk" for something he had no control over, regarded as the savior of the WW from the age of one? As it is, wizards bow to him in shops (he doesn't know why). Assuming that he could safely walk the streets of the WW without being AK'd by a loyal DE, what would happen to his ego if such bowings were a daily occurrence? what would prevent him from becoming another "arrogant little berk," seeing himself as the Chosen One, better than everyone else, with no need to learn anything about the WW because he was invincible? surely, it's better for Harry to enter the WW as an innocent, full of wonder and humility? How can he possibly develop the compassion he needs to save the WW if he's more popular than Viktor Krum or Gilderoy Lockhart? Fortunately, regardless of his motives in doing so, Dumbledore prevents Harry from having that sort of upbringing (and, of course, also and more importantly, keeps him safe using the blood protection). I'm not examining Dumbledore's intentions here, only noting that it really is for the best, IMO, that Harry was not brought up as a pampered prince or an infant phenomenon. I doubt that arrogance like James's would have served Harry well. It might even have been fatal. Carol, doubting that any other character, whether McGonagall or Sirius Black or the Weasleys, could have succeeded as well as DD in keeping Harry safe and fostering his development into the selfless and courageous person he will have to be to save the WW From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 18:22:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:22:19 -0000 Subject: JKR's writing style (was:Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164326 > Betsy Hp: > IOWs, JKR ain't Homer. And the story of Harry Potter is not really a > complex one. I think its simplicity can be its strength, but when we > try to ram a whole bunch of contradictory and unrelated themes into > the narrative it falls apart. Because the foundation isn't there. > > It's not that I think JKR sat down and said, "I shall write a story > based on Aristotle's theories of story-telling." But I do think that > she's writing a fairly straight forward narrative. And so I think > any claims made as to theme need to be verified by text. > Alla: True, JKR ain't Homer. But one does not have to be Homer to add to the one main theme couple of others. Like love and forgiveness and hero coming of age and surpassing his mentor in something, etc. So, I do not think the narrative will fall appart if Harry thoughts about Snape would be at least partially verified. IMO of course. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Jan 30 19:02:38 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:02:38 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164328 Carol: > I'm not examining Dumbledore's intentions here, only noting that it > really is for the best, IMO, that Harry was not brought up as a > pampered prince or an infant phenomenon. I doubt that arrogance like > James's would have served Harry well. It might even have been fatal. > > Carol, doubting that any other character, whether McGonagall or Sirius > Black or the Weasleys, could have succeeded as well as DD in keeping > Harry safe and fostering his development into the selfless and > courageous person he will have to be to save the WW Magpie: But we can't really say that it's for the best, because Nightmare! Harry who has all the worst qualities of lots of other characters doesn't exist. How Harry turned out doesn't retroactively make the Dursleys' actions better. Lots of people have probably turned out well in response to bad situations, but that doesn't make the bad situations right. We wouldn't say poverty was a good thing because there are writers whose childhood poverty informed their work. The other trouble for me in looking at the Dursleys as good for Harry is that the position always seems to lead to arguing against normal parental affection as if it's damaging. Draco's family obviously has a lot of problems, and he himself has a lot of personality flaws, but sending sweets to your 11-year-old at boarding school is hardly a sign of pampering gone wild (Draco doesn't share Dudley's problem with gluttony either). Snape seems to have escaped the pampering curse and it doesn't seem to have done him any favors. James can be a bullying toerag, but was also capable of being courageous and selfless and not every parents nightmare by any stretch. Sirius' relationship with his parents seems very troubled, yet he was bullying right there with James. Barty Crouch claims his father never loved him and seemed to seek that out in Voldemort. So I can't give Dumbledore props for fostering Harry's development into a selfless and courageous person by sticking him with people who didn't love him and made sure he knew it--nor can I see having a child raised by people who are mean to him and don't love him as a form of fostering selfless and courageous development. (He scolds them on their parenting in HBP too, having it both ways.) It's one thing to argue that the Dursleys weren't so bad in the end or that the final product of their upbringing is a pretty good kid, but trying to go further always seems to result in making affection damaging and well-avoided. The only solution to a problem the Dursleys offered was in blood protection. If one can say that a Harry who grew up with Wizard parents might have been arrogant and spoiled one could just as easily say that if Harry had grown up with Wizard parents--the right ones--he might have been just as courageous and selfless as he is now, but with less anger and a more loving spirit. We can say anything because we don't know what would have happened. Actually, the Dursleys could easily have been nice relatives whose main sin was that they were ordinary. It would have made for a very different Harry, but not necessarily a bad or spoiled one. -m From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Jan 30 19:07:33 2007 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:07:33 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164329 > > Pippin: > > It's the leader's job to analyze everyone's mistakes, not just his > own. > > I didn't hear Dumbledore excusing himself, except for loving Harry > so > > much that he put Harry's present happiness above his future. He was > > mostly trying to get Harry not to put all the blame on himself. If > > that meant shifting some of the responsibility to Sirius, so be > it. As > > painful as that was for Harry, IMO Sirius himself would rather > > have Harry learn from his mistakes than repeat them through > > ignorance. Harry needs to understand that old hatreds can turn > > even a kindly heart toward cruelty and injustice. Harry doesn't > > get that yet, so he doesn't understand what Dumbledore was saying > > about Sirius, but when the time comes, he will. > > > > Harry knows perfectly well how much he suffered at the Dursleys. > > He does not need to hear Dumbledore feeling sorry for him -- he > > hates it when people do that. > > Magpie: > That's not the way the scene read to me. It may be Dumbledore's job > as leader to analyze things, but Harry hadn't called him in for an > analysis meeting, Dumbledore's explaining himself because he wants > to change the way Harry feels at that moment. Regardless of what > Harry needed to hear or understand, Dumbledore stresses that his own > fault was loving Harry too much while everyone else's faults are a > bit less about caring for Harry. I have no problem with his analysis > of either Sirius or Snape, but I'm analyzing Dumbledore too and what > he's saying about himself. Harry's not needing to hear that he > suffered at the Dursleys or not wanting people to feel sorry for him > is besides the point. I don't think it's a coincidence that > Dumbledore comes across as highly sympathetic in his own story. wynnleaf I realize that the author's own voice can't necessarily be brought into every scene in order to explain it away. But in this case, I think it's appropriate. JKR (or Dumbledore) had gotten a certain degree of criticism for Dumbledore's decisions and I think this scene was, in part, her attempt to make up for that. I don't think - - in this particular case -- it's so much *Dumbledore* making *himself* highly sympathetic in his own story, as it is the author, perhaps a bit self-consciously, trying to make Dumbledore's actions more sympathetic. I think JKR was trying to explain how Dumbledore could have made the decisions he did and still be her "epitome of goodness." It's not *Dumbledore* who is trying to maintain his image as "epitome of goodness," it's JKR who is trying to do it. In the end, it comes across somewhat forced and makes Dumbledore look like he's making excuses for himself. But rather than truly writing in the character's "voice," I think that JKR was writing more of her author's voice. wynnleaf From va32h at comcast.net Tue Jan 30 19:29:33 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:29:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164330 Carol wrote: > Dumbledore's intentions and rationalizations aside, think of the > consequences if the Dursleys had for some reason chosen to pamper > Harry as they pamper Dudley. va32h agrees,adding: Life with the Dursleys permitted Harry to make what in retrospect was his first and most crucial decision. The first wizard boy Harry meets is Draco - and Draco extends his friendship to Harry. Making Draco the first potential friend, wizard or otherwise, Harry would have ever had.Who would blame Harry for wanting a friend? But it is Draco's resemblance (in look and personality) to *Dudley*, that leads Harry to decline that friendship. Harry ultimately chooses Ron over Draco, which is symbolic of choosing good over evil, love over power, and so on and so on. Dumbledore surely regrets that Harry suffered during his time with the Dursleys, but neither he, nor we, should regret how he turned out as a result. va32h/Barbara From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 19:30:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:30:50 -0000 Subject: James and Harry and DD WAS: Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164331 Carol, doubting that any other character, whether McGonagall or Sirius > > Black or the Weasleys, could have succeeded as well as DD in keeping > > Harry safe and fostering his development into the selfless and > > courageous person he will have to be to save the WW > > > > Alla: > > Oh, the people who love Harry would not have succeeded? Okay. > Carol responds: I think, first, that Dumbledore also loves Harry. and, of course, we can't discount the blood protection. But I also think that the other people I listed don't know enough about Harry to protect him properly, and they would not have understood the dangers of early popularity. Sirius Black would, IMO, have seen Harry as the reincarnation of James (just as Snape does). In both GoF and OoP, he encourages Harry to take risks for the fun of it as James did. Sirius Black at his best is rash and reckless, and after GH he was bent on vengeance against Peter Pettigrew--not a good model for Harry even if he tries to set aside his hatred and anger for Harry's sake. He's also rich; note that he gives Harry a Firebolt before he even knows him. Would he have indulged Harry out of guilt for suggesting the change in Secret Keepers? Impossible to say. Could he have kept Harry hidden away from the DEs or a resurrected Voldemort? Unlikely. Would he have produced a second James, a Harry who loved risks for their own sake and thought highly of himself, assuming that he survived beyond the age of two? Very likely. McGonagall doesn't offer to raise Harry herself, so it's probably pointless to discuss her in this context. I doubt that she could have raised Harry herself and performed all her duties as Gryffindor headmistress, Transfiguration teacher, and HoH of Gryffindor. She'd have had to place him in some sort of WW daycare. Had she attempted to raise him under such circumstances, she certainly could not have avoided favoring Harry over the other students once he reached school age given her treatment of him from the beginning of his first year. Alternatively, she might have dropped out of teaching and raised Harry much as her contemporary, Augusta Longbottom, raises Neville, trying *not* to spoil him, but her affection for Harry's parents and her belief that Harry is a special child would almost inevitably have gotten in the way. Beneath her tight bun, McGonagall is an old softie, and her affection for Harry's dead parents could easily have led to indulgence of their orphan child. More important, it would have been difficult for her to keep Harry hidden from others in the WW who would hail him as a celebrity on the streets--and from Death Eaters who would be quite happy to kill him. The Weasleys certainly wouldn't indulge Harry with material goods, but like McGonagall they might be tempted to treat him as someone special from toddlerhood onward. Mr. Weasley is weak on discipline in any case, and Mrs. Weasley might exempt him from the discipline she tries to impose on their own children. (I can't imagine her screaming at him or sending him Howlers.) If Harry were raised in the Weasley household but given special privileges as the Boy Who Lived and an orphan who needed extra love, it's possible that the other children, particularly Percy and Ron, might become jealous of Harry, thinking he was loved more than they were. And the Weasleys, with all their many children, certainly could not have kept Harry's existence hidden, either from the WW at large or from the DEs, once the children started to school (unless Dumbledore or someone placed them under a Fidelius Charm to keep them quiet, and we see how well that worked to protect the Potters). Obviously, the blood protection, not protection from early celebrity and pampering, was Dumbledore's primary consideration. But I also think he was right to protect Harry from the dangers of seeing himself as special for something he didn't even do, vaporizing Voldemort, or surviving an AK through no skill or effort of his own. Dumbledore can't just hope that Lily's genes will triumph over James's. Early celebrity and indulgence are not good for any child, especially one who somehow brought about the defeat and apparent death of a Dark wizard. Sometimes, love isn't enough. Dudley's parents love him, after all, as do Draco's (or at least his mother) and as (presumably) did James's, and love in all those cases led to indulgence or overindulgence, producing children who became bullies to varying degrees because they thought they were special. And in Harry's case, "special" is a lot more than being, say, a rich pureblood family's only son. Being treated as special for having survived an AK and defeated the Dark Lord as an infant could lead him to believe that he was invulnerable. Love alone can't protect against that kind of danger. An arrogant and overconfident Prophecy Boy won't be the Boy Who Lived for very long. Dumbledore alone, I think, really understands that Harry must not overestimate his abilities and powers, especially before they're developed. He can only fully understand who he is and why he's special by being taught gradually about his mother's sacrifice and the Prophecy and the powers within his scar, which even DD doesn't fully understand yet. An innocent, humble Harry has a greater chance of survival than a Harry raised to view himself at the savior of the WW. Carol, who is primarily concerned with the dangers of arrogance and overconfidence for the boy destined to face Voldemort, dangers that only Dumbledore fully understands From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 19:45:00 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:45:00 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164332 > Magpie: > But we can't really say that it's for the best, because Nightmare! > Harry who has all the worst qualities of lots of other characters > doesn't exist. How Harry turned out doesn't retroactively make the > Dursleys' actions better. Lots of people have probably turned out > well in response to bad situations, but that doesn't make the bad > situations right. We wouldn't say poverty was a good thing because > there are writers whose childhood poverty informed their work. Alla: Oh,man. Stands up gives Magpie long round of applauds for every word in this post. Saving it among my all time favorite posts. Now, I really do have something else to say beyond my adoration, I promise. :) Absolutely, I agree. The bad situations do not become better because of unintended consequences. Death of Lily and James is not a good thing, cannot **ever** be a good thing, despite the fact that it brought to WW the decade of peace. Magpie: > The other trouble for me in looking at the Dursleys as good for > Harry is that the position always seems to lead to arguing against > normal parental affection as if it's damaging. Draco's family > obviously has a lot of problems, and he himself has a lot of > personality flaws, but sending sweets to your 11-year-old at > boarding school is hardly a sign of pampering gone wild (Draco > doesn't share Dudley's problem with gluttony either). Alla: Oh and Ron and Hermione, who grew up in loving families also look quite okay to me, not pampered whatever :) Magpie: > So I can't give Dumbledore props for fostering Harry's development > into a selfless and courageous person by sticking him with people > who didn't love him and made sure he knew it--nor can I see having a > child raised by people who are mean to him and don't love him as a > form of fostering selfless and courageous development. (He scolds > them on their parenting in HBP too, having it both ways.) Alla: It also implies that DD only cared for Harry in a sense of him saving WW, to me anyways. I understand that many people buy that, but I do not. Magpie: It's one > thing to argue that the Dursleys weren't so bad in the end or that > the final product of their upbringing is a pretty good kid, but > trying to go further always seems to result in making affection > damaging and well-avoided. The only solution to a problem the > Dursleys offered was in blood protection. > Alla: I truly wonder sometimes if blood protection was supposed to ever enter the picture, ever. JMO. From technomad at intergate.com Tue Jan 30 20:35:22 2007 