LONG collection of DH related thoughts.

[jmgarciaiii]

No: HPFGUIDX 173757

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "faery_wisdom" <kitnkids at ...> 
wrote:
> K: I am glad someone pointed out the parallel between the two ends 
of 
> the spectrum. When asked what she'd like readers to learn from the 
> series JKR said "Tolerance." Life events have led to my perception 
> that the different religious and spiritual teachings share more 
> common ground with respect to their teachings than differences. To 
> attempt to paint that out here would be laughable in the least, 
but 
> it brings me back to what JKR's answer and the idea of 
> tolerance. 'Nuff said.

Me: It's an intriguing sort of thing that these books are intended 
to foster, without watering down the author's own belief system. 
That people residing in the fringes of the spectrum get worked up is 
proof of the validity of the message.
  
> K:
> Beautifully stated. Snape's bravery, for me, rested in his 
acceptance 
> of his actions and the consequences of such. I did not so much 
> perceive "Look at Me" as one last request to see Lily's eyes 
> (honestly never occurred to me) or that he had no control over the 
> thoughts he spilled out for Harry to collect. Rather, I saw all 
this 
> as a man who finally accepted that his lot in life was of his own 
> making, and though he dies lonely and without friends, he 
ultimately 
> accepts who he was and his path as the means to a 'right end'. He 
was 
> certainly NOT heroic to me, but decidedly brave. (As is anyone who 
> can truly look at themselves and honestly accept what they see, 
> mistakes, flaws and the altruistic traits). That was why I loved 
DD 
> in DH - he was truly human, though genius in his intelligence. 

Me, still: Yep. This is part of what makes Snape a compelling 
character. A character whose formative years seem to have made him 
unable to have a conversion along the lines of a total reorientation 
of moral principles and made him unable to experience a more 
normative sort of love, does the best he can based on his 
circumstances. His sense of love is flawed, and arguably so is his 
sense of guilt, but there is something within him that drives him to 
acts of bravery.
 
> On a personal note, my apologies for the 'do you have children 
> analogy'. That was clearly formed on my own experience with, to be 
> nice, my children's father. I certainly did not mean to imply all 
> expecting father's become unhinged, just that enough do that it's 
> become cliché. It would have been better to phrase my thoughts 
> differently.

All is forgiven. In my sphere of influence that's something read 
about in books, not experienced first- or second-hand. Or even third-
hand.

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> 
wrote:

> As for Gregorovich, G-wald not only took the wand, he also stunned 
> the wandmaker. Maybe the stunning of the master is enough for the 
> wand to consider him "defeated", or maybe just taking the wand 
> against his master's will is enough. I agree that all this is 
rather vague :-).

Me, yet again: I like the "stunned" hypothesis. I'll go with that.

> Joe also asked why Neville didn't get burned. I hope he already 
found 
> the answer, because many posters wrote about it, but just in case, 
in 
> short: LV couldn't hurt Hogwarts' defenders anymore, because Harry 
> sacrificed himself for them and they were "protected". Harry says 
to 
> LV that "none of the spells you put on them are binding"(p.738).

Me, still: That works for me too. (My guess was because Neville was 
a true Gryffindor, but this works for me as well.)

-Joe