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:35:22 -0600 Subject: Why expulsion is so rare at Hogwarts...at least my take on it Message-ID: <00ba01c744ae$2b711ce0$1d560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 164333 I think that one reason that the Marauders weren't expelled or even AFAWK suspended over the Prank is that Dumbledore _really, really_ didn't want magically-talented, partly-trained teenagers out there on their own, fair game for any Dark wizards who might want to take them in and complete their training. I admit, D'dore doesn't do a good job at-all relating to the Slytherins (or, AFAIK, any house but Gryffindor) but I do think that one reason for Hogwarts' existence and _de facto_ monopoly on magical education in Britain is to at least try to prevent magically-talented children being taken in by people with dubious motives. The Jesuit dictum of "give us a child until (a certain age) and he is ours forever" does have a lot of truth to it, although there are always individual exceptions. Someone like Lucius Malfoy, to take one example, could really have stirred up some serious trouble if he'd had the training of a bunch of devotee/disciples. Or, worse yet, a lot of Sirius Black's relatives---the one who wanted to legalize Muggle-hunting comes to mind here. With all of Hogwarts' faults, it does have the board of governors and the MoM to answer to. From megan.real at excite.com Tue Jan 30 21:24:57 2007 From: megan.real at excite.com (poohmeg20) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:24:57 -0000 Subject: Why expulsion is so rare at Hogwarts...at least my take on it In-Reply-To: <00ba01c744ae$2b711ce0$1d560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164334 Eric Oppen wrote: > > With all of > Hogwarts' faults, it does have the board of governors and the MoM to answer > to. > Megan responds: I have gotten the impression throughout the books that the reluctance to expel students has come from Dumbledore alone, certainly for the reasons you cite, and also perhaps because of his friendship with and sympathy for Hagrid and having seen the effects that explusion had on him. Pre-Dumbledore, expulsion must have been more common, since students are frequently expressing their fear of being expelled and teachers (especially Snape) seem to invoke the threat on a somewhat regular basis, which is probably a holdover from the earlier time. It still seems that the MoM does not share DD's concerns about expulsion, since they planned to expel Harry for casting the patronus at the beginning of OOP despite the obvious danger it could put him in, and DD had to intervene. If Hogwarts reopens in DH, and if McGonagall is the new headmistress, it will be interesting to see if she continues DD's policy, partucularly in light of what will likely be going on outside of Hogwarts. From caspenzoe at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 21:57:35 2007 From: caspenzoe at yahoo.com (caspenzoe) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:57:35 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164335 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > First, some questions to ponder about McGonagall: > > > > 1. Why do we know less about McGonagall's past than we do about any other > major adult characters (heck, than some of the minor adult characters)? Snip! > > In addition, JKR has said virtually nothing about McGonagall. Snip! Is > this > lack of notice just because McGonagall is essentially a one-note and rather > boring character? Or is there some reason JKR as revealed so little about > McGonagall? > > 2. Why isn't *she* Dumbledore's confidante? The two have known each other > since > McGonagall was a student herself--for more than 50 years--and have been at > Hogwarts > as colleagues most of that time. Snip! > 3. Why does Dumbledore never share any sensitive information with McGonagall? > He evades her questions and gives half-answers from the first scene between > them in front of the Durlseys house, right through HBP where she has no idea > about any of Dumbledore's activities (the hand damage, the Horcrux hunt with > Harry, the Prophecy, etc). Snip! > So what's the alternative to ESE!McGonagall? ESE!McGonagall, of course! > That is, ESE!--Ever-So-Enchanted!--McGonagall. A McGonagall who has been > "enchanted" by Tom Riddle, perhaps since their school days. And here I use > enchanted to mean she's been literally brainwashed or hynotized, not that she > finds him so charming or fascinating that she'll willingly do anything for > him. Caspenzoe here. I am delurking because I wanted to add some notes to this discussion that I haven't seen anyone else mention yet. I hope the elves will forgive me if my posting style has gotten sloppy, because it's been awhile since I've tried it. I am and have remained intrigued by ESE McGonagal theories, and find Julie's Enchanted Mcgonagall theory intriguing as well, for her reasons raised in 1. and 2. above. I do think that another reasonable explanation for JKR's not having said much abot Minerva may be that the fans haven't really asked her; at least I haven't noticed many requests for information about her on the sites I've perused, including JKR's, and those reporting her interviews, her Q&A sessions, etc. Perhaps the character is so well and convincingly written that most of us simply believe her as a whole, and don't feel the need for more information. In fact, I didn't until I first heard about these theories. In any case, here are some other things that occurr to me now. First, assuming Minerva is a spinster, we should consider that one of the reasons some people remain single is unrequited love; i.e.: to use a quaint old expression, they carry a lifelong torch for someone, they didn't get or can't have. If, as another poster responding to Julie postulated, Minerva was in her 7th year at Hogwarts when Tom Riddle was in his 5th, I don't think we can rule out the possibility of Minerva's having been attracted to a younger, but very handsome and absolutely brilliant student. In fact, I think such an attraction is more likely than not, regardless how disgusting it may seem after what Riddle's become. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I believe Cho is a year older than Harry, after all, and she was attracted to him. Alternatively, a person suffering under the kind of enchantment Julie proposes is likely to feel very fulfilled as a single person, with out ever consciously wondering why. As we learn in HBP, a propensity for resorting to methods of compelling love is not unheard of in Riddle's gene pool. Finally, it strikes me that Minerva's and Tom's respective timelines do seem to parallell each other closely. Minerva's been teaching at Hogwarts for approximately 40 years as of HBP (OOTP, P.321, American hard-cover ed.), which means she returned to Hogwarts as a teacher approximately 10 years after she left. Tom would have graduated two years after Minerva. He asked for a teaching position immediately, but was turned down (HBP). We know that he then waited 10 years to attempt to return to Hogwarts from his pensieve recounted interview with Dumbledore (HBP). That would have been only a couple years, at most after Minerva had taken up her own teaching position. We know that Tom spent his first few post-Hogwarts years working for Borgin and Burkes, but he left them abruptly after Hepzibah Smith's murder and disappeared (HBP). This seems to me to leave a gap of at least two years during which neither Tom nor Minerva is at Hogwarts, and during which both their whereabouts are completely unaccounted for in cannon so far. That seems to me to be plenty of time to either activate a slumbering passion on Minerva's part or rekindle one, or, alternatively, to enchant and plant Minerva as a sleeper agent in Hogwarts. Whom, after all, is the other help Draco Malfoy claims access to at Hogwarts in HBP? Rosemerta seems to be of limited use at best. Just some thoughts. Caspen From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 30 22:21:42 2007 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:21:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why expulsion is so rare at Hogwarts...at least my take on it In-Reply-To: <00ba01c744ae$2b711ce0$1d560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: <573359.14623.qm@web53305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164336 The last paragraph hit me with something that seemed lost and that is this. I wonder if the thought of Witch Hunts and Killings were still in the minds of some the magical families and being a pure blood at one time was thought to be a way of survival so that their heritage would carry on. Perhaps some families like the Blacks and Malfoys escaped that period and look for a time to avenge while some families looks for a new ways to survive as Muggles advanced. You have to remember that many of the wizards and witches are extremely old and well as the families dating back as far was the Roman Empire so it could be possible the hatred of Muggles and Halfs could come from this. I also wonder what Hogwarts and other magical schools throughout Europe would have been like during World War Two. Dragonkeeper From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Jan 30 22:50:46 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:50:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's Vision and Snape (Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164337 Carol responds: > Let me first clear up what I think is a misconception of my views or > intentions. I confess to being Snapecentric, and to pointing out > that Harry's glasses may symbolize a figurative as well as literal > myopia, but I'm not *blaming* him for seeing Snape as he does. > As I pointed out in another post, Snape's treatment of him > fits his preconceptions. Appearance, coincidence, and Snape's very > real animosity reinforce Harry's preconceptions. Jen: Thanks for clarifying the point about blame. It's easy to view debates as casting blame on either Harry or Snape, how one being right naturally makes the other wrong. I truly don't read HP as that kind of story nor JKR as that kind of author. A story about good/evil is unfolding, but all the characters save Voldemort live in the space between those two extremes (and I would argue young Riddle wasn't meant to be seen as irrdeemably evil even if Voldemort is). Carol: > Harry has never been a very good judge of character, but he's > learning not to judge based on appearances. It's just a whole lot > harder with Snape than it is with other characters because he knows > that Snape not only hates him but hated his "filthy father." Jen: The story doesn't work well if Harry is an overall poor judge of character, then the reader ends up not trusting Harry's judgment about any of the characters: "Is Ron really a good guy, or should I look for signs of betrayl and instead realize Harry was wildly innacurate about Draco?" If Harry is wrong about the majority of the people he's interacting with, then his flawed judgement is the path to the real story instead of a sense of security that *most* characters are who they appear to be. The mystery element of the series is the cause for so many versions of ESE on our list in my opinion, not Harry's poor judgement. My impression is JKR is portraying accurate moral development of an 11-17 year old rather than implying seriously flawed judgement. Harry hasn't been able to accurately judge people who are ambiguous or outright duplicitous, but he certainly isn't alone there. Even Dumbledore was taken in by Quirrell and Fake Moody, and Dumbledore believed Sirius capable of betraying the Potters. And by the time Umbridge enters the story, and Slughorn, Harry is starting to get the idea people don't fall neatly into the categories of good and evil. I'd say Harry's main flaw is judging too harshly at times and not giving people who disappoint him or make mistakes a second chance, especially those he doesn't like. That fits in better with Dumbledore's story and what the mentor is teaching the student about mercy and second chances. Carol: > How, *how* can their preconceptions and misreadings of each > other, particularly Harry's view of Snape as an evil, murderous > traitor, be corrected? I can think of a few ways, among them Snape > saving Harry's life or that of one of Harry's friends through those > intriguing healing powers he demonstrated in HBP. Jen: I guess it's hard for Snape fans and Harry fans to agree on everything . Harry has seen or heard about Snape performing right actions many times and they've failed to move him. If Snape is loyal and Harry must see his loyalty, then there needs to be a scenario which jolts Harry out of the usual pattern. For instance, seeing present-day Snape in a circumstance where Snape is being manipulated or controlled by someone else (LV most likely) would mirror helpless young Snape in the screaming man memory or being bullied in the Pensieve scene. Any scenario where Snape is weak or out of control could shake up Harry's present view. Carol: > Another possibility is memories of conversations between Snape and > Dumbledore viewed in a Pensieve (maybe DD has bottled a few and > willed them to Harry just in case). Maybe someone more logical > than Harry (Hermione or Lupin) will begin to see that the pieces of > Harry's story don't quite fit together, and Harry is either missing > something or trying to create the wrong picture from them. Jen: I do expect both of these scenes to take place in some form, or Hermione urging Harry to use the Pensieve to view his own memory of the tower. Carol: > I don't think the missing link will be Lily I think it's > more likely to be Regulus. Jen: How would Regulus be a primary link between Snape and Harry? I understand the two men may have known each other and had in common Slytherin, DE's and eventually working against Voldemort, but how could Regulus influence Harry to see a different side of Snape more than him finally knowing Lily? Harry will learn in DH that he is his mother's son and shares her traits of courage, conviction and a willingness to die to save others. Presumably she also had a crucial trait he needs to learn in order to release his resentment of Snape, be it compassion, mercy and/or the power of forgiveness. I don't think there had to be a connection between Lily and Snape for all this to occur, but given Snape's remorse it sure sounds like a possibility. From kaleeyj at gmail.com Tue Jan 30 23:01:36 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:01:36 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164338 Julie wrote: > > First, some questions to ponder about McGonagall: > > 2. Why isn't *she* Dumbledore's confidante? > > 3. Why does Dumbledore never share any sensitive information with > McGonagall? > Caspenzoe here. > > I do think that another reasonable > explanation for JKR's not having said much abot Minerva may be that > the fans haven't really asked her; Perhaps the character is so well > and convincingly written that most of us simply believe her as a > whole, and don't feel the need for more information. blitz: I think you're on the right track, Caspen. She is a strong teacher, with a wry sense of humor that pokes up every now and then, not much of a politician, a tough-love kind of woman, with a big teddy bear inside. She's an old softie. And because she hasn't really had any major plot twists, we don't wonder too much about her. (Remember, folks, no one really was concerned about Snape's backstory until PoA's release.) No one has really been asking about her. I think that McGonagall's weakest trait is also her best - she is intensely loyal, to a fault. She is willing to take on the Minister until DD tells her to stand down. She reminds me a bit of Sirius Black, though a bit more dilute - a bit of a hothead, stands behind her friends though hell and back, and stubborn as sin. Perhaps Dumbledore sees her as potentially making some rash decisions with the information he could give her? She was willing to risk inmprisonment when DD faced off with Fudge in his office in OotP - she would certainly have wanted to help with the Horcruxes in HBP, even though she is *needed* at Hogwarts as second-in-command. > If, as another poster responding to Julie > postulated, Minerva was in her 7th year at Hogwarts when Tom Riddle > was in his 5th, I don't think we can rule out the possibility of > Minerva's having been attracted to a younger, but very handsome and > absolutely brilliant student. In fact, I think such an attraction is > more likely than not, regardless how disgusting it may seem after > what Riddle's become. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but I > believe Cho is a year older than Harry, after all, and she was > attracted to him. blitz: You are correct - she is one year ahead of him. I do hope that she isn't in Hogwarts in Book 7 - I think JKR only mentioned the timeline difference once, and I am terrified that we shall see another Flint. > Finally, it strikes me that Minerva's and Tom's respective timelines > do seem to parallell each other closely. Minerva's been teaching at > Hogwarts for approximately 40 years as of HBP (OOTP, P.321, American > hard-cover ed.), which means she returned to Hogwarts as a teacher > approximately 10 years after she left. Tom would have graduated two > years after Minerva. He asked for a teaching position immediately, > but was turned down (HBP). We know that he then waited 10 years to > attempt to return to Hogwarts from his pensieve recounted interview > with Dumbledore (HBP). That would have been only a couple years, at > most after Minerva had taken up her own teaching position. My question is what did Minerva do before getting the teaching position? Practice? Work at the Ministry? Perhaps she was a wife? I don't think she has any children - the students (at least the Gryffindors) seem to fill in that role. Perhaps that's why she gets that catch in her voice in PoA when Harry wants to go to Hogsmeade without a slip and she won't let him. Maybe she feels like she's denying one of her own children the chance to have some fun. Maybe we're seeing someone who always wanted to be a parent, but had a child? > Whom, after all, is the other help Draco Malfoy claims access to at > Hogwarts in HBP? Rosemerta seems to be of limited use at best. Where did he claim 2 people helped him? If I read that (I don't remember it) I must have assumed it was Snape or one of the students. ~blitz, the thread killer (we'll see if it works on this one!), who sincerely hopes that McGonagall married a Mickey Mcgonagall - Mickey and Minnie just make me want to smile! From cat_batya at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 00:42:28 2007 From: cat_batya at yahoo.com (Seraphina) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:42:28 -0000 Subject: James and Harry and DD WAS: Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164339 Carol: > Dumbledore alone, I think, really understands that Harry must not > overestimate his abilities and powers, especially before they're > developed. He can only fully understand who he is and why he's > special by being taught gradually about his mother's sacrifice and > the Prophecy and the powers within his scar, which even DD doesn't > fully understand yet. An innocent, humble Harry has a greater chance > of survival than a Harry raised to view himself at the savior of the > WW. One thing that I find interesting is that perhaps the reason that DD found it necessary to leave Harry with the Dursleys outside of blood protection was that he knew he would face many hardships growing up and that it was necessary as part of his training to save the WW. If not for that training would he ever really have been able to do anything more than be selfless and courageous? Seraphina From kat7555 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 00:46:55 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:46:55 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164340 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > I truly wonder sometimes if blood protection was supposed to ever > enter the picture, ever. I think blood protection is the lame excuse Dumbledore used to justify leaving Harry with the Dursleys. As a social worker I would never tell a victim of child abuse that their circumstances were character building. Lily seems to have grown up in a perfectly normal family except for a jealous sister. I don't blame Sirius for buying Harry an expensive gift. As he said in his letter he was making up for lost time. Kathy From caspenzoe at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 02:54:53 2007 From: caspenzoe at yahoo.com (caspenzoe) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:54:53 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164341 Snip! > blitz: > I think you're on the right track, Caspen. She is a strong teacher, > with a wry sense of humor that pokes up every now and then, not much > of a politician, a tough-love kind of woman, with a big teddy bear > inside. She's an old softie. And because she hasn't really had any > major plot twists, we don't wonder too much about her. (Remember, > folks, no one really was concerned about Snape's backstory until PoA's > release.) No one has really been asking about her. > > I think that McGonagall's weakest trait is also her best - she is > intensely loyal, to a fault. She is willing to take on the Minister > until DD tells her to stand down. She reminds me a bit of Sirius > Black, though a bit more dilute - a bit of a hothead, stands behind > her friends though hell and back, and stubborn as sin. Perhaps > Dumbledore sees her as potentially making some rash decisions with the > information he could give her? She was willing to risk inmprisonment > when DD faced off with Fudge in his office in OotP - she would > certainly have wanted to help with the Horcruxes in HBP, even though > she is *needed* at Hogwarts as second-in-command. > > My question is what did Minerva do before getting the teaching > position? Practice? Work at the Ministry? Perhaps she was a wife? > I don't think she has any children - the students (at least the > Gryffindors) seem to fill in that role. Perhaps that's why she gets > that catch in her voice in PoA when Harry wants to go to Hogsmeade > without a slip and she won't let him. Maybe she feels like she's > denying one of her own children the chance to have some fun. > > Maybe we're seeing someone who always wanted to be a parent, but had a > child? > > > > Whom, after all, is the other help Draco Malfoy claims access to at > > Hogwarts in HBP? Rosemerta seems to be of limited use at best. > > > Where did he claim 2 people helped him? If I read that (I don't > remember it) I must have assumed it was Snape or one of the students. > > ~blitz, the thread killer (we'll see if it works on this one!), who > sincerely hopes that McGonagall married a Mickey Mcgonagall - Mickey > and Minnie just make me want to smile! Caspen: You make good arguments blitz. I'll admit that Minerva seems loyal. However, when examined closely, as others have done better in earlier posts, she begins to seem almost as ambiguous as Severus. Certainly the earliest post on this subject (sorry, I don't have a ref. for you at the moment, but I believe it's outlined in T-bay) demonstrates how her behavior in her first scene at the opening of Book I (SS/PS) can be very convincingly interpreted in more than one way. And, as Julie asks, if she's so loyal, why doesn't Albus trust her more, and why doesn't he confide in her? It really doesn't make sense to me, regardless whether she's secretly a hot-head or not. Julie's theory, on the other hand, can and does explain it. Suppose for instance that Voldemort's "enchantment" of McGonagall works something like various hypnotic devices we seen in otherwise realistic stories and films. What if a certain hypnotically/magically implanted word or spell sends Minerva into a hypnotic/magicical trance in which she can be made to report to Voldemort or his minions, or even, as a last resort (since Voldemort would want to keep her uses as a weapon secret) made to do Voldemort's bidding and take actions she otherwise never would, with no memory of having done so upon regaining consciousness? We already know this is part of Voldemort's M.O. because it's very similar to what happens to Ginny in Book II (COS). BTW and FYI, Draco does tell Severus that "..., I've got other people on my side, better people!," in Chapter 15 of HPB - at the very end of the chapter (p.324 in my American hardcover ed.)."People" certainly indicates more than one person to me. Since this conversation takes place in the context of Severus' criticism of Draco for using Crabb and Goyle to look out for him at the school, I have to conclude not only that Draco is referring to at least two people, but that however many more than one they are, he is also talking about assistants in the Hogwarts vicinity. In fact, I'm surprised this topic hasn't recieved more discussion here. Sorry you are trying to kill the thread. I too want to know what Minerva did in her ten years between graduating from Hogwarts and becomming a teacher there; I love her. In fact, she may be my favorite character, but I find this ESE speculation fascinating just the same. Caspen From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 02:59:31 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:59:31 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164342 > >>Kathy: > I think blood protection is the lame excuse Dumbledore used to justify > leaving Harry with the Dursleys. > Betsy Hp: It's the only excuse that I find credible; Harry had to stay at the Dursleys or he would have been killed. That's the only reason I can accept (and therefore, I hope it's the only real reason Dumbledore has) as valid in this sort of situation. For me, the threat of death is enough. Adding any sort of "character training" to the mix turns Dumbledore into a cruel and manipulative old man. So it's not an argument I'm all that fond of. (Especially since Dumbledore didn't own up to that sort of manipulation in his big confession scene.) > >>Carol, who is primarily concerned with the dangers of arrogance and > overconfidence for the boy destined to face Voldemort, dangers that > only Dumbledore fully understands Betsy Hp: But, do you really think the *Dursleys* were the only way to prevent Harry from becoming an arrogant menace? If Dumbledore merely wanted Harry to not grow up with the fame he had in the WW, he could have sent Harry to Mrs. Figg. > >>va32h: > Life with the Dursleys permitted Harry to make what in retrospect was > his first and most crucial decision. > The first wizard boy Harry meets is Draco - and Draco extends his > friendship to Harry. Making Draco the first potential friend, wizard > or otherwise, Harry would have ever had. Who would blame Harry for > wanting a friend? But it is Draco's resemblance (in look and > personality) to *Dudley*, that leads Harry to decline that > friendship. > Harry ultimately chooses Ron over Draco, which is symbolic of > choosing good over evil, love over power, and so on and so on. Betsy Hp: Or... Because Harry was so distrustful of children doted on by their parents, he readily bought into the prejudice and judgementalism that has made Hogwarts and the WW such easy pickings for Voldemort. Or... Because Harry has an irrational hatred of blond boys, Draco was shut down by the one potential friend that may have helped him move beyond his parents' prejudices and fears and kept him from falling under Voldemort's sway. Or... A Harry raised by Mrs. Figg would have been perfectly able to see the potential in Ron without the years in a closet. I really don't see that the Dursley's did anything to help Harry be a good person. They just kept him from being a dead person. > >>va32h: > Dumbledore surely regrets that Harry suffered during his time with > the Dursleys, but neither he, nor we, should regret how he turned out > as a result. Betsy Hp: But the thing is, I think Harry is who he is *in spite* of the Dursleys, not *because* of them. What Dumbledore shouldn't regret that he kept Harry alive. But he shouldn't pat himself on the back for Harry's rather bleak childhood. (In my opinion, of course.) Betsy Hp From va32h at comcast.net Wed Jan 31 03:20:27 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 03:20:27 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kat7555" wrote: > I think blood protection is the lame excuse Dumbledore used to justify > leaving Harry with the Dursleys. As a social worker I would never tell > a victim of child abuse that their circumstances were character > building. Lily seems to have grown up in a perfectly normal family > except for a jealous sister. I don't blame Sirius for buying Harry an > expensive gift. As he said in his letter he was making up for lost > time. > va32h here: When it comes to discussion of Dumbledore's leaving Harry with the Dursleys, I feel it is unfair to look at the situation without considering the context of what it really is: an orphan-makes-good tale. Harry's suffering at the hands of the Dursleys is a convention of that genre. He gets treated badly, and we sympathize with him, and it is all the more sweet when his tormentors get their comeuppance. Now I know when I said something to this effect before, it was pointed out that a good writer makes their plot contrivances a believable part of the story. And I agree. Which is what JKR has done, with the protection of blood, and the humble upbringing. Of course we adults, who know all too well that real abuse exists, and that children who are really abused are not likely to turn out as well as Harry, know that there can never be a good enough reason to leave ababy in those circumstances. If Harry were a real child, Dumbledore's action could never be justified, never explained. But JKR can't really have it both ways, can she? She can't have her requisite horrible childhood for her hero, without having her story, which is set after all in modern time, be subject to modern standards of what is and is not abuse. It's the same problem I had with the remake of The Parent Trap. The plot requires that identical twins be raised without ever knowing each other, but we know that no judge would ever award custody that way, and it's cruel to let a child think her other parent is dead or missing when they are not. Interestingly enough, my daughter, who is 11, and her friends of the same age, have no problem with things like this. They accept the Dursleys, the very bad uncles in Lemony Snicket, and all sorts of situations that seem cruel to children. va32h/Barbara From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 03:15:31 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 03:15:31 -0000 Subject: JKR's writing style (was:Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164344 > >>Betsy Hp: > > IOWs, JKR ain't Homer. And the story of Harry Potter is not > > really a complex one. I think its simplicity can be its > > strength, but when we try to ram a whole bunch of contradictory > > and unrelated themes into the narrative it falls apart. Because > > the foundation isn't there. > > > >>Alla: > True, JKR ain't Homer. But one does not have to be Homer to add to > the one main theme couple of others. Like love and forgiveness and > hero coming of age and surpassing his mentor in something, etc. Betsy Hp: Yeees, but the thing is, JKR isn't writing a complex story. She tends to hit on the same themes over and over again. In my opinion, forgiveness of evil (or even just really bad behavior) is not one of them. And I really, really doubt she's going to throw a surprise theme on us at the very end of the whole story. (Honestly, I don't think any good writer springs a theme on their readers at the very end of their tale, and that includes Homer.) > >>Alla: > So, I do not think the narrative will fall appart if Harry thoughts > about Snape would be at least partially verified. > IMO of course. Betsy Hp: Oh, neither do I. I don't forsee an ending that changes *everything* about who Snape is, or how Harry sees him (though I do, of course, expect there to be a change of some sort). But what I don't see is how an ESE!Snape fits into JKR's story or its themes. I mean, I could be wrong (say it ain't so! ), but at this point, I just don't see it. And I think it's important to look at themes that have been there from the beginning, because I think JKR set them up for a reason. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jan 31 04:39:01 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:39:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape References: Message-ID: <005e01c744f1$bbd34220$5172400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 164345 > va32h agrees,adding:> > Life with the Dursleys permitted Harry to make what in retrospect was > > his first and most crucial decision. > The first wizard boy Harry meets is Draco - and Draco extends his > > friendship to Harry. Making Draco the first potential friend, wizard > or > otherwise, Harry would have ever had.Who would blame Harry for > wanting a > friend? But it is Draco's resemblance (in look and > personality) to > *Dudley*, that leads Harry to decline that friendship. > Harry ultimately > chooses Ron over Draco, which is symbolic of > choosing good over evil, > love over power, and so on and so on. > Dumbledore surely regrets that Harry suffered during his time with > the > Dursleys, but neither he, nor we, should regret how he turned out > as a > result. Magpie: But doesn't that suggest Harry couldn't tell the difference between "good and evil" if he wasn't raised by the Dursleys? That's hard to believe--he might have thought Draco was a putz if raised by Sirius too (perhaps he's have the same feeling about the Malfoys as Ron did). James hated Snape without growing up with the Dursleys, and chose Sirius for his friend. Nobody's regretting how Harry turned out. They're disagreeing with arguments for the Dursleys style of parenting Harry being a good intentional choice for Dumbledore to make--the best way to guarantee Harry being a good guy. Carol: I think, first, that Dumbledore also loves Harry. and, of course, we can't discount the blood protection. But I also think that the other people I listed don't know enough about Harry to protect him properly,and they would not have understood the dangers of early popularity. Magpie: Or alternatively, since we're just speculating: Sirius Black, having raised Harry in this alternate universe, sees him as a son. Harry isn't a stranger to him who looks like James the way he is in canon, so he doesn't have the same issues of wanting Harry to be James. Remembering his own family's arrogance, Sirius teaches him well not to think himself above others because of who he is. McGonagall raises Harry to be more studious, and is strict with him. Like many women before her, she's able to be a teacher and raise a child, and the affection she feels for Harry is a source of strength for him. Perhaps he avoids certain things he's done in canon McGonagall doesn't approve of that get him into trouble. Mrs. Weasley's star-struckness promts his brothers and sisters to prank Harry, who resolutely defines himself as not special to be one of them (seeing also how Percy stands out). It's easy to come up with alternative scenarios that don't lead to disaster, because we have no alternative. I agree with wynnleaf's suggestion that Dumbledore's speech is JKR trying to defend him--though since it comes out of his mouth I do still have to consider it part of his character. But for me, "blood protection" is an acceptable reason to put Harry with the Dursleys with the abuse being an unfortunate price, but attempts to argue that "arrogance protection" was a factor, with the abuse there for character building, I can't understand. I don't see someone having affection for a child being a danger to good upbringing. > va32h here: > > When it comes to discussion of Dumbledore's leaving Harry with the > Dursleys, I feel it is unfair to look at the situation without > considering the context of what it really is: an orphan-makes-good > tale. > Harry's suffering at the hands of the Dursleys is a convention of that > genre. He gets treated badly, and we sympathize with him, and it is all > the more sweet when his tormentors get their comeuppance. Magpie: Yes. But of course, Dumbledore doesn't have that for his reason, so for me it's necessary to find an excuse that doesn't require him wanting Harry to suffer for ten years on the off-chance that getting tucked into bed at night with a kiss might swell his head. One of the difficulties of Dumbledore is that in most Cinderella stories, the fairy godmother isn't the person who set up Cinderella's bad situation. If Harry had just been brought up by Muggles in a life that was hard, but not comically unloving, it wouldn't have been a problem. I think that looking at Harry's personality, he doesn't act totally like a kid would probably act in this situation, because, imo, the story isn't about Harry dealing with a horrible home situation. It's not a realistic series about an unwanted child. The Dursleys are in some ways a cartoon version of the way a kid would complain about his real parents who don't mistreat him. (Betsy used to always argue something like this and I thought she was remembering it too rosily, but a re-read gave me the same impression.) So there's limited damage that the Dursleys seem to do. But it's still true that the Dursleys are all about making Harry grow up unloved, and that's just not character-building, logically. va32h: > But JKR can't really have it both ways, can she? She can't have her > requisite horrible childhood for her hero, without having her story, > which is set after all in modern time, be subject to modern standards > of what is and is not abuse. Magpie: Sure, but that's why, imo, we need to stick with the blood protection being the reason Harry's at the Dursleys, and their treating him like the unwanted child is the unfortunte price to pay. It's only a problem if that part's supposed to be character building, and caring about Harry would have ruined him forever. va32H; > Interestingly enough, my daughter, who is 11, and her friends of the > same age, have no problem with things like this. They accept the > Dursleys, the very bad uncles in Lemony Snicket, and all sorts of > situations that seem cruel to children. Magpie: They accept them--but do they argue that Harry would have been an awful child without them, incapable of doing the things he does now? Because I think we all accept the Dursleys as necessary and as part of the genre just as we accept Count Olaf. But Count Olaf and the death of the children's parents are part of the series of *unfortunate* events. They're not blessings because those Baudelaires would have been spoiled brats who couldn't tell the difference between good and evil if it hadn't happened. (Not that one couldn't write a story like that, probably a dark comedy. But we'd probably start off with the kid already being a horrible brat who changes. It could be pretty funny...as could a story where Harry was loved at the Dursleys and had to fight Voldemort as a spoiled, gluttonous brat.) -m From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 05:37:02 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 00:37:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0701302137v5012e204wb3020ef591f6a3b0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164346 Caspen: Certainly the earliest post on this subject (sorry, I don't have a ref. for you at the moment, but I believe it's outlined in T-bay) demonstrates how her behavior in her first scene at the opening of Book I (SS/PS) can be very convincingly interpreted in more than one way. Debbie: Easy answers first. Here's Elkins' original ESE! McGonagall post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 I have long had a great fondness for this theory, and valiantly defended it post-OOP after it was declared to have been sunk. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/83852 Julie deserves credit for very creative thorising. But I do have some problems with the nature and effect of this *enchantment*. Julie: Admittedly I haven't thought much about the exact nature of this Enchantment/ultraImperius spell (though I have wondered if it could be the spell whose title JKR was having trouble naming). Clearly it would have to be focused on specific types of information McGonagall might hear, or maybe on a certain object or even place that would be enchanted to elicit information from her, maybe at set times... Debbie: The only "enchantment" we've seen is Riddle's possession of Ginny in CoS. That wasn't really a spell, though; it's one of Voldemort's powers. And while Riddle could make Ginny do specific things under his control, including (presumably) make her talk, it's hard for me to see Riddle using this spell to make her talk, unless he gives her Veritaserum at the same time. Julie: I think it's possible Dumbledore *knew* Voldemort hadn't died at Godric's Hollow because he realized McGonagall was still under the enchantment, which Dumbledore detected at some point before Godric's Hollow--perhaps long before--and was able to monitor in some way. Debbie: I'm struggling a bit with this aspect, too. When Riddle didn't need Ginny, she wasn't being controlled. The diary was a lure, but she eventually gained the will to resist it, and threw it away (I believe she stole it back merely to keep Harry from reading her secrets). Likewise, McGonagall hardly seems under anyone's control throughout the story. Thus, I have a hard time seeing the enchantment as continuing. Caspen: And, as Julie asks, if she's so loyal, why doesn't Albus trust her more, and why doesn't he confide in her? It really doesn't make sense to me, regardless whether she's secretly a hot-head or not. Debbie: That trust issue looms large, doesn't it? The reason I continue to be enamored of ESE! McGonagall is that the only other reason I can come up with for McGonagall to be so out of the loop is very unpleasant -- it's that McGonagall (like most of the other women in the story) doesn't really have a narrative function except to serve as a stereotype spinster schoolteacher. And it does fit -- she's stern, no-nonsense, competent and efficient, but underneath has a soft spot for her 'children'. She's a stock character in fiction, the type who provides atmosphere -- she gets no action, no mystery, and no growth. (Well, except for the mystery of why she gets no action.) Julie's theory would provide some explanation, but leave her an innocent dupe like the 11-year-old Ginny. On days when ESE! McGonagall seems too heavyhanded, I lean toward the still-carrying-the-torch-after-all-these-years theory, in which McGonagall could not cleanse her mind of the pre-Voldemort, handsome brilliant young Tom. Instead of avoiding taking McGonagall in confidence because she was under an enchantment, Dumbledore feared that Riddle would attempt to possess her, and that McGonagall remained particularly susceptible to his charms. Caspen: Finally, it strikes me that Minerva's and Tom's respective timelines do seem to parallell each other closely. Minerva's been teaching at Hogwarts for approximately 40 years as of HBP (OOTP, P.321, American hard-cover ed.), which means she returned to Hogwarts as a teacher approximately 10 years after she left. Tom would have graduated two years after Minerva. He asked for a teaching position immediately, but was turned down (HBP). We know that he then waited 10 years to attempt to return to Hogwarts from his pensieve recounted interview with Dumbledore (HBP). That would have been only a couple years, at most after Minerva had taken up her own teaching position. Debbie: IIRC, the timeline is that Riddle graduated in 1945 and returned in 1955 to request the DADA job. McGonagall began teaching at Hogwarts shortly thereafter (my calculation is that it was 1956 as OOP covers 1995-96). The odd thing is that she seems to have started mid-term, in December. Why? Perhaps the DADA curse had just claimed its first victim and the existing transfiguration teacher took over. But that doesn't answer the question why McGonagall was suddenly available. Well, how about this? McGonagall did have periodic contact with Riddle during those ten years. While he was steeping himself in the Dark Arts, and experimenting with magical transformation, McGonagall was engaged in her own experiments, whereby she became an Animagus. Perhaps he possessed her, maybe even while she was in cat form. In any event, she began to distrust Riddle and sought a position at Hogwarts to escape him. She did not confide in Dumbledore, though Dumbledore was aware of what was going on. Thinking young Minerva was too close to Riddle and not certain of her ability to resist Voldemort's charms, Dumbledore chose to protect her by hiring her to teach but thought she was too great a security risk to join the Order (just like he does later with Trelawney). Ok, with a few tweaks of Julie's theory, I think I've come up with a credible backstory. I can't remember how much of this I've spelled out before. blitz: think that McGonagall's weakest trait is also her best - she is intensely loyal, to a fault. She is willing to take on the Minister until DD tells her to stand down. She reminds me a bit of Sirius Black, though a bit more dilute - a bit of a hothead, stands behind her friends though hell and back, and stubborn as sin. Debbie: I find your comment about loyalty interesting, because I think the weakest point in my backstory is why McGonagall would not tell Dumbledore of any concerns about Riddle. But if she found it very difficult to set aside her loyalty to Riddle -- fellow prefect (I'm assuming here) and [apparent] friend, she might have been unwilling to voice what to her could not be more than barely believable suspicions. Ok, I think I've gotten into enough mischief tonight. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjones at telus.net Wed Jan 31 06:45:22 2007 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:45:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0701302137v5012e204wb3020ef591f6a3b0@mail.gmail.com> References: <80f25c3a0701302137v5012e204wb3020ef591f6a3b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <45C03B02.7000001@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 164347 > blitz: > think that McGonagall's weakest trait is also her best - she is > intensely loyal, to a fault. She is willing to take on the Minister > until DD tells her to stand down. She reminds me a bit of Sirius > Black, though a bit more dilute - a bit of a hothead, stands behind > her friends though hell and back, and stubborn as sin. > KJ writes: One of the reasons that I find McGonnagal interesting is because Dumbledore is a compulsive collector of strays. He has Hagrid, a half giant, who would not be accepted in WW society. He has Flitwick, also a half-breed, who's non-human half would not be accepted. We have Snape, who is a Death Eater, and would be hard pressed to find suitable employment outside of Hogwarts, and we have Sybill, who is rather too fond of the cooking sherry. We also have Firenze, who has been thrown out of his herd, and has nowhere else to go. So, why do we have Minerva McGonnagal? KJ From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 31 08:28:25 2007 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:28:25 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape References: Message-ID: <000701c74511$c6eed550$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 164348 Marion: Why do people find it so strange that DD put Harry with the Dursleys? They were the only people that could give him the blood-protection needed for the spell, and it would keep him safe. It wasn't nice (not for Harry, nor for the Dursleys who would've been far, far happier if they had never heard of Harry Potter) but it saved Harry's live. It's not as if DD has no precedence: in WWII a million children were evacuated from cities like London to the countryside (and thousands even to Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) to keep them safe from bombings. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/04/26/the_childrens_war_feature.shtml There was a documentary about those children last year on the BBC. Even if the fosterparents were kind to them, being seperated from parents and siblings was hugely traumatic to many of those children. But it was a good thing. Nearly 8000 children were killed in airraids on cities (one in ten airraids victims were below 16 years old) Should the authorities have let hundreds of thousands of children be killed just because their evacuation and separation of their family was traumatic? Better traumatic and *alive* than dead, those authorities (and the children's families) must have thought. And they were right. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From logistis_20 at yahoo.gr Wed Jan 31 12:50:38 2007 From: logistis_20 at yahoo.gr (george_19.5 george) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:50:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: =?iso-8859-7?q?=C8=DD=EC=E1:=20[HPforGrownups]=20Re:=20R.A.B.=20=3F?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <655010.38422.qm@web27306.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164349 Sage's baby: > Could Regulus have been R.A.B.? Has this discussion been brought up > already? If so I would love a link. Thanks. JMA: > Yes, I have been thinking along these lines as well, because the > initials as well as the constellation Sirius' brother was in with > Voldemort seem to fit. One thing that doesn't seem to fit in though > is, that there is no explanation for the "A" in his initials, because > he is not introduced with a middle name. This is the reason why I > personally am not quite sure. I thought it too. I am almost sure that Regulus was that person. Moreover he was a Death Eater before he was killed. But Sirius told in the OOTP that he was coward. We will know in 3 month when the book will be in the stores. Please forgive my English. 'george' From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 15:09:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:09:32 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164350 > > Carol, who is primarily concerned with the dangers of arrogance and overconfidence for the boy destined to face Voldemort, dangers that only Dumbledore fully understands > > Betsy Hp: > But, do you really think the *Dursleys* were the only way to prevent > Harry from becoming an arrogant menace? If Dumbledore merely wanted > Harry to not grow up with the fame he had in the WW, he could have sent > Harry to Mrs. Figg. Carol responds: I didn't mention the Dursleys. I was talking about Dumbledore's secondary motive, the one he gave McGonagall, about protecting Harry from the dangers of growing up as the (supposed) child prodigy who defeated the Dark Lord. We're not talking about just any orphan or just any situation. Of course, love is better than abuse or neglect, however much Harry actually benefited by learning to think for himself, elude his abusers, etc. But Harry is not just any child, and I'm not talking about Weapon!Harry, who will eventually defeat the Dark Lord. I'm talking about the special dangers that Harry alone faced as the child that Voldemort, and therefore his most loyal minions (at least four of whom were still at large at that time), wanted dead. So, IMO, it itsn't just a matter of protecting Harry from Voldemort and the DEs, although of course that DD's primary concern. It's protecting Harry from thinking too highly of himself and getting a false sense of his powers and abilities ("I vaporized Voldemort when I was one. I'm the Boy Who Lived! I can bring him down any time I want to.") an arrogant Harry is a Harry in great danger of being dead before he knows everything he needs to know about his past and Voldemort's and about his own abilities and limitations. Dumbledore must have known that James had a high opinion of himself. He can't afford to let Harry grow up with a similar view, for Harry's own sake as much as the WWs. So any comparison with Hermione or Ron or any other child growing up in a loving home is beside the point. Love alone won't protect Harry and could even be dangerous. The blood protection protects Harry from Voldemort and the DEs; keeping him with his Muggle relatives protects him from himself. Now granted, having Figgy raise him would have been ideal in terms of a knowledgeable guardian who would not abuse him, but even she would have told him who he was and why he was with her. Imagine Harry at four asking, "Mrs. Figg, what happened to my parents?" and Figgy answering, "Well, Harry, I know it will sound like I'm making this up, but a Dark Wizard killed them. But you can't tell anybody because nobody will believe you." "Why did he try to kill them?" "Well, they were a witch and a wizard and they were trying to stop him from taking over." (Figgy wouldn't know about the Prophecy.) "Oh. And how did I get this scar?" "Well, erm, the Dark Wizard tried to kill you, too, but for some reason you lived and the Dark Wizard was blown to bits." "I blew up a Dark Wizard?" "Well, no, but the Killing Curse bounced off of you and killed him. You're a wizard, too, Harry." If he's with Figgy, living as a Muggle and (eventually) going to a Muggle school, he won't be able to talk to anybody except Figgy about himself or his parents or You Know Who. Most likely, he'll start to think that she's batty (which, BTW, is the same thing that would have happened if Petunia had told him the truth, which is no doubt why she made of the story of the car accident that Hagrid got so upset about). Or he'd believe the story and start having delusions about himself as some sort of superhero. The school counselors would have a field day with him. In a WW context, that inflated view of himself would be fed by the adulation of every wizard he met (assuming that he didn't meet any Dark ones, who would have other ideas). So while Figgy would have made a decent guardian, she wouldn't have been able to protect him from confusion and/or arrogance. Nor does she have any magic powers to protect him, just a limited knowledge of the events in the WW and a loyalty to Dumbledore. The Dursleys, whose limitations as guardians DD could not possibly know (McGonagall doesn't explain why she considers them "the worst sort of Muggles") can provide both the essential blood protection and, theoretically, an ordinary life in which Harry will not be exposed prematurely to fame and praise for a heroic deed he didn't even perform. "Famous before he can walk and talk." Of course that would go to his head! Dumbledore assumes (wrongly) that the Dursleys, being Harry's relatives, will take pity on the poor orphan and love him. He assumes (rightly) that growing up away from the WW will be good for Harry, who comes to Hogwarts wide-eyed and innocent rather than cocky and arrogant. And, of course, he knows that only the Dursleys can provide the blood protection. (BTW, and I'm not defending the Dursleys, Harry didn't *live* in a broom cupboard. He only slept there from the time he was about five until just after his eleventh birthday. Nor do I see how the Dursleys could have kept him there for a month during the school year as SS/PS, with its fairytale atmosphere, suggests. The school authorities would have come to investigate. Just a sidenote of no importance to my main argument.) Carol, who is *not* arguing that abuse builds character (though bad things sometimes have good consequences), only that the adulation of the WW, especially in his guardians, would have been dangerous for Harry (as would being seen in public in the WW while the Lestranges and Barty Jr. were at large) From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Jan 31 16:33:32 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 11:33:32 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) Message-ID: <7132811.1170261213218.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 164351 Bart: Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY have sex? Now, I am not one of those people who say that ALL teenagers have sex, but certainly, SOME do. Even the professors appear to be virgins! And look at Draco. He clearly has little care for the feelings of others. Yet, he has a woman who has the entire older male student group hot under the, ummm, we'll call it the collar, and Draco has her under Imperious Curse, and, well, nothing! Don't tell me that Draco has become a gentleman! Any thoughts? Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 17:12:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:12:59 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0701302137v5012e204wb3020ef591f6a3b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164352 Debbie wrote: > Easy answers first. Here's Elkins' original ESE! McGonagall post: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39470 > > I have long had a great fondness for this theory, and valiantly defended it post-OOP after it was declared to have been sunk. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/83852 > > Julie deserves credit for very creative thorising. But I do have some problems with the nature and effect of this *enchantment*. > Caspen wrote: > And, as Julie asks, if she's so loyal, why doesn't Albus trust her more, and why doesn't he confide in her? It really doesn't make sense to me, regardless whether she's secretly a hot-head or not. > Debbie responded: > That trust issue looms large, doesn't it? The reason I continue to be enamored of ESE! McGonagall is that the only other reason I can come up with for McGonagall to be so out of the loop is very unpleasant -- it's that McGonagall (like most of the other women in the story) doesn't really have a narrative function except to serve as a stereotype spinster schoolteacher. And it does fit -- she's stern, no-nonsense, competent and efficient, but underneath has a soft spot for her 'children'. She's a stock character in fiction, the type who provides atmosphere -- she gets no action, no mystery, and no growth. Carol chimes in: I think her usually concealed softness or emotionalism is the reason that DD doesn't trust her with every detail of his anti-Voldemort plan, that and her already heavy workload and his need-to-know policy. She doesn't need to know about the blood protection, for example, because she's not involved. McGonagall is quite competent as a teacher, disciplinarian, HoH, and assistant headmistress, but that's a heavy workload for a woman of her age, "sprightly" or not, witch or not. He only uses her, at least until OoP, for matters directly related to Hogwarts and its students, and even there it's not clear what she does for the Order during the summer holidays. something not too strenuous, probably, involving a disguise as a Muggle. But she's a cat Animagus, too. Why haven't we heard more about that? > Debbie: > On days when ESE! McGonagall seems too heavyhanded, I lean toward the still-carrying-the-torch-after-all-these-years theory, in which McGonagall could not cleanse her mind of the pre-Voldemort, handsome brilliant young Tom. Instead of avoiding taking McGonagall in confidence because she was under an enchantment, Dumbledore feared that Riddle would attempt to possess her, and that McGonagall remained particularly susceptible to his charms. Carol: I don't think we have any evidence one way or the other (except for Tom's own claim that he could charm anyone he wanted to except Dumbledore) that Minerva was charmed by young Tom (though, as I said earlier, it's possible that she knew him slightly if they were both Prefects or she was Head Girl). However, her refusal to celebrate along with everyone else when Voldemort is defeated certainly doesn't need to be interpreted that way. Hagrid isn't celebrating, either. Both of them are more concerned with the deaths of people they knew and liked, the Potters, and the fate of their orphaned child to be celebrating. In fact, the celebrations always seemed to me to be callous if not cold-hearted. A popular young witch and wizard have just died, and people are shooting off the WW equivalent of fireworks? Sure, they should be glad that Voldemort is apparently defeated (exactly how anyone knows that is still a mystery to me), but he murdered two people along the way. (Sirius Black's reaction--the Potters are dead; I'll murder Pettigrew--makes sense by comparison. At least he's mourning his friends' death, not celebrating "this happy, happy day.") > Debbie: > IIRC, the timeline is that Riddle graduated in 1945 and returned in 1955 to request the DADA job. McGonagall began teaching at Hogwarts shortly thereafter (my calculation is that it was 1956 as OOP covers 1995-96). The odd thing is that she seems to have started mid-term, in December. Why? Perhaps the DADA curse had just claimed its first victim and the existing transfiguration teacher took over. But that doesn't answer the question why McGonagall was suddenly available. Carol responds: Tom Riddle was asking Slughorn when old Professor Merrythought, the DADA teacher, was planning to retire when he (Tom) was only a sixth year. Apparently, she retired after his seventh year, and he applied to take her place, cursing ("jinxing") the DADA position when he didn't get the job. However, all the DADA victims we've seen (with the exception of the real Moody, who never actually taught the class) have lost their position (or lives or souls) near the end of the term. The curse would probably not strike in December, which is only three months into the school year. What happened, I think, is that the headmaster, Armando Dippet, died suddenly in December the asstant headmaster and Transfiguration teacher Albus Dumbledore took over the position, leaving the Transfiguration job open, so McGonagall, a Transfiguration whiz and registered Animagus, got the job. (I realize that this interpretation doesn't fit with Lupin's story of DD becoming headmaster just before he went to school, but it does fit with the HBP timeline for Tom Riddle's second DADA interview.) It doesn't have anything to do with her sudden *availability*, only with a sudden job opening. DD may have specifically wanted to hire a Gryffindor to take over as HoH as well as Transfiguration teacher (just as, IMO, he wanted a Slytherin Potions master to take over for Snape in HBP because Snape's inevitable departure from Hogwarts at the end of his year as DADA professor would mean that Hogwarts would need a new Slytherin HoH. Two birds with one stone.) McGonagall's qualifications are what's important, not her availability. (Of course, we do wonder what we did before she became Transfiguration teacher, but it doesn't really matter. People frequently leave one job for a better one. Maybe McG was waiting for Dumbledore to retire!) Carol, who wonders why McGonagall's cat Animagus form was introduced so early and barely mentioned since that time From ibchawz at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 17:45:59 2007 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:45:59 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: <7132811.1170261213218.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164353 Bart wrote: Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY have sex? Now, I am not one of those people who say that ALL teenagers have sex, but certainly, SOME do. ibchawz responds: Would this really add anything to the story from a literary perspective? I don't really care to read the intimate details of the sex lives of all the characters. If this was included in the books, I probably would have stopped reading the series after the first book. The Harry Potter series has encouraged more kids to read. If detailed sexual encounters were included in the books, I certainly would not let my kids read them. This is precisely the reason that I watch very little TV anymore. If this information would have been included in OotP, the book would have been over 1000 pages and weighed more than Dudley Dursley. I have seen complaints that some of the books are too long and contain too much "fluff" as it is. I don't think that we need an extra 200 pages of sexual adventures to add to the story. In fact, I think it would do more harm than good. ibchawz - who realizes that this post does not include much canon, so I may need to go put my head in a cannon as punishment. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 18:12:38 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:12:38 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164354 Carol: > (BTW, and I'm not defending the Dursleys, Harry didn't *live* in a > broom cupboard. He only slept there from the time he was about five > until just after his eleventh birthday. Alla: You are not defending Dursleys, okay. What is your point then by mentioning that he **only** slept there? What argument does it advance if any? Isn't it horrible no matter how much time little child had to spend in there? Carol: Nor do I see how the Dursleys > could have kept him there for a month during the school year as SS/PS, > with its fairytale atmosphere, suggests. The school authorities would > have come to investigate. Just a sidenote of no importance to my main > argument.) > Alla: Canon says that he spent a lot of time there and you are saying that he could not have, because school authorities would have grew worried? If we were to dismiss some things due to fairytale atmosphere, I would say that school authorities or children services were way overdue to check on Harry and Dudley as well. Surely they would have seen the clothes Harry comes in in school, his general appearance , etc. Surely Dudley's behaviour would have raised a bell in somebody else's mind at least? It did not, because JKR would not spend time on things like that, but I certainly take Harry being confined to cupboard as true because canon says so, fairy tale atmopshere or not. JMO, Alla From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 17:35:11 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:35:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: <7132811.1170261213218.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20070131173511.1384.qmail@web30807.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164355 Bart: Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY have sex? Now, I am not one of those people who say that ALL teenagers have sex, but certainly, SOME do. Even the professors appear to be virgins! And look at Draco. He clearly has little care for the feelings of others. Yet, he has a woman who has the entire older male student group hot under the, ummm, we'll call it the collar, and Draco has her under Imperious Curse, and, well, nothing! Don't tell me that Draco has become a gentleman! Any thoughts? Pam: Bart, I'm sure Hogwarts is healthily full of hormones. However, I cannot see a point to mentioning it in the books, because it isn't pertinent. Furthermore, kids as young as seven read these books. It's not that mention of sexuality is necessarily bad for them, it's that a huge portion of the HP's audience is obstensibly written for a young audience who love the fantasy and the theories but still get major heebie-jeebies if they see a screen kiss or read a romantic scene. My son is one of them. We're in the middle of OotP right now and he loves everything but the Harry-Cho subplot. As for the teachers, it appears that all of them have a good reason to be there. Snape is doing whatever Snape is doing, Trelawney was under protection, Binns is dead, Hagrid was taken in by Dumbledore, etc. I have long suspected that many of the teachers had significant others, but they may have been killed during Voldemort's last reign. I have a similar feeling about Aberforth. He was in the Order during the first reign; 15 years down the line finds him in a slightly demented state. Did he suffer a fate similar to the Longbottoms? Anyway, those are my thoughts about the lack of sexuality at Hogwarts---plot and audience for the students, and logical backstory for the teachers. Pam Lots of great events happening in summer 2007, so start making your travel plans now! Phoenix Rising: New Orleans, May 17 - 21 http://www.thephoenixrises.org/ Enlightening 2007: Philadelphia, July 12 - 15 http://enlightening2007.org/ Sectus: London, July 19 - 22 http://www.sectus.org/index.php Prophecy 2007: Toronto, August 2 - 5 http://hp2007.org/ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 18:31:57 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:31:57 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164356 Carol earlier: > > > (BTW, and I'm not defending the Dursleys, Harry didn't *live* in a broom cupboard. He only slept there from the time he was about five until just after his eleventh birthday. Nor do I see how the Dursleys could have kept him there for a month during the school year as SS/PS, with its fairytale atmosphere, suggests. The school authorities would have come to investigate. Just a sidenote of no importance to my main argument.) > > Alla: > > You are not defending Dursleys, okay. What is your point then by > mentioning that he **only** slept there? What argument does it advance if any? > Canon says that he spent a lot of time there and you are saying that he could not have, because school authorities would have grew worried? > > If we were to dismiss some things due to fairytale atmosphere, I would say that school authorities or children services were way overdue to check on Harry and Dudley as well. Surely they would have seen the clothes Harry comes in in school, his general appearance , etc. > certainly take Harry being confined to cupboard as true because canon says so, fairy tale atmopshere or not. Carol responds: I take a month in a cupboard as exaggeration, primarily because it could only happen in a fairytale atmosphere, just like the descriptions of Hagrid as having hands the size of garbage can lids and being the height of two men, are humorously exaggerated for the atmosphere of the first book. How is it that Hagrid wasn't noticed if he's that big? Nobody cast a Memory Charm on all those Muggles. And how on earth did he fit on a Muggle train? How can his handkerchiefs be the size of tablecloths and his feet the size of dolphins? They can't. Re Hagrid, I could quote canon to show that the descriptions of him are not consistent, either internally or with each other. That being the case, I think we can regard a month in a broom cupboard as exaggeration of the same sort, especially given the Cinderella atmosphere of the first book. Why does no one from Social Services notice that Harry is absent from school for a month and come to inquire? Because it's a fairytale or because the narrator is given to exaggeration. Take your pick. Carol, who should learn not to make asides that detract from her main point! From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 31 18:41:41 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:41:41 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: <7132811.1170261213218.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164357 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY > have sex? Oh I rather think they do. Consider that bit about Harry's tattoo; didn't you every wonder why everybody at Hogwarts would take it as a given that Ginny would know what Harry's naked chest looked like. And those long "walks" with Ginny where they were all alone and far from prying eyes seemed to make Harry VERY happy. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 31 18:47:44 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:47:44 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164358 > Magpie: > But I think Harry has perfectly good reason to view it as a betrayal > and as his business. It might not have been something Harry focused > on in principle, but there's a difference between not knowing the > name of someone who committed a crime related to you and not being > told that an important person in your life is connected to you in > this important way. It's his life, so it is his business. Pippin: The matter was taken out of Harry's hands when Snape was charged as a Death Eater. Harry already knew that Snape must have been at least peripherally involved in Voldemort's crimes, but the only thing that bothered him before was whether Snape had truly repented, not whether the victims of those crimes had received justice. Harry's own comment shows that. "And you let him teach here?" is not "And you let him walk free?" This is all about Harry hating Snape as a teacher, not about justice for the Potters. I'm not surprised Harry doesn't see it that way. He's always looking to make his issues with Snape public rather than personal. But it's really personal all the time. For example, he wanted to know how Dumbledore could be sure Snape wasn't softening him up for Voldemort, but he never had any fear that Snape the DADA teacher might do that to the whole school, even when he disagreed with Snape about how to fight dementors. > > Magpie: > Hmm...that seems to be talking about something else than I was > talking about to Lupinlore. He asked if I thought Dumbledore was > making an opening for Harry to forgive Snape and I just said what I > thought Dumbledore was thinking about Harry and Snape. Pippin: It goes to what you said above about Snape being an important person in Harry's life. As far as Dumbledore is concerned, he could expect that very shortly, Harry will leave Hogwarts and Snape's importance to Harry will recede much as Dudley has, *unless* Harry discovers this information, and flips, as you put it. >From Dumbledore's point of view, Harry's awareness of this issue could only be a needless and possibly fatal distraction from what both Harry and Snape have to do to survive Voldemort. Of course *we* know better, and are expecting a traditional dramatic resolution, but Dumbledore does not. > Magpie: > I admit I don't see Harry as all that forgiving. He usually forgives > when the other person gives in or recants (it's often rather one- > sided). Pippin: I was thinking about Harry not needing an apology from Ron for what happened in GoF, and not ever thinking about it again. > Magpie: > That's not the way the scene read to me. It may be Dumbledore's job > as leader to analyze things, but Harry hadn't called him in for an > analysis meeting, Dumbledore's explaining himself because he wants > to change the way Harry feels at that moment. Pippin: Huh? He says he owes Harry an explanation of an old man's mistakes, because if he had been open with Harry, Harry would not have gone to the ministry and Sirius would not have died. It's hardly possible for Dumbledore to explain his mistakes without explaining what was a mistake and what he chose to do deliberately, knowing it wasn't ideal but the best of the options. Magpie: Regardless of what > Harry needed to hear or understand, Dumbledore stresses that his own > fault was loving Harry too much while everyone else's faults are a > bit less about caring for Harry. I have no problem with his analysis > of either Sirius or Snape, but I'm analyzing Dumbledore too and what > he's saying about himself. Pippin: Are you saying it was self-serving for Dumbledore to claim that he cared about Harry? But Harry had been thinking that Dumbledore didn't care about him and that was why Dumbledore had been avoiding contact with him. Was Dumbledore supposed to let that stand? It seems like your quarrel is with the author, for making Dumbledore care more about Harry than Sirius or Snape do. > Alla: > Not as well fed as I would liked, but not a pampered prince ( > paraphrase). I hear DD excusing himself loud and clear. Thank > goodness he admitted some of his mistakes, but IMO far from all of > them. > > Magpie: > Excusing himself and including an odd comment out of nowhere. Harry > the pampered prince seems thrown in for contrast. Pippin: Have you seen "The Queen"? Dumbledore is symbolic of that older culture, IMO. He wasn't raised to think that children have fragile psyches and need to be showered with affection or they'll be traumatized and grow up to be monsters. Rather the reverse -- too much attention is what's bad for them. Give them some fresh air, a spartan diet and plenty of exercise, and they'll be sound enough. Feelings? They're private. Rather share one's toothbrush, don'tcha know? How else could Dumbledore forget, and call it an old man's mistake, that some wounds run too deep for the healing? We're always looking for the psychological roots of evil, but the older culture didn't see it that way. From Shakespeare to Tolkien, the characters don't go mad and then choose to do evil. They choose to do evil, *then* they go mad. Dumbledore didn't envision that Snape wouldn't be able to put his feelings about James aside. He also didn't envision that Harry would be too damaged (as JKR indicated in interviews) to learn occlumency. Like any parent of the old school, Dumbledore found it far easier to recognize and assess the damage done to a child by too much attention than the possibility of damage from neglect or cruelty. It's not that he's denying that it occurs, it just doesn't have the same hold on his imagination that it does on ours. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Jan 31 19:46:43 2007 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:46:43 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164396 > Magpie: > > But I think Harry has perfectly good reason to view it as a betrayal > > and as his business. It might not have been something Harry focused > > on in principle, but there's a difference between not knowing the > > name of someone who committed a crime related to you and not being > > told that an important person in your life is connected to you in > > this important way. It's his life, so it is his business. > > Pippin: > The matter was taken out of Harry's hands when Snape was charged > as a Death Eater. Harry already knew that Snape must have been at > least peripherally involved in Voldemort's crimes, but the only thing > that bothered him before was whether Snape had truly repented, not > whether the victims of those crimes had received justice. > > Harry's own comment shows that. "And you let him teach here?" is > not "And you let him walk free?" Magpie: But my point has nothing to do with whether Harry wanted justice for the eavesdropper or just doesn't want Snape teaching. My point is that it's not surprising at all that Harry would consider it his business that Snape was the person who gave Voldemort the prophecy. This is the type of thing that tends to mean something to people. Pippin: > This is all about Harry hating Snape as a teacher, not about justice > for the Potters. I'm not surprised Harry doesn't see it that way. > He's always looking to make his issues with Snape public > rather than personal. But it's really personal all the time. Magpie: Regardless of why Harry is looking for another reason to hate Snape, this is a personal connection between him and Snape. Given that Dumbledore can explain how Voldemort's killing Harry's parents would guarantee Harry wanting to seek revenge, I think he gets that this kind of thing matters. Pippin: > For example, he wanted to know how Dumbledore could be sure > Snape wasn't softening him up for Voldemort, but he never > had any fear that Snape the DADA teacher might do that to the > whole school, even when he disagreed with Snape about how to > fight dementors. Magpie: Yes, that's what I was arguing earlier, that Harry's thoughts about Snape being a DE aren't really a coherent belief for him to be right or wrong about. He goes for long stretches without ever thinking that Snape is a DE, and even when he does think Snape is a DE it's not an urgent fear the way I think it would be if it were really about that. It's not like when Harry thinks Snape might be softening him up for Voldemort he's also panicked at all the secrets Snape knows about the Order or is worried about what he might do to Sirius. He picks and chooses his distrust of Snape around his own issues. But still, especially given that Dumbledore sees this going on, he would have to know that Snape's being the eavesdropper would mean something to Harry. > > > > Magpie: > > Hmm...that seems to be talking about something else than I was > > talking about to Lupinlore. He asked if I thought Dumbledore was > > making an opening for Harry to forgive Snape and I just said what I > > thought Dumbledore was thinking about Harry and Snape. > > Pippin: > It goes to what you said above about Snape being an important > person in Harry's life. As far as Dumbledore is concerned, > he could expect that very shortly, Harry will leave Hogwarts and > Snape's importance to Harry will recede much as Dudley has, > *unless* Harry discovers this information, and flips, as you put it. > > From Dumbledore's point of view, Harry's awareness of this issue > could only be a needless and possibly fatal distraction from what > both Harry and Snape have to do to survive Voldemort. Of course > *we* know better, and are expecting a traditional dramatic > resolution, but Dumbledore does not. Magpie: That's just what I was saying to Lupinlore, that Dumbledore is just hoping to avoid this issue entirely. He knows it will just make things more difficult when it comes out and hopes that if it ever had to come out it would be far in the future. So he's not working towards having Harry forgive Snape for getting him targetted. He'd rather that didn't have to be dealt with at all as part of all this (or ever). > > Magpie: > > I admit I don't see Harry as all that forgiving. He usually forgives > > when the other person gives in or recants (it's often rather one- > > sided). > > Pippin: > I was thinking about Harry not needing an apology from Ron for > what happened in GoF, and not ever thinking about it again. Magpie: True, he doesn't go back over things once they're dealt with then, yes. Once Ron shows that he knows he was wrong Harry isn't going to bring up his wrongness again. > > Magpie: > > That's not the way the scene read to me. It may be Dumbledore's job > > as leader to analyze things, but Harry hadn't called him in for an > > analysis meeting, Dumbledore's explaining himself because he wants > > to change the way Harry feels at that moment. > > Pippin: > Huh? He says he owes Harry an explanation of an old man's mistakes, > because if he had been open with Harry, Harry would not have gone to > the ministry and Sirius would not have died. It's hardly possible for > Dumbledore to explain his mistakes without explaining what was a > mistake and what he chose to do deliberately, knowing it wasn't ideal > but the best of the options. Magpie: Dumbledore has chosen to come clean with Harry on his terms. This is how what he says comes across to me. > Magpie: > Regardless of what > > Harry needed to hear or understand, Dumbledore stresses that his own > > fault was loving Harry too much while everyone else's faults are a > > bit less about caring for Harry. I have no problem with his analysis > > of either Sirius or Snape, but I'm analyzing Dumbledore too and what > > he's saying about himself. > > Pippin: > Are you saying it was self-serving for Dumbledore to claim that > he cared about Harry? But Harry had been thinking that Dumbledore > didn't care about him and that was why Dumbledore had been > avoiding contact with him. Was Dumbledore supposed to let that > stand? It seems like your quarrel is with the author, for making > Dumbledore care more about Harry than Sirius or Snape do. Magpie: At times, yes. It is self-serving--effectively so. Simply telling Harry that he cares about him and was ignoring him this year out of a misguided idea that that was best is not the thing that makes him sound self-serving to me. I couldn't quarrel with the author for making DD care about Harry more than Sirius or Snape do, because I don't think he does care more about him than Sirius does. Or perhaps even more than Snape does, in his reluctant, angry way, even if Snape's "caring" is mostly hating. If this scene was supposed to make me feel impressed by Dumbledore's caring about Harry, it failed (for me and for many other people). > > Alla: > > Not as well fed as I would liked, but not a pampered prince ( > > paraphrase). I hear DD excusing himself loud and clear. Thank > > goodness he admitted some of his mistakes, but IMO far from all of > > them. > > > > Magpie: > > Excusing himself and including an odd comment out of nowhere. Harry > > the pampered prince seems thrown in for contrast. > > Pippin: > Have you seen "The Queen"? Dumbledore is symbolic of that older > culture, IMO. He wasn't raised to think that children have fragile > psyches and need to be showered with affection or they'll be > traumatized and grow up to be monsters. Rather the reverse -- > too much attention is what's bad for them. Give them some > fresh air, a spartan diet and plenty of exercise, and they'll be > sound enough. Feelings? They're private. Rather share one's > toothbrush, don'tcha know? Magpie: I haven't seen The Queen, unfortunately, but I said nothing about children needing to be showered with affection or having fragile psyches. The idea isn't much more relevent than Dumbledore's "pampered prince" line, as if any issue with the Dursleys counts as a point against this phantom pampered prince. As for feelings...Dumbledore seems to think they're rather important when House Elves are involved. To the point where he feels it's important to explain Sirius' responsibility for Kreacher's behavior. (Which unfortunately I don't much buy either--not because I think Sirius is above reproach or didn't contribute at all to his own fate, but because I don't think it's accurate to suggest that Kreacher was motivated by resentment of his treatment of Sirius.) He claims to care about these kinds of feelings once Harry gets to Hogwarts--he even feels the need to clear up the whole Prefect issue and cries. He's feeling all over the scene and encouraging Harry to feel too. Pippin: > How else could Dumbledore forget, and call it an old man's mistake, > that some wounds run too deep for the healing? We're always looking > for the psychological roots of evil, but the older culture didn't see > it that way. From Shakespeare to Tolkien, the characters don't > go mad and then choose to do evil. They choose to do evil, *then* > they go mad. Magpie: I've got no problem with Dumbledore's "old man's forgetting some wounds run too deep" explanation of Snape. As I said earlier, I don't mind his analysis of either Snape or Sirius (though I disagree with his analysis of Kreacher). But when I step back from the whole speech I see a very slick presentation of himself along with it. That it claims to be a heartfelt, brave confession of mistakes is part of what makes it slick. Pippin: > Like any parent of the old school, Dumbledore found it far easier > to recognize and assess the damage done to a child by too much > attention than the possibility of damage from neglect or cruelty. > It's not that he's denying that it occurs, it just doesn't have the > same hold on his imagination that it does on ours. Magpie: And for some reason felt the need to remind us of the dangers of too much attention here, even though nobody in the room that we can see is suffering from it (and in fact it seems like everyone he's talking about in the scene suffered from the opposite). -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 19:54:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:54:56 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164397 > Magpie: > At times, yes. It is self-serving--effectively so. Simply telling > Harry that he cares about him and was ignoring him this year out of > a misguided idea that that was best is not the thing that makes him > sound self-serving to me. I couldn't quarrel with the author for > making DD care about Harry more than Sirius or Snape do, because I > don't think he does care more about him than Sirius does. Or perhaps > even more than Snape does, in his reluctant, angry way, even if > Snape's "caring" is mostly hating. If this scene was supposed to > make me feel impressed by Dumbledore's caring about Harry, it failed > (for me and for many other people). Alla: Yes, yes, yes. Sometimes I am thinking whether JKR truly meant for us to be impressed by Dumbledore's single tear at the end of his speech, sigh, or just laugh at it. Because when I read it I either want to laugh or slap him. But I am thinking that was meant to be sentimental moment indeed. Nah, felt flat for me as well, **really** flat. Simple *I am sorry for your loss*, even something similar to what he said to Harry in HBP about Sirius would have even worked better for me. > Magpie: > And for some reason felt the need to remind us of the dangers of too > much attention here, even though nobody in the room that we can see > is suffering from it (and in fact it seems like everyone he's > talking about in the scene suffered from the opposite). Alla: LOLOLOL. Precisely. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 20:45:14 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:45:14 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164398 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY > > have sex? > > Oh I rather think they do. Consider that bit about > Harry's tattoo; didn't you every wonder why everybody > at Hogwarts would take it as a given that Ginny would > know what Harry's naked chest looked like. And those > long "walks" with Ginny where they were all alone and > far from prying eyes seemed to make Harry VERY happy. > > Eggplant > bboyminn: First, Bart, what happens on-the-page and what happens off-the-page are entirely different things. If you want to find out what happens 'off-page' just read Fan Fiction and you will discover that students are snogging and shagging all over the place in every imaginable combination and with every imaginable predilection for assorted fetishes. Though the Astronomy Tower seems to be everyone's favorite, and Draco usually has a tendency toward BDSM. As far as 'on-page' consider most TV sit-coms, they usually include teenage kids, why don't they all play out like a cheap porn movies? Now modern sit-coms are more likely to tackle certain issues of a sexual nature but they do so with an extremely delicate hand. There are 'Standards and Practices' censors who keep tight control on such matters. You could further ask yourself why Nancy Drew never had sex or why the Hardy Boys never had sex, and of course the answer is because this is fun family entertainment not porn. Further consider that kids in the wizard world don't seem to be as worldly or sexually sophisticated as their jaded real world counter parts. Further-further, I suspect that with the tightly controlled and heavily supervised environment of Boarding School there are very few opportunities for such activity; not none, but few. Thought, I think if Percy can sneak off and snog his girlfriend, (what was her name again?) then we can rightly assume that the potential exists for more than kissing. But the potential also exists for extreme consequences and public embarassment if they are caught. Note that when Harry and Ron go outside from the Yule Ball, there are plenty of kids outside engaged in intimate activity, and with teenagers, a bit of snogging eventually leads to naked, hot, and sweaty. So, the implications are there, but again this is a family book and details are completely inappropriate, but if you can read between the lines, as most Fan Fiction authors do, you will discover students shagging in every broom closet, and unused classroom in the school. Final note; I have always suspect, though of course it occurs off-page, that at a certain age students are taken aside and given 'the talk', at which time, amoung many other things, magical birth control is taught. It seems reasonable that in a few millennium of magical history, means of magical birth control would have been invented, several means. So, this could account for the lack of any embarassing 'accidents' amoung Hogwarts students. Pure speculation of course. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 20:50:40 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:50:40 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry and Dursleys Re: Christian Forgiveness and Snape In-Reply-To: <000701c74511$c6eed550$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164399 > >>Marion: > Why do people find it so strange that DD put Harry with the > Dursleys? They were the only people that could give him the blood- > protection needed for the spell, and it would keep him safe. > Betsy Hp: I don't find it strange that Dumbledore put Harry with the Dursleys to keep him alive. I do find it strange (and so refuse to accept ) that Dumbledore put Harry with the Dursleys to build his character. > >>Carol: > I didn't mention the Dursleys. I was talking about Dumbledore's > secondary motive, the one he gave McGonagall, about protecting Harry > from the dangers of growing up as the (supposed) child prodigy who > defeated the Dark Lord. > Betsy Hp: I have been confused then. I thought you were stating that being with the Dursleys was good for Harry because they managed to protect him from becoming an arrogant monster. I do agree that it was probably a good idea to raise Harry away from the WW (just to avoid any rabid fans for one), but I don't agree that this is a positive that outweighed the badness of the Dursleys as guardians. For me the *only* thing outweighing the negative aspects of the Dursleys' parenting of Harry was the blood protection that kept Harry alive. > >>Carol: > Now granted, having Figgy raise him would have been ideal in terms > of a knowledgeable guardian who would not abuse him, but even she > would have told him who he was and why he was with her. > Betsy Hp: Why? I mean, why would Mrs. Figg feel compelled to tell Harry all about his parents' deaths and Harry's apparent defeat of Voldemort? I'm quite sure that if Dumbledore told her to leave that story alone, she'd have done it. And she could have easily put Harry off with a "It was a bad thing and I'll tell you all about it when you're older. Let's make a pact that I'll tell you everything I know when you turn eleven." And if Dumbledore really was worried that Mrs. Figg would succumb to Harry-worship, then he could have put Harry with a truely ignorant family that were eager for a child of their own. The man does have resources, as we've seen, time and again. No, for me, the *only* acceptable reason for choosing the Dursleys as guardians was because Harry's life depended on it. > >>Carol: > The Dursleys, whose limitations as guardians DD could not possibly > know (McGonagall doesn't explain why she considers them "the worst > sort of Muggles") can provide both the essential blood protection > and, theoretically, an ordinary life in which Harry will not be > exposed prematurely to fame and praise for a heroic deed he didn't > even perform. > Betsy Hp: I don't think Dumbledore is omnipotent, but I really don't think he's *that* stupid. It doesn't take that much effort for a man with Dumbledore's observational skills to see that the Dursleys have some major issues. Again, the need for the blood protection tied Dumbledore's hands. It was the only protection he thought reliable, snd I'm willing to take his word on it. But the idea that Harry was destined to become some sort of egotistical monster if his family loved him is... well, I see no canon for it. And as Magpie pointed out, it's seems a rather odd parenting point for an author to make. > >>Carol: > (BTW, and I'm not defending the Dursleys, Harry didn't *live* in a > broom cupboard. > Betsy Hp: I was using the phrase allegorically. Harry was the Dursley's nasty little secret, and he knew they didn't love him. You don't have to convince me the Dursleys weren't as abusive as all that. But I do draw the line at them being good for Harry. > >>Carol, who is *not* arguing that abuse builds character (though > bad things sometimes have good consequences), only that the > adulation of the WW, especially in his guardians, would have been > dangerous for Harry (as would being seen in public in the WW while > the Lestranges and Barty Jr. were at large) Betsy Hp: Right. But that (in and of itself) wasn't a good enough reason to inflict the Dursleys on Harry. There were many other ways Dumbledore could have provided such an environment. The one thing, the only thing IMO, that made the Dursleys a valid choice was the blood- protection. Betsy Hp (who doesn't really see anything pointing to Harry being *this* close to being an egotistical psychopath, personally) From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 21:24:35 2007 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:24:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470701311324v57840cc9i67ef24abae5e61cf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 164400 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY > > have sex? > > Oh I rather think they do. Consider that bit about > Harry's tattoo; didn't you every wonder why everybody > at Hogwarts would take it as a given that Ginny would > know what Harry's naked chest looked like. And those > long "walks" with Ginny where they were all alone and > far from prying eyes seemed to make Harry VERY happy. > > Eggplant > bboyminn: First, Bart, what happens on-the-page and what happens off-the-page are entirely different things. If you want to find out what happens 'off-page' just read Fan Fiction and you will discover that students are snogging and shagging all over the place in every imaginable combination and with every imaginable predilection for assorted fetishes. Though the Astronomy Tower seems to be everyone's favorite, and Draco usually has a tendency toward BDSM. ===> Jeremiah: LOL. I would say so... Though, the Astronomy Tower would have the best views I think it's a pretty obvious choice" (a la Lockehart). You could further ask yourself why Nancy Drew never had sex or why the Hardy Boys never had sex, and of course the answer is because this is fun family entertainment not porn. ===> Jeremiah: here here! I totally agre.. it's not porn and it's fiction for kids. Plus, all these heterosexual couplings... ok, well, maybe it's just me... but I do know that the chances of (pardon me for this graphic phrase) circle-jerk in Harry's dormatory are high. And I'm not sure I'd want to hear about that even in passing! And I'm a gay man! Further consider that kids in the wizard world don't seem to be as worldly or sexually sophisticated as their jaded real world counter parts. Further-further, I suspect that with the tightly controlled and heavily supervised environment of Boarding School there are very few opportunities for such activity; not none, but few. ===> Jeremiah: Well, hang on there... I have had lots of tales of men's boarding schools and Military Academys where the guys do lots of things together. I'm sure it's the same for co-ed campuses. Then again, I'd think that the emotional intensity of a sexual relationship would somehow cause the extreme amount of magic in the air around Hogwarts to spontaneously explode if everyone was off shagging. Yikes! Final note; I have always suspect, though of course it occurs off-page, that at a certain age students are taken aside and given 'the talk', at which time, amoung many other things, magical birth control is taught. It seems reasonable that in a few millennium of magical history, means of magical birth control would have been invented, several means. So, this could account for the lack of any embarassing 'accidents' amoung Hogwarts students. ===> Jeremiah: Can you imagine Snape giving teh "now that you've matured..." speech? I'd never EVER want to touch anyone else, or myself for that matter... He'd instill the fear of impending death in me... And then there's McGonagall. LOL. Now, Professor Sprout would have the "You're a blossoming flower" speech to all the Hufflepuff girls. And I'm not certain if Madame Pomfrey would want to go around handing out Abortion Potion to anyone... it's a bit of a touchy subject... maybe she gives instructions on spells that give protection... just in case... ===> I still am curious which students would be gay and which professors, too. I'll check past posts to see if it's been discussed... and in a non-sexual/overtly sexual way. ('Cause i've read some gay HP fan fic... and I'm kinda creeped out about it, honestly...) no offence to those who write or enjoy it... Mut Harry and Malfoy? Yikes... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Jan 31 21:25:59 2007 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:25:59 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: <7132811.1170261213218.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <45C1A417.5127.27960E8@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 164401 On 31 Jan 2007 at 0:00, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Bart: > > Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY > have sex? Now, I am not one of those people who say that ALL > teenagers > have sex, but certainly, SOME do. Even the professors appear to > be > virgins! > > And look at Draco. He clearly has little care for > the feelings of others. Yet, he has a woman who has the entire > older > male student group hot under the, ummm, we'll call it the collar, > and > Draco has her under Imperious Curse, and, well, nothing! Don't tell > me > that Draco has become a gentleman! > > Any thoughts? Hi Bart, The simple answer is maybe they do, maybe they don't. Either could be realistic. A lot depends on cultural issues/ mores. I attended an exclusive, partly-boarding school in Australia in the early 1990s. I know a lot of other people who did the same.I know a lot of people who continued at such schools in the later 1990s, up until the present day. They are (and we were) normal healthy adolescents with a normal healthy adolescent interest in matters sexual. And most didn't have sex while they were at school. It wasn't absolutely unheard of, but it was very unusual. Why? Because that wasn't a significant part of the culture of our school environment. People should consider that Hogwarts may have its own unique culture - in fact, I think it's amply demonstrated in the books that it does, although on issues like this we don't know that much about what that culture is like. Still, it is, at least, possible and plausible that in Hogwarts culture, and perhaps in Wizarding culture in general, that kids just aren't as sexually active as in some other cultures most of us are aware of. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case - we don't have enough information to say one way or the other in my view. But we should not fall into the trap of assuming that just because a fairly high proportion of kids have sex before leaving school in the Muggle world, that this is necessarily the case in the Wizarding world, or at Hogwarts in particular. It may, quite plausibly be rare. As for Draco - he may well be a 'gentleman' in certain ways. I see no reason to assume he is particularly concerned about any moral issues associated with sex, but those aren't the only issues. He also needs to consider issues of inheritance of abilities, issues of his blood status - breeding is very important to someone like Draco, issues of inheritance of wealth - a whole range of issues that historically 'gentleman' have had to take account of. And one of the last things somebody in Draco's position might wish to do is leave a string of ill-conceived bastards behind him. It's nothing necessarily to do with him being a moral or considerate person - there can be cold hard issues of aristocratic prestige and privilege that prevent him engaging in certain behaviours. The Wizarding World also seems rather old fashioned in many ways - with a more traditional culture than our own. Premarital sex, and sex at a young age used to be less common than it is in our modern world (there have also been periods when it was more common - but when I look at the Wizarding World, to me it seems to have social attitudes that are a few decades out of date rather than centuries). I doubt Hogwarts is a *totally* sex free environment - indeed we do have some evidence of contact between students that is frowned upon - Snape blasting the bushes at the time of the Yule Ball - but it may well be one where culturally, most students don't do it. Such schools do exist even in the Muggle world. It should also be considered that is a boarding school environment, and has been for a long time. Over time such schools, if they are interested in doing so, can make it quite hard for students to have the opportunities for such things. Privacy can be a real problem. Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html (ISTJ) | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 "You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 21:28:45 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:28:45 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: <7132811.1170261213218.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164402 > >>Bart: > Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY have sex? Now, I am > not one of those people who say that ALL teenagers have sex, but > certainly, SOME do. Even the professors appear to be virgins! Betsy Hp: Honestly, I think part of it is because these are childrens books in the end. And I also think JKR probably isn't all that keen on writing about human sexuality. She does do it to some extent (Ron is her favorite subject, I think) but she seems to prefer to do it from a very great distance. It might also be the genre. My experience with school-days books is Malory Towers. IIRC, puberty is never touched upon and neither are boys. Though it does take place at an all girls school, so there's a bit of (though not much of) an excuse. I do think it's... I don't know if odd is the right word, but it does lessen the realism of the Potterverse for me. How many years was it before Ron discovered boys couldn't enter the girls' dorms? You're telling me none of the boys attempted a panty raid at one point or another? It also strikes me as fairly unrealistic that none of the boys bring dirty pictures to school. I'm not saying Harry should do so, but it'd have made dorm life more real if something of the sort were floating around. (I was in boarding school in eighth grade, and naked man pictures were snuck about for a while there -- with much giggling of course.) I will say, also, that it leaves Harry's sexuality somewhat in question for me, or at least a bit ambiguous. I mean, I know JKR means for Harry to be quite straight. But he seemed very bored with actually kissing Cho. (One kiss, and Harry lost all interest in the possibility it seemed.) Harry doesn't develop any sort of crush on any older girls. Veelas do nothing for him. Instead it's Ron who takes very quick notice of Madam Rosmerta, and who falls all over Fluer, and who is very willing to make out with Lavander until the cows come home even though they don't have all that much in common. Also, Harry is fairly quick at spotting the handsome young men (Cedric, Sirius, Lupin, Tom Riddle), while he doesn't seem as able to spot the pretty young women. Is Tonks attractive, for example? And why do we need a Slytherin to point out that Ginny is pretty? (Though partially I wonder if this isn't because JKR doesn't like describing female characters as good looking for political reasons.) But aside from all that, even though we have Harry doing something with Ginny down by the lake, he still doesn't seem all that sexually aware, IMO. > >>Bart: > And look at Draco. He clearly has little care for the feelings of > others. Yet, he has a woman who has the entire older male student > group hot under the, ummm, we'll call it the collar, and Draco has > her under Imperious Curse, and, well, nothing! Don't tell me that > Draco has become a gentleman! Betsy Hp: I'm quite sure Narcissa would have some words for anyone who considered her son anything less than a perfect gentleman! Seriously, I think it comes down to the fact that just as Draco doesn't have it in him to be a murderer, he's not a rapist. Also, Draco has a girlfriend. One he's possibly been dating since Fourth year. Actually, given the physical comfort the Slytherins seemed to have with each other in their glorious train scene, I suspect they're a bit more sexually aware then their Gryffindor counterparts. Draco was quite comfortable putting his head in Pansy's lap (can you imagine Ron or Harry doing the same?). And they were all comfortable talking about the physical attractiveness of their fellow classmates. I don't know if JKR meant for it to come across this way, but it seems like the Gryffindors are the prudish house and the Slytherins the sensual house. It wouldn't surprise me if dirty pictures have made the rounds in the dungeons and wizarding versions of spin the bottle been played. But yeah, we're not going to hear about it. Betsy Hp From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 31 22:17:50 2007 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:17:50 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Further-further, I suspect that > with the tightly controlled and heavily supervised > environment of Boarding School there are very few > opportunities for such activity; not none, but few. > Ken: I agree with the general sentiment that the details would be out of place given the intended audience. I suspect that the scenes that have been mentioned here as possible hints of off stage activity probably are just that. In general I don't see a problem with the neglect of this area, again because of the intended audience. However it does raise problems with the Room of Requirements. I mean what space in the castle would be better for romantic interludes than that? What space would be almost certain to be discovered by every new class even if the upper classes did try to keep it a secret for themselves? You can't say that the ROR is too heavily watched by the teachers and staff, look at what Draco did there for a whole school year or at what the DA did there until sold out by a snitch. The ROR has been such a powerful tool for student mischief that it is totally implausible that it hasn't been made strictly off limits to the student body by magical means. Ken From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 22:30:52 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:30:52 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164404 --- "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Bart: > > Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY > > have sex? ... > > Betsy Hp: > Honestly, I think part of it is because these are > childrens books in the end. ... bboyminn: While I understand that the above statement is a generalization and not intended to full define the universe, I will point out that these are not necessarily 'Childrens Books'. They are books aimed at a 'general' audience, which is pretty close to the same in terms of limiting the more intimate nature of the content. > ... > I do think it's... I don't know if odd is the right > word, but it does lessen the realism of the Potterverse > for me. How many years was it before Ron discovered > boys couldn't enter the girls' dorms? ... > > ... > > I will say, also, that it leaves Harry's sexuality > somewhat in question for me, or at least a bit > ambiguous. I mean, I know JKR means for Harry to be > quite straight. ... Harry doesn't develop any sort > of crush on any older girls. Veelas do nothing for > him. > > Instead it's Ron who takes very quick notice of Madam > Rosmerta, who falls all over Fluer, and who is very > willing to make out with Lavander ... > > ... > > But aside from all that, even though we have Harry > doing something with Ginny down by the lake, he still > doesn't seem all that sexually aware, IMO. > bboyminn: I agree, from one perspective we have very proper Victorian boys and girls who are probably aware of sex in the context of marriage, but probably much more unaware of sex in the context of 'recreation'. Other's have pointed out that Hogwarts and the wizard world seem very old fashioned, and I think that is reflected the the students attitude toward proper behavior. Further on the subject of Harry, I would not expect Harry to be very socially or sexually forward. He grew up in a very socially isolated environment. He has every reason to be withdrawn and restrained in his relationship. Note that he only has a very few close friends, to all others he is friendly but distant. That seem prefectly consistent with Harry's up-bringing and the personality that has resulted from the up-bringing. Ron on the other hand comes from a family that while tightly disiplined, also encourages confidence in its kids. Molly may rant and rave, but Fred and George manage to get their little 'digs' in. I grew up in a large family and I know that you either make your voice heard or you get lost in the crowd. Also, having older brothers to pave the way, and lay out some structure for behavior with the opposite sex has its advantages. Ron has grown up confident because he has confident brothers to model how life should work for him. Though I will say that having those older brothers, while confidence building, is also a bit inhibiting. They are always far ahead of him in relationships and achievements. That puts a lot of pressure on Ron to live up to their reputations. Something he is not certain that he can do. Harry, on the other hand, has the worst model for a functionally confident life, and the best model for a completely disfunctional life. It's no wonder he is a bit restrained. > > >>Bart: > > ... Yet, he has a woman who has the entire older > > male student group hot under the, ummm, we'll call > > it the collar, ... Don't tell me that Draco has > > become a gentleman! > > Betsy Hp: > ... Also, Draco has a girlfriend. One he's possibly > been dating since Fourth year. > > Actually, given the physical comfort the Slytherins > seemed to have with each other in their glorious train > scene, I suspect they're a bit more sexually aware then > their Gryffindor counterparts. > > Draco was quite comfortable putting his head in Pansy's > lap ... And they were all comfortable talking about > the physical attractiveness of their fellow classmates. > > I don't know if JKR meant for it to come across this > way, but it seems like the Gryffindors are the prudish > house and the Slytherins the sensual house. It > wouldn't surprise me if dirty pictures have made the > rounds in the dungeons and wizarding versions of spin > the bottle been played. > > But yeah, we're not going to hear about it. > > Betsy Hp > bboyminn: Draco is another example of someone who, while he grew up as an only child, has had the confidence that comes from a position of social rank and priviledge. Draco doesn't question his desirability. He knows that even if he was as ugly as a post, girls (and boys) would desire his company because it brings them close to power, and even opens the door to them sharing, perhaps even controlling, that power. Draco has an easy confidence that Harry, give his situation, could never have. Draco is someone who can go out into the world and companions will seek him out. He never doubts the sincerity of those companions because he just assumes the are all money grubbing and power hungry. His only caution is to make sure that HE is more money grubbing, power hungry, and manipulative than they are. I also agree that Draco despite his confidence, shows a great deal of restraint. He can't just marry the first pretty skirt that catches his eye. He needs to consider things like rank, wealth, and breeding. He needs to give consideration to how any romantic entanglements will affect his social status. Harry on the other hand, seems, as you point out, to be oblivious to the girls around him, and rightly so. Since he is the famous 'Boy Who Lived', he can't trust anyone to like him for him rather than his status. Just the opposite of Draco, who assumes that everyone likes him because of his status. The difference is, Harry doesn't like that and doesn't know how to handle it. Draco, does like it, or at least, readily accepts it and very much does know how to play that game. So, it is no small wonder that Harry finally falls for a girl that is part of his safe inner circle. He doesn't have to wonder about Ginny, she is already like family to him, and he can completely trust her motives. She is someone who is /safe/ to love. As to Slytherin vs Gryffindors in the arena of romance, I think certainly Slytherins in general have an easy confidence and comfort in this area. They assume that they are desirable, and that anyone else who can't see that is obviously wrong. Gryffindors on the other hand take a far more noble and restrained approach; gentlemen to the core. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Wed Jan 31 22:27:18 2007 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:27:18 +1100 Subject: Callous celebrations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <35B410BE-B17A-11DB-8DF2-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 164405 On Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 04:12 am, justcarol67 wrote: > In fact, the celebrations always seemed to me to be > callous if not cold-hearted. A popular young witch and wizard have > just died, and people are shooting off the WW equivalent of fireworks? At the end of each World War there was dancing in the streets, and presumably more localised conflicts have the same reaction to the overthrow of tyrants, death of claimants to the throne etc... Only those who have lost someone in the immediate past would not be celebrating. I think that is reasonable. For most of the wizarding world, freedom from fear has come at last! No more dark marks in the sky. No more waiting for the door to be blasted in in the night. Of course they celebrate! Many have died by this point, not just the Potters. The Potters are expected to be the last to die - and THAT is cause for rejoicing. (At least it is unless you personally knew and loved the Potters.) Jocelyn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 31 22:35:30 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:35:30 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164406 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY > > have sex? Eggplant: > Oh I rather think they do. Consider that bit about Harry's tattoo; > didn't you every wonder why everybody at Hogwarts would take it as a > given that Ginny would know what Harry's naked chest looked like. Geoff: I don't think that proves - or disproves - anything. I'm sure that on a warm Saturday afternoon or after classes on a summer day, many of the boys would have their shirts off whiling away their time down on the grass by the lake, From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 31 22:39:34 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:39:34 -0000 Subject: Christian Forgiveness and Snape (was Would Harry forgiving ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164407 > > Magpie: > > > At times, yes. It is self-serving--effectively so. . If this scene was supposed to make me feel impressed by Dumbledore's caring about Harry, it failed (for me and for many other people). > > Alla: > > Yes, yes, yes. Sometimes I am thinking whether JKR truly meant for us > to be impressed by Dumbledore's single tear at the end of his speech, > sigh, or just laugh at it. Because when I read it I either want to > laugh or slap him. But I am thinking that was meant to be sentimental > moment indeed. Nah, felt flat for me as well, **really** flat. > > Simple *I am sorry for your loss*, even something similar to what he > said to Harry in HBP about Sirius would have even worked better for > me. Pippin: This is *exactly* the cultural difference I am talking about. In "The Queen" Elizabeth just cannot fathom why it's so important to everyone that she speak openly about the loss of Diana. To her it seemed that it would be completely inappropriate and self-serving to make a display of her grief. And the result was that she was perceived as being cold and manipulative. I can see Dumbledore in the same place, hesitating between the values he was brought up with, which have served him well for 150 years, and his sympathy for Harry. > > > Magpie: > > And for some reason felt the need to remind us of the dangers of > too much attention here, even though nobody in the room that we can see is suffering from it (and in fact it seems like everyone he's talking about in the scene suffered from the opposite). Pippin: Ah. But for Dumbledore the danger was always there, just as the danger of Voldemort was always there even when Harry wasn't aware of it. Why do you think Dumbledore kept the known half of the prophecy such a secret? Pippin From va32h at comcast.net Wed Jan 31 23:04:31 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:04:31 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164408 Eggplant said: > > Oh I rather think they do. Consider that bit about Harry's tattoo; > > didn't you every wonder why everybody at Hogwarts would take it as a > > given that Ginny would know what Harry's naked chest looked like. Then Geoff said: > I don't think that proves - or disproves - anything. > > I'm sure that on a warm Saturday afternoon or after classes on a summer > day, many of the boys would have their shirts off whiling away their time > down on the grass by the lake, > Now va32h says: Even if Ginny has never seen Harry with his shirt off, she would certainly imply that she had to someone like Romilda Vane - the girl who has been aggressively chasing Harry all through the book. va32h From kaleeyj at gmail.com Wed Jan 31 23:07:05 2007 From: kaleeyj at gmail.com (Bex) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:07:05 -0000 Subject: ESE!McGonagall (not what you think) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164409 > Caspen wrote: > > And, as Julie asks, if she's so loyal, why doesn't Albus trust her > more, and why doesn't he confide in her? It really doesn't make sense > to me, regardless whether she's secretly a hot-head or not. > > > Debbie responded: > > That trust issue looms large, doesn't it? The reason I continue to > be enamored of ESE! McGonagall is that the only other reason I can > come up with for McGonagall to be so out of the loop is very > unpleasant -- it's that McGonagall (like most of the other women in > the story) doesn't really have a narrative function except to serve as > a stereotype spinster schoolteacher. And it does fit -- she's stern, > no-nonsense, competent and efficient, but underneath has a soft spot > for her 'children'. She's a stock character in fiction, the type who > provides atmosphere -- she gets no action, no mystery, and no growth. > > > Carol chimes in: > I think her usually concealed softness or emotionalism is the reason > that DD doesn't trust her with every detail of his anti-Voldemort > plan, that and her already heavy workload and his need-to-know > policy. blitz: I agree - the emotionalism is not always a good trait in matters of dire straits. It makes her much more human to the reader, but Dumbledore may see it as a disadvantage. And as I noted before, she isn't very good at politics. I don't think she could officiate an order meeting with someone she didn't particularly like - if she had to deal with ol' Dung and they butted heads, I can see a situation a bit similar to that of Severus and Sirius in OotP. If she was entrusted to very important information, like the existence of Horcruxes, I think that she would act on it somewhat rashly, including wanting to help DD/Harry find them. Dumbledore has said it before: "You are needed at Hogwarts!" And she is - as a liason between HQ and Hogwarts, as a very respected member of the WW, and as someone Harry inherently trusts. Keeping her out of the loop is just the only way to keep her happy and at home. I don't see her as simply the spinster teacher - she's more important that that. But her importance lies with where she is right now. Carol: > But she's a cat Animagus, too. Why haven't we heard more about that? blitz again: Still waiting for that shoe to drop. It will be important in book 7, I'm sure. My concern is that she is registered - every DE that can do research may know about her markings - so it isn't a really good method of hiding. But it may come into play. I'll be watching for cats in the next book. :) > > Debbie: > > IIRC, the timeline is that Riddle graduated in 1945 and returned in > 1955 to request the DADA job. McGonagall began teaching at Hogwarts > shortly thereafter (my calculation is that it was 1956 as OOP covers > 1995-96). The odd thing is that she seems to have started mid-term, > in December. Carol: > What happened, I think, is that the headmaster, Armando Dippet, died > suddenly in December the asstant headmaster and Transfiguration > teacher Albus Dumbledore took over the position, leaving the > Transfiguration job open, so McGonagall, a Transfiguration whiz and > registered Animagus, got the job. DD may have > specifically wanted to hire a Gryffindor to take over as HoH as well > as Transfiguration teacher (just as, IMO, he wanted a Slytherin > Potions master to take over for Snape in HBP because Snape's > inevitable departure from Hogwarts at the end of his year as DADA > professor would mean that Hogwarts would need a new Slytherin HoH. Two > birds with one stone.) McGonagall's qualifications are what's > important, not her availability. (Of course, we do wonder what we did > before she became Transfiguration teacher, but it doesn't really > matter. People frequently leave one job for a better one. Maybe McG > was waiting for Dumbledore to retire!) blitz: I wish someone would ask JK that question, just to get it put away. I always felt that was the case - Dippet died, DD took over, and within a week or two, Red Eyes is asking DD for the DADA position. (It was snowing in that memory - DD had probably just taken over, and LV probably made his move the second he heard about it.) McGonagall was probably one of his preferred students, and he remembered her maybe wanting to teach? I'm just curious as to what she did with those ten years. I don't think it has anything major to do with the story line - perhaps she got married, or even widowed before her husband and she could start a family? I still hold that she's a childless woman who wanted a baby - and Dumbledore gave her a thousand of 'em. And for clarification, Caspen, I wasn't /trying/ to kill this thread - I was making a joke that when I post on something, that the thread usually gives up the ghost soon after (or right after). Please, keep posting! I like getting in the chatter! ~blitz, who was intrigued by the Enchanted!McGonagall theory, but doesn't feel it holds much water in her boat. From misslita77 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 31 23:04:29 2007 From: misslita77 at yahoo.com (CLAUDIA) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:04:29 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter, REALLY for Grown-Ups (well, PG-13 anyway) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 164410 > >>Bart: > > > Hogwarts has students from 10-17. Doesn't ANYBODY > > > have sex? > >>Eggplant: >> Oh I rather think they do. Consider that bit about Harry's tattoo; didn't you every wonder why everybody at Hogwarts would take it as a given that Ginny would know what Harry's naked chest looked like.<< > >>Geoff: >> I don't think that proves - or disproves - anything. I'm sure that on a warm Saturday afternoon or after classes on a summer day, many of the boys would have their shirts off whiling away their time down on the grass by the lake, << Claudia: I agree with Geoff, I think that the guys probably walked around with their shirts off, and I'm sure that the girls sat around and giggled while they did, but what does it matter. When JKR wrote these stories, I don't think that talking about teenagers sex lives was on the top on her list. When I read when Harry kissed Ginny, I thought that was the most sweetest moments in the series. How innocent and sweet it was. Doesn't anyone remember how you felt the first time you kissed that crush you had at school? I'm just saying.